Ideology is often criticized as a cause of war and oppression in society. Does anyone here think it's possible to pursue their own interests without an ideology - if so, how do you propose this would work?

Since when did 'ideology' as a word become undesirable. Specific ideaologies may have unpleasant outcomes but an ideology of itself is not 'wrong'. The use to which it is put may be unwelcome however.

Defining "ideology'

1. A systematic body of ideas underlying a social, political or cultural programme.
2.a manner of thinking characteristic of an individual, group or culture.

Nothing to be scared of or to condemn in that definition I think.

Of course it is possible to pursue one's interests without an defined ideology. But most of us are enculturated (brain-washed if you prefer) to behave according to the ideology of our society. That way we get along wIth each other, as we all make assumptions of response and behaviour according to the society in whch we live.

The ultimate irony of course would be that in fact by living without an ideology you would really be living with the ideology of no ideology.

Without the limited interpretations created by hypnosis or cultural programming, or ego, when one becomes in tune with nature one does not destroy or manipulate nature in favor of maintaining a destructive way of life.
Ideology created from ignorance of Nature is the ignoring of certain natural laws.

For example the stripping of our planet of the oxygen generators and food bearing environments in favor of special interests in what we idealize as progress and financial security.
We poison the air, the groundwater, our food supplies, create systematic reduction in hormonal growth and advanced decay of our bodily immune systems to please the need for social and economic development to support military strength and strong borders to repel those who have differing opinions and lesser ideals.

How about the ideology of those who wish to preserve Nature? The crew of Sea Shepherd (and other active conservationists) are conforming to an ideology too.

Is 'ideology' bad? Surely, it's like most things. Sometimes 'yes' sometimes 'no'.

The poster asked whether it is possible to pursue one's interests without an ideology. It's a question I am still thinking about because I feel it should be possible. But the more I think about it, the more objections seem to arise. It depends on the meaning attached to ideology I think. Certainly I believe we attach ourselves to ideas that appeal to us. Does this then mean we adopt the ideology that probably accompanies them?

Sure, the more you complicate nature with ideas the more complicated it gets, the more foreign it becomes to you and the more difficult it is to align with it.
The personal belief gets in the way and keeps you from seeing clearly.

It is possible to follow the heart which knows no reason, but more than often the stresses of personal fear and belief hinder the clarity of destination or desire with the conflicting thoughts of limitations and expectation.

TT wrote
"It is possible to follow the heart which knows no reason, but more than often the stresses of personal fear and belief hinder the clarity of destination or desire with the conflicting thoughts of limitations and expectation."

....And ain't that the truth!!!

So the question arises: Is there reality without ego and an ideology that contains fear, prejudice or limitations of clarity?

IF there is then someone must know it.
IF not then there is no ideology or hope, only projections of freedom from fear and distress.

Good point about the "Ideology of no ideologies."
...but no matter how broad is one's lack of ideologies, I'd think there still has to be a basic ideology to either value, tolerate, or reject the spheres of society, life, and reality.
===

...some impromptu thoughts that I think are about "ideology"

Ideologies are the metaphors that our brains use to frame ourselves in relation to reality and the future (and past I suppose); they are a basis for what to expect and how to interpret it... imho.

Ideologies are fine for trying to interpret reality, life and society, but they usually only go so far before needing some revision (or total revision).

Revising an ideology.... Is that antithetical ...or oxymoronic ...or something like that?

Oh well, whatever....
I'm pretty sure it's not a good idea to try and mold reality to fit an ideology; but I'm wondering about using an ideology to guide changing a reality (or society, or person).

~
p.s. Hey, I hear the election is finally over (don't tell me; I've got it on tape)....

Science tells us that nature abhors a vacuum. Remove the air from a balloon and the atmospheric pressure will crush it.

IMO, the same is true of the psyche (mind). The ignorant and empty mind craves to be filled with information of one kind or another.

The same is also true of the pneuma (spirit). If we fail to choose that which is moral and good, we automatically make the choice for that which is not so good. Beliefs, faith, hope and love, can never be neutral.

We all have opinions, and often they are things we have become indoctrinated with so that they can be called beliefs.

I think a set of beliefs becomes ideology when we stop seeing that other people's views, even though they differ a lot from ours, can still be valid.

The best method I know of to avoid this is to think back on the history of one's own mental evolution. It is probably sure that things that were once strongly believed are now strongly disbelieved. Still, we understand why we believed them back then.

This can give us some hint of humility about the chances that our present beliefs will persist into the future.

Of course some people don't experience mental evolution, at least about certain subjects--they become ossified into a set of beliefs--largely of a "faith" nature, and make it an emotional point to reject openly considering the views of others. This is I think how many religions manage to persist. They indoctrinate the child with their views and with the notion that lack of faith in these views is evil.

Well, now, reading further along, I see I have a different notion of "ideology" than the one being tacitly used here. The idea here seems to be something like world-view, or at least such a view on aspects of a topic, such as the environment or politics or religion. Such a thing is unavoidable and, in fact, useful to help our approach to things be reasonably efficient.

To me, an "ideology" is a closed system--not just a set of beliefs but also a set of rules on how to think (or avoid thinking) about these beliefs (such as "consult scripture"). As such I don't recommend it and think ideologies only serve to limit one's ability to think.

Of course the scientific method might fit into such a definition--as it would if anyone ever finds a way to successfully describe what the scientific method really is.

Thislin-- you describe 'dogma', not 'ideology'.

Dogma is belief that does not brook being questioned. A single belief can be dogma. Ideologies are usually if not always bodies of dogma.

One might assert that some ideologies are good. I really doubt that this can be defended. If nothing else, a "good ideology" still has the characteristic of directing and limiting one's ability to see the subject from outside the assumptions and language of the ideology, and this is not good.

We all operate within the bounds of our ideologies, generally unaware of it, and the only good this does that I can see is to make our thought processes more efficient, as it makes it easy for us to reject things that don't fit. Is this good?

Thislin wrote;

"Dogma is belief that does not brook being questioned".

Forgive my assumption, but this is the definition that you used for ideology (and continue to use). You are being dogmatic, and describing dogma.

Of course ideology has both good and bad facets, we humans are the deeply flawed source of all such beliefs. We just must try to make things better for each other. That's the challenge.

Thislin again:

"We all operate within the bounds of our ideologies, generally unaware of it, and the only good this does that I can see is to make our thought processes more efficient, as it makes it easy for us to reject things that don't fit. Is this good?"

Yes it is good. Unaware, undirected and impulsive actions lead to unforeseen consquences which are rarely beneficial. It's usually a good idea to have some general plan behind our actions, especially those that include other people. Such plans will generally be based on our own ideas regarding life's directions. Such ideas should always include the possibility of change.

What a given word means (beyond its specific dictionary meaning) is generally personal to the individual. By that I mean that we each have a sense of the subtleties of meaning of a given word, derived largely from our experience with that word (the contexts in which we have encountered it--these will not be the same for any two persons).

As a result, we often run into these differences of opinion about meaning that really cannot be resolved--it is a part of the ambiguity inherent in human language.

That said, I do not comprehend your criticism of my definition of "dogma." Since you do not offer your own, I am, in addition, not able to comment.

In my opinion ideologies are unfailingly more harmful than good. While you point out a possible utility to operating within an ideological framework, I think the disadvantages that are so obvious--that ideological systems limit and direct our thought processes and serve to close minds and, even worse, to encourage people to invent unfortunate theories ("evil") about those who think differently, will, in all cases,prevail.

It is much better to try to identify the ideological aspects of our views and root them out. Even an ideological framework that is entirely beneficent (such as the original Buddhism) on its surface has these negative consequences when not kept at arm's length.

It's ok. I don't think that you were ever a genius to begin with, seeing as how you use the nonexistent word 'wanna.'

In a sense, ideology is a means of oversimplifying extremely complex political activities. It acts as a lens or filter through which to rationalize the aggregate effect of millions of individual political animals acting within an entire society.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wanna