Difference Between Philosophy And Ideology

[Dwain Dibley]

Difference Between Philosophy And Ideology

 

Philosophy vs Ideology

 

There are very fundamental differences between philosophy and ideology. Ideology refers to a set of beliefs, doctrines that back a certain social institution or a particular organization. Philosophy refers to looking at life in a pragmatic manner and attempting to understand why life is as it is and the principles governing behind it.

 

Ideology expresses dissatisfaction with the current state and aspires to be some future state whereas philosophy tries to understand the world in its current state. In other words, ideology is aimed at changing the world whereas philosophy is aimed at seeking the truth.

 

Ideology is rigid and once fixed on certain beliefs, refuses to change its stance irrespective of any change in the surrounding environment. Challenging an ideologue can be the most difficult task. A philosopher, on the other hand, may arrive on some construct for the basis of life and other things but will be willing to discuss and ponder other philosophies. A philosopher is open minded and willing to listen to criticism whereas an ideologue will refute anything challenging his or her ideology outright. This also suggests that while philosophy encourages people to think, ideology discourages any thinking that goes against the basic doctrines that govern the ideology.

 

The above definitions and differences clearly indicate that philosophy and ideology, if measured on a scale, would occupy two extreme ends of the scale. The purpose of any philosopher is to seek knowledge for the sake of wisdom and truth whereas an ideologue’s sole aim is to advocate and enforce his or her ideology wherever he can.

 

Philosophy is objective whereas an ideologue will always impose his or her ideology’s vision and discard anything against it. Philosophy requires structured thinking whereas ideology has lot of personal emotions in play.

 

Philosophy is neither harmful nor helpful as there is no advocacy behind it. On the other hand, an ideology can bring both harm and good to the society. This is because the set of doctrines that govern the ideology may always not serve universal interests and ideology demands advocacy and conversion of other beliefs and thoughts to that particular ideology in order to reign supreme. However, every ideology is born out of some philosophy.

 

In conclusion, here is a summary of differences between philosophy and ideology.

 

1.Philosophy refers to a pragmatic approach of looking and analyzing life. Ideology refers to a set of beliefs and rules belonging to a particular group or set of people

 

2.Philosophy aims at understand the world as it exists whereas ideology is born out of a vision for the future and aims at changing the current state to that particular vision

 

3.Philosophy is objective whereas ideology is dogmatic and refuses to participate in any discussion that does not agree with that ideology

 

4.Philosophy does not have as much impact as an ideology would have on the world ‘“ for ideology aims at spreading the beliefs and imposing them on the rest of the society irrespective of its relevance

 

5.All ideologies have some underlying philosophy but it is not vice versa.

 

-----------------

 

Think about what you preach....

 

 

[Hannibal]

I disagree strongly. That seems like very contrived & arbitrary definition of what ideology is.

Philosophy is about determining truth. The determined preference to seek truth through philosophy, is itself an ideology.

 

 

A political ideology is a set of principles aimed at establishing or maintaining a certain social system; it is a program of long-range action, with the principles serving to unify and integrate particular steps into a consistent course. It is only by means of principles that men can project the future and choose their actions accordingly.

Anti-ideology consists of the attempts to shrink men’s minds down to the range of the immediate moment, without regard to past or future, without context or memory—above all, without memory, so that contradictions cannot be detected, and errors or disasters can be blamed on the victims.

In anti-ideological practice, principles are used implicitly and are relied upon to disarm the opposition, but are never acknowledged, and are switched at will, when it suits the purpose of the moment. Whose purpose? The gang’s. Thus men’s moral criterion becomes, not “my view of the good—or of the right—or of the truth,” but “my gang, right or wrong.” -- Ayn Rand

 

Emphasis mine.

[Thomas-Jefferson]

The way I see it, philosophy is a state of knowledge and being. For example I know it is immoral to initiate violence therefor I don't do it.

 

Whereas ideology is a state of wanting. The two are very different it just so happens that because of our philosophy we have an ideology of the world adopting this philosophy, if that makes sense.

[Lians]

Philosophy - process; ideology (set of ideas) - product.

[NigelW]

Do you think idealogy is bad?

 

One of the basic requirements for something to be true its validity.

 

Validity requires conformity to the rules of logic.

 

It just means that it can't be true.

 

Is it bad that people on a plane heading for vacation have a strong preference to be in Hawaii?

 

If I get on that plane and I don't want to go to Hawaii, it's not that persons fault I choose to follow.

[Dwain Dibley]

Ideology is political force and coercion, which ultimately leads to physical violence.  It's just a matter of numbers.

 

You guys are getting in on the ground floor, maybe you'll get a leadership position out of your loyalty to the dictums....who knows...

[Andrew79]

It's just another form of a standard attack on anyone who wants to lessen the leviathan: "You're driven by ideology, whereas I only want the best for people".

 

And no matter how it's dressed up, it's still just sophism.

[Dwain Dibley]

It's just another form of a standard attack on anyone who wants to lessen the leviathan: "You're driven by ideology, whereas I only want the best for people".And no matter how it's dressed up, it's still just sophism.

That's right, just ignore the evil guy pointing out the obvious, stick to the plan....

[Andrew79]

That's right, just ignore the evil guy pointing out the obvious, stick to the plan....

Sounds like you haven't got a rebuttal so you're trying to play the victim (with a little innuendo thrown in as well).Your approach may be obvious to the disingenuous, but it's not a valid one. You're trying to take advantage of people who aren't aware of the games political propagandists (or trolls) play.And the best way to counter it, is to shine a torch on it. To make the bullshit obvious to anyone who cares to look.

[Dwain Dibley]

Sounds like you haven't got a rebuttal so you're trying to play the victim (with a little innuendo thrown in as well).Your approach may be obvious to the disingenuous, but it's not a valid one. You're trying to take advantage of people who aren't aware of the games political propagandists (or trolls) play.And the best way to counter it, is to shine a torch on it. To make the bullshit obvious to anyone who cares to look.

 

Let's see, what have you offered as a defence of your ideology for me to rebut....."IS NOT!"

 

OK......

 

I'm not here to rebut your beliefs, I don't give a fuck what you believe.  But the moment you take upon yourself the task of telling me what I should believe and how I should believe it, then we've got a problem....

[Hannibal]

Let's see, what have you offered as a defence of your ideology for me to rebut....."IS NOT!"

 

OK......

 

I'm not here to rebut your beliefs, I don't give a fuck what you believe.  But the moment you take upon yourself the task of telling me what I should believe and how I should believe it, then we've got a problem....

 

Do you have a definition of ideology which is founded in logic and reality?  Rather than being entirely arbitrary?

[Andrew79]

Let's see, what have you offered as a defence of your ideology for me to rebut....."IS NOT!"

I haven't defended libertarian philosophy because you haven't attacked it... (and below you claim you're not going to)I pointed out the nonsense of trying to claim one set of ideas is an ideology, and another - usually the current politically trendy one - isn't. 

But the moment you take upon yourself the task of telling me what I should believe and how I should believe it, then we've got a problem....

Interesting choice of language.I don't have a problem with anyone "telling me what I should believe and how I should believe it". In fact I enjoy the debate, whereas you're making it sound like you want to shut it down.But if you take upon yourself the task of imposing your beliefs on me, then we've got a problem...

[Dwain Dibley]

Well technically, Libertarianism is an Ideology, not a philosophy.  Its followers have demonstrated that they will use political force to impose upon others their 'principles' dictating how others should live their lives and they convey a strict set of pseudo-economic dictums towards achieving a society predicated upon their beliefs.  And everyone will have to believe them in order for them to work.

 

A good rule of thumb; if there is an "ism" attached, it's an ideology.

[Hannibal]

 

A good rule of thumb; if there is an "ism" attached, it's an ideology.

 

And? good ideologies are a good thing good.  As can be isms.

 

And 'Libertarianism' is so broad of a term as to be almost useless. If you want to make a serious point you should be more specific.

[Dwain Dibley]

And? good ideologies are a good thing good.  As can be isms.

 

And 'Libertarianism' is so broad of a term as to be almost useless. If you want to make a serious point you should be more specific.

All ideologies seek to subvert and co-opt free will and limit choices.  And they all pretend to offer you freedom against an oppressor, and all you have to do is subordinate your will to following the dictums to be free...

[Andrew79]

Its followers have demonstrated that they will use political force to impose upon others their 'principles' dictating how others should live their lives

You mean the Libertarian Party? They're only one part of the libertarian world, plenty of other libertarians want nothing to do with the political process and do not support them. Such as this forum, as FDR is an anarchist libertarian movement.And telling people how they should live their lives is what politics is all about.So why you're complaining about the LP, especially when they want significantly less control over you than the other parties, I don't know. 

and they convey a strict set of pseudo-economic dictums towards achieving a society predicated upon their beliefs.

I've got no idea what economic policies the LP advocates - I think you probably need a different forum if they're specifically what you want to discuss.Does "strict set" mean the current economic policies aren't strict? Or that a political philosophy focused on minimising (if not eliminating) government control would actually be more controlling?Does "pseudo-economic dictums" include massive debt, constant inflation, and regular recessions?And do you think using smear words without providing the slightest bit of substance is enough to fool people?You're not preaching to the choir here.Why not try turning off your propaganda mode and have an honest conversation about your concerns...

[Dwain Dibley]

You mean the Libertarian Party? They're only one part of the libertarian world, plenty of other libertarians want nothing to do with the political process and do not support them. Such as this forum, as FDR is an anarchist libertarian movement.And telling people how they should live their lives is what politics is all about.So why you're complaining about the LP, especially when they want significantly less control over you than the other parties, I don't know.I've got no idea what economic policies the LP advocates - I think you probably need a different forum if they're specifically what you want to discuss.Does "strict set" mean the current economic policies aren't strict? Or that a political philosophy focused on minimising (if not eliminating) government control would actually be more controlling?Does "pseudo-economic dictums" include massive debt, constant inflation, and regular recessions?And do you think using smear words without providing the slightest bit of substance is enough to fool people?You're not preaching to the choir here.Why not try turning off your propaganda mode and have an honest conversation about your concerns...

The subject of this thread is Philosophy vs Ideology. 

 

It is my considered opinion, based upon the understanding of the differences between a philosophy and an ideology as presented, that Libertarianism, anarchism as well as capitalism, marxism, maoism, etc, are all ideologies that seek to deliver the people to a promised land of freedom and prosperity and all you have to do is submit and believe.

 

Well, not anarchism, that's just a suicide pact.

[Andrew79]

It is my considered opinion, based upon the understanding of the differences between a philosophy and an ideology as presented, that Libertarianism, anarchism as well as capitalism, marxism, maoism, etc, are all ideologies that seek to deliver the people to a promised land of freedom and prosperity and all you have to do is submit and believe.

So no specifics then, Dwain.And all political philosophies rely on submission and belief. Doing what the government tells you isn't voluntary, and they don't control the school system and spend money on propaganda just for fun.If this is something you're genuinely concerned about, why not focus on those philosophies that seek to exert the most control over people rather than one that seeks to minimise control?(Still capitalising libertarianism, but not Marxism or Maoism. Brilliant.)

[Hannibal]

All ideologies seek to subvert and co-opt free will and limit choices.  

 

No they don't. How can you make any kind of rational choice without an ideology to guide you in the process?

[Dwain Dibley]

So no specifics then, Dwain.

And all political philosophies rely on submission and belief. Doing what the government tells you isn't voluntary, and they don't control the school system and spend money on propaganda just for fun.

If this is something you're genuinely concerned about, why not focus on those philosophies that seek to exert the most control over people rather than one that seeks to minimise control?

(Still capitalising libertarianism, but not Marxism or Maoism. Brilliant.)

 

Not at all, political philosophies do not dictate a system of beliefs, they lay out a logical/historical argument and then leaves it to the reader's free will choice to either reject or accept the argument in part or as a whole.  Philosophies do not direct.

 

I believe I stated "Libertarianism, anarchism as well as capitalism, marxism, maoism, etc, are all ideologies"

 

Creative rewrite on your part though...  

 

Don't mistake my rejection of ideologies as an acceptance of the status quo.

No they don't. How can you make any kind of rational choice without an ideology to guide you in the process?

Informed 'Free Will' Choice.  Build your own philosophy and live by it.  You might be surprised how many like minded people you'll run across.

The government is the way it is because of IDEOLOGY.  Replacing it with another ideology is not going to fix anything.

[NigelW]

Are you dissatisfied with the answers, Dwain Dibley?

 

As you said:

 

"Ideology expresses dissatisfaction with the current state and aspires to be some future state whereas philosophy tries to understand the world in its current state."

 

I haven't seen one question yet.

[Andrew79]

Not at all, political philosophies do not dictate a system of beliefs, they lay out a logical/historical argument and then leaves it to the reader's free will choice to either reject or accept the argument in part or as a whole.  Philosophies do not direct.

So someone can accept an argument while not believing in it? Right.Why not just give an example of what you define as a political philosophy?I've never come across anything more logical than libertarianism so I'd appreciate it if you could introduce me to superior options. 

Creative rewrite on your part though...

You're on a libertarian forum, criticising libertarianism. That you mention a couple of other political philosophies doesn't mean your focus isn't on libertarianism.

[Dwain Dibley]

Are you dissatisfied with the answers, Dwain Dibley?

 

As you said:

 

"Ideology expresses dissatisfaction with the current state and aspires to be some future state whereas philosophy tries to understand the world in its current state."

 

I haven't seen one question yet.

Ah, good one.  What question are you looking for?

[NigelW]

Why are you not asking questions?

[Dwain Dibley]

So someone can accept an argument while not believing in it? Right.Why not just give an example of what you define as a political philosophy?I've never come across anything more logical than libertarianism so I'd appreciate it if you could introduce me to superior options.You're on a libertarian forum, criticising libertarianism. That you mention a couple of other political philosophies doesn't mean your focus isn't on libertarianism.

Weren't you taught how to read?  Do you accept everything you read in total?  Learning how to separate the chaff from the grain, works in reading as well.

 

Descartes (small doses), Nietzsche (small doses), locke 2nd treatise, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Jefferson, de Tocqueville (enlightened self interest), really liked Mill's 'On Liberty', then he went off into the deep end of the progressive pool.  Kevin A. Carson's The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand while not really philosophical, is a good read for an anarchist.

 

I stated what libertarianism is, a political ideology with dictums and a goal.  I have a long held aversion to dictums and I choose to set my own goals.

 

Personally, I like the historical progression of liberty that culminated in the American revolution, then was promptly squashed by a Supreme Court's grant of the Right Of Kings to the Federal Government, grant of sovereignty to corporations and the removal of our sovereign right to self rule by subjugating municipal corporations to the rule of the state, effectively rendering us tenants upon our own land.  Then the 17th non-amendment took the states right to equal suffrage, creating the democracy that destroyed the Republic and transformed the states into subsidiaries of the centralized fascist police state ruled by ideologies.

 

Don't mind me, I'm rambling.... 

[Andrew79]

Don't mind me, I'm rambling....

That's alright, but I think I'm missing something.If I've got this right, you don't think people should so much as be told how to live their lives, let alone be forced by someone else.But you support government. And government is all about forcing people to live how it wants them to. In other words, forcing them to submit. Which you don't think is a good thing.So I'm not sure exactly what principles you are advocating, or how it's better than libertarianism.

[Dwain Dibley]

That's alright, but I think I'm missing something.If I've got this right, you don't think people should so much as be told how to live their lives, let alone be forced by someone else.But you support government. And government is all about forcing people to live how it wants them to. In other words, forcing them to submit. Which you don't think is a good thing.So I'm not sure exactly what principles you are advocating, or how it's better than libertarianism.

I don't support government, I support the organic rule of law that created the U.S. (as opposed to our current law of equity system), over the whims and ideologies of man.  I do believe you have a natural right to build and enjoy a leaderless libertarian community if that's what you choose, right here, make your own rules, build your own roads, water and sewer systems, or not.  Dumbass socialist should be given the same chance to cobble together their own communities as well.  You can show us how it's done libertarian style, and the dumbass socialist can serve as an object lesson.

 

The rest can go on about enjoying life as we see fit with our republican forms of limited government, (pay taxes, I want my roads, bridges water and sewer systems).  Assuming we get the states' legislators to repudiate the unlawful/unconstitutional 17th non-amendment and seat their selection of Senators.  Which, by the way, would destroy the current entrenched oligarch and the phony two party system.  That rule of custom is a bitch.

 

If we were to get rid of debt based fractional reserved banking and credit as currency, it would pretty much kill Capitalism, and we would return to a more organic market based free/private enterprise system where nearly everyone could get the chance to create their own economy.  (patents laws will need to be addressed).

 

Or, we (me and the mouse in my pocket) can keep daydreaming, passing the time until the shit finally blows up in our face.  If that happens, I'm sure you guys will get a shot at laying claim to those national parklands ya'll been eyeballing all these many years.... 

 

(damn, did I get off topic or what....)

Why are you not asking questions?

I'm sorry, I missed this one.  Why am I not asking questions?  Because I'm not interested in being indoctrinated.

 

Thanks for the lafe though....

[Andrew79]

I don't support government...The rest can go on about enjoying life as we see fit with our republican forms of limited government

Ok... but if people aren't forced to submit to it, is it still a government?  

If we were to get rid of debt based fractional reserved banking and credit as currency, it would pretty much kill Capitalism, and we would return to a more organic market based free/private enterprise system where nearly everyone could get the chance to create their own economy.

Capitalism is simply the idea that people can own stuff. If they can't own stuff then I'm assuming you're advocating some sort of socialism?(I think I've got it, you're capitalising the philosophies you don't approve of and leaving the ideologies you do in lowercase.)

[Dwain Dibley]

Ok... but if people aren't forced to submit to it, is it still a government?

 

Capitalism is simply the idea that people can own stuff. If they can't own stuff then I'm assuming you're advocating some sort of socialism?

 

(I think I've got it, you're capitalising the philosophies you don't approve of and leaving the ideologies you do in lowercase.)

WTF bullshit inflammatory ball-less rhetoric.  Government is the servant, not the master.  Geez, be a man, stand the fuck up.  Stop mewling like a coward sheep.

 

Do yourself a favor and do a google on "Capitalism vs. Free Enterprise"  and "Capitalism vs. Markets".  Capitalism has little to do with people owning stuff.  It has everything to do with capture and control of markets.

 

I already told you I advocate a return to free/private enterprise and a market economy.   Let the Capitalist rentiers finance industries, if they can muster the capital, and leave the entrepreneurs and the markets to do the rest.

 

It doesn't take an ideology to live your life in liberty, all you have to do is stand up.

 

"(I think I've got it, you're capitalising the philosophies you don't approve of and leaving the ideologies you do in lowercase.) 

 

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[SamuelS]

Maybe you should study anarcho-capitalism before you try to bash it and miss entirely. In this conversation what you're calling capitalism is more like cronyism or corporatism.

 

I bet you'd get a lot of answers if you asked questions instead of making wild assertions.

[Andrew79]

WTF bullshit inflammatory ball-less rhetoric.  Government is the servant, not the master.  Geez, be a man, stand the fuck up.  Stop mewling like a coward sheep.

It's amusing you accuse me of rhetoric when you come out with this, at best, naive junk.Government is the servant... tell that to the millions of dead Jews, Chinese, Russians, and countless others who've been slaughtered by their "servant". 

Do yourself a favor and do a google on "Capitalism vs. Free Enterprise"  and "Capitalism vs. Markets".  Capitalism has little to do with people owning stuff.

Nope. Capitalism is individuals being able to own the means of production.Here's the opening paragraph from its Wikipedia page:"Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labour. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged."I'm not interested in socialists trying to re-define it as the cause of just about all the evil in the world.

[Dwain Dibley]

Maybe you should study anarcho-capitalism before you try to bash it and miss entirely. In this conversation what you're calling capitalism is more like cronyism or corporatism.I bet you'd get a lot of answers if you asked questions instead of making wild assertions.

Capitalism has always been crony, it has existed in no other condition.  Capitalism could not exist without the state or fractional reserved banking.

 

I used to be a cheerleader for Capitalism too.  Then I got out of my confirmation bias zone and went looking for the truth.

It's amusing you accuse me of rhetoric when you come out with this, at best, naive junk.Government is the servant... tell that to the millions of dead Jews, Chinese, Russians, and countless others who've been slaughtered by their "servant".

What am I supposed to tell them, be joining you soon? I don't give fuck about them, they're dead. You act and talk like a slave, then you're a slave.  

Nope. Capitalism is individuals being able to own the means of production.Here's the opening paragraph from its Wikipedia page:"Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labour. In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged."

Oh please, recite propaganda to me, I just love listening to it. Look at the world around, does it even remotely look like that? 

I'm not interested in socialists trying to re-define it as the cause of just about all the evil in the world.

Oh ouch! He talked mean about capitalism, he must be a socialist!That's so two dimensional thinking....

[NigelW]

Ok, Dwaine, from what I've read you are well read. You're knowledge of what you're trying to define outstretches mine.

 

But as you probably know, for something to be true, it must be valid and accurate. If you think what you're espousing is valid, the next step would be to test it empirically. (yourself)

[Andrew79]

I don't give fuck about them, they're dead.

So you're interested in logical/historical arguments but you couldn't care less about the millions of, to use your term "masters", the non-capitalist states have murdered. Ok.  

Oh please, recite propaganda to me, I just love listening to it.

Well, you seem to have fallen for the "public servants" line...

Look at the world around, does it even remotely look like that? Oh ouch! He talked mean about capitalism, he must be a socialist!That's so two dimensional thinking....

I don't care how "two dimensional" my thinking is. I only care if it's accurate.Capitalism is being able to own the means of production, socialism is not being able to.And from a logical and historical perspective, the closer a country is to capitalism (the less its government interferes) the better off its people. The closer to socialism, the worse off.Feel free to offer a definition or make an actual argument if you disagree, instead of just snide quips.

[Marius C.]

Government is the servant, not the master.  Geez, be a man, stand the fuck up.

 

Right... because holding a gun to people's head and forcing them to hire you to mow their lawn for $500/hr definitely gives them a choice and the freedom to "stand the fuck up".