An ideology like fly-paper. What might this be like to us? Well, it's what I would call anything that we hold onto, and cannot "unstick" ourselves from. I recently read an excellent paper by a friend on the philosopher Louis Althusser and his idea of becoming ideologically "unstuck" in order to seek out perspectives outside of one's own to strive for truth. It explored the ideological quest that she went on to unstick herself from a quasi-racist ideology. While I think most of us would try to deny that we hold such a similar ideology, perhaps quite falsely, the idea stands that we are stuck in our ideology. It functions like fly-paper. No matter what we do to try and separate ourselves from it, a residue remains. But, how bad is it really to be stuck to this ideological fly paper? That's what I'd like to explore here today.
First I'd like to examine what ideologies I'm stuck to, since that seems a good place to start examining if the way I'm stuck is good or not. I'm stuck to the idea that things exist. I'm stuck to the idea that not only is there an objective Truth, but also that this Truth is attainable (even if we don't know we have attained it). I am stuck to the idea that some of our best ideas are in the past: Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction, his idea of the Good Life; Moderate Realism that we got from the Medieval Era; Hegel's notion that we were not human beings until we united into society; to a degree the principle of utility.
I am stuck in so much ideology, and I have picked and chosen specifically those that I identify most with. But for what reasons do I stick to these so intensely? Is it because I was nurtured in a Catholic household that put emphasis on things existing? Well, certainly I think so, but have I developed any methods through which I could unstick myself if I wanted to? Probably not, but for now I actually don't want to unstick myself.
There's a lot of other philosophies out there, surely. Most of my friends subscribe to phenomenology, and have made more than fair and strong cases as to its merit. And I listen, and buy their premises, but when it comes down to it, I never really walk away convinced. If I'm truly rational, I should hold with conviction any conclusion came to through a logical process. But certainly I don't do this. And when I converse with these phenomenologist friends, they often will buy my premises, and come to the conclusion I currently hold as True. And the next day we will always revert back to our original ideology. I continue to think I can know things, and they continue to think that they cannot. And there are differences that go far beyond that, but I say this only to emphasize that being stuck in our ideologies seems to have created people that have irreconcilable differences.
But is it really a bad thing, at least in a general sense, to have these differences? Well, I don't think it's necessary useful, but there can be some benefits. We can drive each other more forcefully through these differences, and accent our negative critiques of the other. I can always have stronger arguments to support my beliefs, as can those I fight against. Maybe I shouldn't call it a fight, but it's certainly a fun one!
Also, these irreconcilable differences seem to drive our friendships to be better. Yes I can agree with some people on everything, and that's why I've got some really great friendships, but in those (and this isn't necessarily a bad thing) I often run out of things to say. There is no need for debate, since we achieved unity of opinion between the two of us. So our differences cause us to be better friends, and intellectually drive us to make the other better.
So maybe it really isn't all that bad of a thing to be stuck in our ideology; without being stuck in it, there might not be a point in having it at all.
