My theory here is really sloppy, but in this topic I think there are two concepts worth examining:
* Baudrillard's ideas on the hyperreality, which is basically a simulation that doesn't actually relate to any underlying reality. He argued that a lot of the signs and symbols in our postmodern society have become hyperreal, purely manufactured artifacts.
* Deleuze's concept of virtuality which he defines as something isn't actual, but is nevertheless real.
Is a virtual reality any less real than physicality? If sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, then sufficiently advanced artificial reality might be indistinguishable from reality.
Virtuality is arguably only less real in terms of its very dependence on the Real, in that you cannot you have virtual worlds without the physical worlds that generate and power them.
I think as we go along, a lot of Baudrilliard's ideas that seemed radical in the 1980s are becoming inert, as they are so ingrained in our everyday experience (eg, hyper-reality, the simulacra, etc). At least in this iteration of the technology. Moving into mass-scale mixed reality environments will be an entirely different proposition.
I think this is true for a lot of poststructuralist thought, the most popular which have generally been subsumed into the cultural consciousness (e.g. Deleuze's rhizome becomes what we know as the distributed network). But I think it's still useful to draw upon those concepts to codify what we live and breathe.
I found this article worthless, pretentiously worthless at that (WMDs? Really?). Stories augment the human experience of reality, as do social constructs, as does language, but I am too dumb to understand why that's news. What is the point he is trying to argue? That there are seven AR Pikachus dancing in the head of every philosopher?
I think the truth is simpler. Ideology and games both present people with an escape from their lives. Life terrible? Play some WoW, and you'll at least be guaranteed slow and steady progress instead of an ongoing backwards slide into poverty. Ideology (particular racist ideologies, as the article and to focus on) offers a similar alternative game to play. Failing at life? Start competing against a minority team that's even worse off, either economically or physically.
Very interesting but I don't think AR is a perfect analogy because as far as I can tell there does not seem to be any such thing as an unbiased non-ideological human viewpoint (overlayed onto). _Everyone_ has a set of foundational nodes in their cognitive perceptual framework (an ideology) that are a core aspect of any view they have of the world. This is a pretty fundamental problem for politics.
I think you're talking about humans, whereas the article was talking about reality.
Amount of CO2 in the air. Number of Rohingya killed. Amount of crude in Cantarell at this moment. Etc etc etc ad infinitum.
What are the answers to those questions? What are the physical implications? (ie-what will the Earth physically do with all the CO2? There is definitely an answer to that question which is non-ideological and unbiased, and, unfortunately, only really known for certain by Mother Nature.) All such questions, in fact, have answers that are, very much, non-ideological, and unbiased. Unfortunately, they are not really perceptible by humans without help. Sometimes our science can help, sometimes our knowledge of psychology can help, etc. But that's where our ideologies will come in. Only human perception of these very physical states, and their implications, are ideological. Because the ideology is augmenting the base reality with something we can understand. Something comfortable and intuitive for us.
Sorry for rambling. I think someone else might be able to explain it better. But it's my best shot at explaining why I think AR is a pretty good analogy for ideology.
John Searle, in his "The Construction of Social Reality," does a memorable job dismissing arguments against objective, unbiased non-ideological reality by reminding the reader that we take the common human viewpoint for granted constantly. In fact, there is vastly more that we agree on that what we don't, e.g. "There is snow and ice at the top of Mt. Everest," or "this dollar is worth a cola"
Sure, there are groups that impugn these most basic shared truths — e.g. flat-earthers and crpyto-financiers — but for most of us, the foundational nodes in our cognitive perceptual framework are boring, ie common.
Understanding how modern philosophy understands ideology is important. I bemoan hearing american-liberals discuss how people don't, "share common truth" anymore. In reality this is a decoupling of the DNC, and RNC's ideology. They are no longer one and the same, so what is considered "true" by either has changed, irreparably.
The problem is most Americans politics had a unified ideological understanding of the world for nearly 3 centuries (at least if we count the WASP america). This division is new, and America's distaste of any post 1850's western continental philosophy (as it was mostly dominated by Marxists) means they lack the vocabulary to discuss these concepts, or understand their long tail implications.
>I bemoan hearing american-liberals discuss how people don't...
I think the point is that "bemoaning" that is an ideology in itself. So your own reality is "augmented" with a belief set that is, likely, not terribly representative of reality. You've simply filled in the gaps in everyday experiences with something that you can, at once, understand, and is comfortable to you.
Actually, I don't bemoan your ideology. (In fact I suspect I hold the exact same ideology.) I'm just pointing out that we are ideologues. And like all ideologues, our ideology allows us to coexist comfortably with the actual reality we live in. Even though it's highly unlikely that the underlying reality is consistent with our ideology.
This would be true of ALL ideologues. That's my point. In my opinion, nearly every human on Earth, is likely an ideologue. And this model, or analogy, of AR as ideology, is a pretty good representation of that state of affairs.
That whole article was really straightforward for zizek, I love hearing him talk because he's never boring but his train of thought veers all over the place when he speaks live.
zizek says that the book of job is the first critique of ideology, and he calls himself a christian atheist because he thinks becoming an atheist is only possible by going through christianity.
so you have it exactly backwards. or maybe not, who the hell knows with hegelians.
Also..I read the book of Job, supposed to be super-impressive. OMG. God comes over as such a twat, is dicking around with Satan, makes a stupid bet just because Satan wants to, to torture the apparently faithful Job.
Well, Marxism has a lot of similarities with Christianity, as has been pointed out by a lot of people. So maybe 'that' kind of atheist mostly comes from replacing one's christianity with another religion. Ohh sure, "becoming an atheist" means you used to be religious, I guess. But there are other religions. Thousands and thousands.
Some might argue the opposite, that said I agree that the way many people approach religion makes it basically equal to an ideology.
But you can approach religions as a topic in countless ways, so I think it is fair not to reduce it to the lowest (albeit maybe most common...) approach people have
Religion has elements of ideology, some ideologies are derived from, related to, or specifically opposed to religious belief. That last might be an XOR.
I would not describe the defining parts of buddhism as ideological so much as philosophical and sensuous. I’m not sure a good definition of religion exists. You’re being hugey reductive.
In this context, Zizekian "ideology" is a set of beliefs or axioms that color how we perceive the world. It's just the medium through which we live our lives and exist our existences and engage with social structures. So in that sense, religion is one thing which would help to make up 'ideology'.
In the non-jargon common sense of ideology ("a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy", thanks dictionary) you're broadly right.
How to be a philosopher in the past 20 years: Scan technology magazine headlines - pick up the latest buzzwords, add some aristotle, hume , st. augustine and baudrillard. Mix well
To save you even more work:
"The internet of things is fundamental to free will"
* Baudrillard's ideas on the hyperreality, which is basically a simulation that doesn't actually relate to any underlying reality. He argued that a lot of the signs and symbols in our postmodern society have become hyperreal, purely manufactured artifacts.
* Deleuze's concept of virtuality which he defines as something isn't actual, but is nevertheless real.
Is a virtual reality any less real than physicality? If sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, then sufficiently advanced artificial reality might be indistinguishable from reality.