Can we overcome ideology in political or rational argument?

Answer 1

it would depends on a few things-
is your arguments(facts) convincing?
are your facts right?
is the other side willing to really listen???(and i mean really listen!!!)
do they have an open mind???(i don't mean brain surgery)
are they willing to admit that they may be wrong??
if the answers to these questions is yes then it is possible.
God bless,
gabe

Answer 2

Yes we can.

We often do overcome ideology in issues of politics, arguments social planning, as well as in more private discussions.
And I think this is sad.

I strongly believe that ideology is what we need to keep most strongly in our minds especially when we plan for the future. People that are luminaries in politics, in science, in philosophy and many other fields got there because they wanted something better: that unachievable perfection.

Martin Luther King comes to mind first.

Pursuing this ideology often fails and with terrible consequences. You only have to look at the social taxes that we had to face (if you're in UK and are old enough you'll remember the Poll Tax. they thought it would be better but it wasn't.

More serious followers of ideology were the Communists. The idea was excellent and some still believe in it but it proved a practical failure because humanity wasn't ready for it at the time. Maybe one day we will be decent enough that we can profit from a kind of communism.

Hitler was another twisted example of an attempt to achieve an ideology.

But there have been good ones, every religion preaches ideology whether we agree with it or not. Every policy change, every law that we have, even the education system seeks to govern us into achieving better results personally and socially. This is ideology at work and without it it's a fact that we will stagnate and destroy ourselves.

I don't feel that ideology is a thing to overcome. Naivety is.
In whatever ideas that we seek to express and implement we should have a utopia in mind that we hope to create but this should be tempered with the balance of reason and conscience.

Because without a conscience the pursuit of ideology leaves quite a mess (take Iraq, the gaza strip and illegal imigrants as current examples.)

but without the pursuit of ideology we will equally face disaster. our attitude to global warming is an imminent and poignant example of this.

Tempered ideology will always be the way to go.

Answer 3

With Debate, I think it is critical that both parties have thought over
and compile a judgement about something and really stand behind it.
A well thought over hypothesys is close to something that can be called "ideal" cuz thats what peoples minds always crave for.
The best in every possible situation. So theres the anatomy of the ideal.
Wich also means you cannot loose "ideal", cause its critical.
Its human nature to want the best.

The parties would then use arguements to convince one another.
Cause arguments are pure theoretical, And there is not 1 real
truth to everything.
its mostly the one who can pose as most convincing who will win a, well lets call it a fight.
Although that ideally should not be the case.
Cause debate should be about ideals and if you find you could adapt another ones thoughts and see truth in them over your own.
You could make em your own and learn.
But no one does that actually. Only a few smarter ones recognize
the power of debate and what benefits it could ave.

I think because of the selfish nature and the will to just win.
And the lack of better understanding.
You cannot wipe out ideal. The human mind simply wont let it.

Answer 4

It depends. My test would be as follows:

If reasonable AND intelligent representatives (the two don't always go together) can be found in both camps and they have the chance to interact then one of two possibilities will occur:

1. Either one side will see the merit of the other's argument and make appropriate changes to their position or abandon it entirely or both sides will change, each influenced by the good they find in the other.

2. No breakthrough will occur and it is unlikely that any change will be possible. If reasonable and intelligent people cannot change their own minds through informed dialogue with equals then no significant change is possible at that time.

In reality this process usually takes place gradually over long periods rather than by formal arrangement and changes occur very very slowly. You could call it intellectual evolution.

But every now and again a genius is born and a progressive leap is possible.

Answer 5

Not quite sure what you mean.

It depends on perspective - the perspective of the person you're arguing with, and also the perspective of potential or actual onlookers. With a diehard ideologue, by which I mean someone whose emotional commitment to a particular point of view is so strong that he/she is unable to see any virtue in an opposed point of view, you are unlikely to convince them by means of rational argument that they are 'wrong' - but this begs the question of what 'wrong' means. For example, a radical Islamist is unlikely to be brought around to the virtues of the kind of hedonistic materialism that's the dominant strain in much of Western popular culture, because such a person just doesn't give a stuff about the kinds of things that so much of the print and electronic media are obsessed with.

However, it is possible to demonstrate when your ideologically-minded opponent is talking guff. For example, many supporters of President Bush claim that he is 'making the world safer for democracy'. But it is not very difficult to demonstrate that the actions of the Bush administration have been marked by such flagrant incompetence that, even on their own terms, they have largely failed to do the job. In other words, never mind what left-wing people like me would have liked the Bush crew to do (which they would obviously never have done) - they haven't even managed to do what they wanted to do. The Reagan administration, by comparison, was a model of efficiency. (Even Bush Senior's lot were better, which isn't saying much.)

However, a true Bush ideologue will not recognise the truth of this, because one of the fundamental shibboleths of ideology is that some things are unquestionable - such as, in this case, the good intentions and supreme competence of the administration. So the ideologue will probably not be convinced, insofar as he or she has swallowed the ideology without thinking. But onlookers, or the less convinced, may be persuaded by your argument.

See? It's all about perspective.

Answer 6

Some of of us can, but most of us can't. I live in the Bay Area, so I am quite exposed to the ideological argument. Rather a knee-jerk response, here.

Answer 7

Not really, mat de john said it best with the words "off this planet go forth and mow" says it all.
On the other hand rationing worked during the war despite the politics, and it wasn't ideal.

Answer 8

Only as rugged individualists. Anything else is peer pressure and by its nature compromise.
Ideologies, I've noticed, are always someone else's.

Answer 9

It depends how deep-rooted it is.

Answer 10

nope