-ism means ideology

[mr.guy]

In another thread, i've been told the above "All "-ism"s are ideologies"

Curious beast that i am, i began to think of all the words to which this suffix could be, and typically are, appended to for (voilà) an automatic ideology.

While anyone's welcome to enter, queary and correct, i'll quickly recap here.

W:All "-ism"s are ideologies

me:Cool. I now feel a bit more secure with my sadism.

W: Just so. When you become "the sadist" you have adopted an ideology.

me:Really? What ideals and formulations make sadism an ideology?
Perhaps, for the time being, we'll leave the caricature of "the sadist" alone.

W:The "ideals and formulations" are the very ones that make one "the sadist", whatever those might be. That person has defined a role that, when they fill that role with their being or their behavior, make them that paricular thing.

That is a myth that they create.

me:So we could probably go on to say that anything that eats is invoking, ideologically, consumerism?

W: If the person who eats does so because they are fulfilling the role of "the eater" for whatever reasons, then yeah.

Edit: Examples can be found in any religion --like Rastafarianism where the person is "the Rasta." It's not just something they do, but something they are because of their beliefs. They become the role

me:Is the action of just eating also the execution of an ideology?

W:No, I don't believe so. Behavior is, though, since that stems from who we are.

The person who is "the Rastamon" will behave as Rasta because of what he believes, i.e. who he is. That is an expression of ideology.

To extend that to "the eater", the person who has defined that role for themselves, for whatever their reasons, and fulfills it by eating is expressing an ideology of "the eater". In that role, they will think of themselves and proclaim themselves to be "the eater."


Phew!


Next question: so, the base definition (of an ideology) is dependant on behaviour, or self-perception?

 

[Willamena]

Teehee! Good recap.

First, before we proceed, I'd like to find out what you think is wrong about what I said, and how an ideology should be defined.

 

[coberst]

Archimedes’ platform is a means for comprehending the society in which we reside. We are splashing about within the belly of our society and the only means for understanding this society is for us to find a platform outside of the monster.

I claim that we are all ideologues within our society and as such our view is seriously compromised. To understand our reality we must first discover how to stand outside of our personal ideologies. Ideology prejudices our view and blinds us to reality and only after recognizing this fact can we begin to analyze our situation.

If we continue to follow our bovine characteristics of either running with the herd or standing blankly staring into the distance we cannot “accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative”.

We display an attitude toward most any subject. An attitude cannot be described explicitly but is a notion, which is an inference, based upon behavior. We are all inclined to behave consistently to a situation and this behavior is attributed to our attitude. Our attitudes and the quality of such attitudes are judged based on observed behavior.

Britannica specifies that attitude is “a predisposition to classify objects and events and to react to them with some degree of evaluative consistency.” This predisposition I am inclined to label as an ideology.

If I wish to become conscious of my ideological bias I can through observation of behavior describe the attitude, which, in turn, allows me to ascertain the nature of my intuition or ideology.

When a mother tells her son “you must change your attitude”. The son cannot change the attitude but the son must change his intuition from which the inferred attitude emanates. This does become a bit convoluted but in essence when we wish to change an attitude we are saying that our intuition must be modified.

The point of all of this is that it is the intuition we wish to understand and our attitudes are a means to discover the profile of our intuition. Within our intuition are our ideological views.

The attitude directs the behavior. The public and I can observe the behavior and from that gain insight as to the attitude. Under attitudes one might create the categories of values, interests, sentiments, beliefs, predisposition’s, irrational tendencies, taste, knowledge, certainties etc.

The public from my behavior can infer ideology. The question is how do I use the attitudes as a vehicle for making conscious to me the nature of my intuition? The answer is that through solitude and concentration I can focus my conscious intellect and develop inferences as the structure of my ideological bias.

 

[Willamena]

Next question: so, the base definition (of an ideology) is dependant on behaviour, or self-perception?

To answer the question: neither. Since an ideology is fulfilled in our being and behavior, it cannot be dependent upon that. And self-perception comes after the fact.

Ideology is dependent upon beliefs.