Caveat : the way I will use those two words in this blog entry maybe not map to any existing definition by more than fifty percent at best.

I have been pondering the folly of ideological thinking lately. Namely, the sort of thinking that substitutes accepted ideological dogma for actual reason via an examination of the facts. It is far easier for people to be passionately devoted to an ideology because ideologies are usually driven by emotion and therefore act in opposition to the burdensome task of rational analysis.

“You don’t have to follow your mind and all its complications and convolutions, ” says Ideology, “you can follow an emotion you trust instead!”

Thus the appeal of ideology to people who, for whatever reason, do not trust the products of reason to be true representations of reality. Perhaps they simply don’t like the kind of answers that reason produces. Hard answers. Answers that do not take your feelings into consideration at all. Answers that do not change no matter how you feel about them. Answers that can be scary or depressing or disillusioning or, worst of all, answers that require you to change your mind and thus endure doubt.

Answers, in short, that you don’t like.

And there is always the possibility that some people can do no better. They lack the intellectual strength to reason things out for themselves, or perhaps they simply have the wrong cognitive style and/or personality for it. Either way, it’s not within their grasp.

Part of me wishes they would simply realize and recognize this, and leave the big thinking and tough decisions to the people who can handle it. People, I must say, like me.

But that train of thought goes nowhere. It’s not compatible with a free society, and even in a kind of intellectual fascist state, how you you determine who is smart enough to rule? Without bias, without error, and without being corrupted by those seeking power?

Still, there are times when I want to shout at people, “You are clearly too stupid for opinions! Sit down and shut up while the grownups talk!”

Anyhow, the emotional nature of ideology without guiding principles is what leads to fanaticism. The ideology is serving an emotional need, and emotional needs are unstable, especially for people with a certain kind of emptiness inside. As the disease of fanaticism spreads, such a person starts substituting the emotion engendered for all their unmet emotional needs. It’s exactly like a chemical addiction. And like an addiction, it hollows people out and leads to more and more extreme actions as the need for the ideological quick fix demands larger and larger doses in order to get the same effect.

Principles are much harder to implement than ideology. Principles require holding steadfast to core beliefs and then applying those principles to each situation individually. And they lead where they lead, regardless of your preferences or emotions. They have a high cognitive overload, and that means they are not suitable for some people.

The ultimate reduction of this is to trust people instead of ideology. Believe what you are told to believe by the people who say things that make you feel good. It is not possible to abdicate your intellectual duties any further without withdrawing from society completely, which thankfully some old mean and stupid people do.

They get to the point where all they care about is pudding.

Most people have principles. In fact, their principles are what truly guide their day to day life. However, these principles are not necessarily articulated. For a lot of people, morality is an emotion. Things either feel right or they don’t. And that is more than enough when you are dealing with everyday life within your own social milieu.

But things like tolerance and understanding and deeper compassion – the pro-social virtues which make modern urban life possible – require a good deal more than emotion. They require informed restraint. Not just social restraint – the sort we all learn growing up. Informed restraint, which means withholding judgment and not simply going with your first emotional response. Informed restraint means knowing that things are not always how they feel and that sometimes, you have to stifle your first emotional reaction and, in effect, select another based on your higher principles.

Assuming, of course, that you have any.

This informed restraint is where a lot of people fail. They refuse to believe that moral behaviour requires going against their feelings. They will make up elaborate sets of justifications for their immaturity, and go on and on about “pure ideals” and their “passion” and “commitment”.

But that’s ideology talk – following the emotions they seek instead of the facts. The right thing doesn’t always feel right – and the wrong thing doesn’t always feel wrong, either. You have to actually think things through if you want to lead a moral life – by which I mean a life in concordance with your ideals.

Again, assuming you have any.

For myself, morality is a very high priority. I will do what I feel is right 99 times out of a hundred. Doing what I think is right feels good, even if it’s not what I want. And doing something I think makes me feel very bad – both emotionally and physically.

Guilt has been known to make me very sick.

I would be a fool if I said I have never gone against my conscience or that I would never do so again. I am no messiah. What moral purity I have right now has a lot less to do with my dedication to my ideals than it does to with a lack of the occasion to sin.

But still, in my daily life, I strive always towards the highest of ideals, and work hard to make the sort of choices that are easy to live with. I honestly think that is the best way to live.

But there may come a time when I do not have that luxury – when it truly is a zero sum game where what I want has to come at the expense of another’s ambitions.

I am curious to see what I will do then.

I will talk to you nice people again tomorrow.