On Human Nature and Politics

[MaxGrit]

I'm only going to address your last point. It is false. Thus, the premise of your defense of your own ideology is also false. There is no tautology that any ideology must be completely true.

That doesn't make it false, of course. However, if you look at the world through an ideological lens, you are less likely to come to the correct conclusion than an empiricist.

Most ideologues think they're empirical but most ideologues will also brush aside empirical evidence that contradicts their ideology.

Edit - And to clarify, this is not a relative argument. Empiricism is not relativism.

Wrong.

No.

Right!

The empiricist changes his beliefs in light of contrary evidence. The ideologue retains his beliefs in spite of contrary evidence.

Wrong conclusion due to faulty logic usage.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thanks for nothing I want my 3 minutes of life back

Well, I want the 60 seconds I took to write this post back. Life is unfair. CC, if you don't have an argument, perhaps that's life's way of telling you not to waste your time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your post has nothing to do with my post. That is a very bad habit of yours. Cut back on the happy pills.

If corporations are people,

and as you quoted Madison,

“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust.”

it is thus fair to assume that you see as much depravity in corporations as you see in any other manifestation of 'people'.

You have made the case for the most rigorous regulation, oversight, and control of corporations and their depravity.

Your inability to understand the connection is hardly my obligation.


"... in any other manifestation of 'people'."

In "Demosclerosis:: The Silent Killer of American Government," Jonathan Rauch points out that 7 out of 10 Americans belong to an interest group, and one out of four belong to at least four!

Unions, Sierra Club, every Liberal pressure/interest group.....You have overlooked the case for the most rigorous regulation, oversight, and control of interest groups and their depravity.

...none of which benefit the nation to the extent that corporations do..... If actual corporations are allowed to perform under free market capitalism rules, where the decisions are based on profit, productivity, and efficiency, the taxpayer is not left holding the bag. By its nature, government in a democracy cannot act in this manner: there are too many special interests that must be accommodated.

That's a tiresome way of you saying you want corporations to run the country. Bad idea.

Where in that post did she mention that corporations should run the country? That's a tiresome way of dodging a point. Bad idea. But please do remember that corporations donated to Obama's campaign just as they did to Romney's. It shows that a man can be bought, and his nature exploited with riches instead of values.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I like to bait her into jabbering like a monkey because lots of people read this forum and those with brains in their heads get an entertaining portrait of the addled conservative mind when they read, or try to read through, PC's posts.

Surely the impression you leave is one of an ignorant, dim-witted, pompous lefty who seems impressed by his own silliness. Carry on.

Would you like to defend her position? She can't. Her position is that there are no constitutional checks on executive power.

Go ahead. Show us how smart you and she are.

Actually, I can search this thread and show multiple times where she defended her position adroitly. You chose to ignore it out of hand, for want of attacking her character. That really shows how smart you are, Carbine. My only regret was not getting to this thread sooner.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did you not call Obama's executive actions the very definition of tyranny?

tyranny - arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power

...and yet, Congress is suing the President, and talking about impeaching him...both of which they have the legal right to do.

How can it be tyranny, the 'unrestrained exercise of power', if that power can in fact be restrained by others in the government?

Can you answer that in 25 or less of YOUR OWN WORDS?

"...unrestrained exercise of power...."


Bingo!

So you do want to take the position that the Congress and the Supreme Court have no power to restrain the executive branch?

Can you cite any sources from your vast library of books you've pretended to have read to support that assertion?

Can you prove they still can? Right now, Obama is making the case that the executive branch can and will act independently of Congress and the courts. He changes law when it suits him and grants amnesty when it suits him. The civilian population has no say so over their governance, as seen when our government picks random cities all across America to dump illegal immigrants. In that case, human nature runs contrary to governance. Human nature dictates that man must govern himself. If he does not, he can and will govern others according to his will, not the people's. That is the true essence of tyranny.

 

[TemplarKormac]

We get that conservatives despise democratic government. No need to drone on about it.

Right. My bad. You silly children of America's decline and fall tendered your post as an insult . . . not a compliment owing to my learned and superior taste for the limited and divided government of inalienable human rights.

Carry on. . . .

It's the government that protects your rights. It's the power of the big central government to do such things as overturn unconstitutional gun control laws passed by the smaller governments of the states and localities that protects your rights. You owe the protection of your rights to big government.

Today, it's the government that makes your rights. It is within their power to take them just as easily. In what reality was that supposed to be the case? A form of government such as this one was what prompted Thomas Jefferson to say this:

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

One's ideological lens either affords 20/20 vision or it doesn't; more accurately, one's ideology is either derived from the realities of existence and human nature or it's not.

I'm only going to address your last point. It is false. Thus, the premise of your defense of your own ideology is also false. There is no tautology that any ideology must be completely true.

That doesn't make it false, of course. However, if you look at the world through an ideological lens, you are less likely to come to the correct conclusion than an empiricist.

Most ideologues think they're empirical but most ideologues will also brush aside empirical evidence that contradicts their ideology.

Edit - And to clarify, this is not a relative argument. Empiricism is not relativism.

But I didn't argue anything as obviously stupid as "any ideology must be completely true" in order to be of any value, if I understand you correctly given your qualifier tautology. I said that "one's ideology is either derived from the realities of existence . . . or it's not." The thrust of my observation is that no ideology is true, unless it faithfully reflects the realities of existence. That is true by definition, and I'm telling you that there is at least one such system of thought known to the world, in spite of your incredulity.

How did you manage to mangle that one, Mr. Empiricist?

As for my ideology, presumably you're alluding to this: "The natural law of classical liberalism is predicated on the realities of the human condition. It comprehensively accounts for both the exigencies and the foibles of human nature."

I didn't present the construct of natural law as an argument from premise. I flatly asserted its cogency as a fact, and invited you to objectively examine the ontological justifications for the same as bottomed on historical experience.

Most ideologues think they're empirical but most ideologues will also brush aside empirical evidence that contradicts their ideology.

Indeed. And that's why I corrected your misapprehension concerning the essence of the guiding epistemological tradition of natural law when I wrote "more accurately, one's ideology is either derived from the realities of existence and human nature or it's not." The classical liberal of natural law does not look through any ideological lens as such. His ideology is a systematic exegesis of the real world from first principles and the recommendations of historical experience, as the Father of classical liberalism and the Founder of empiricism John Locke would tell you!

Notwithstanding, I would encourage you to be cautious about solely relying on the trappings of empiricism, as Locke's tabula rasa, for example, harking back to Aristotle's view, has been largely falsified. Both Descartes and Locke exaggerated the virtues of their respective epistemologies. Neither Descartes nor Locke were deconstructionalists at heart; they just failed to anticipate that the reduction of man's intuitive, preanalytic apprehension of cosmic order to the untutored inner musings of a detached introspection and the likewise untutored presuppositions of a detached extrospection would devolve to the subjective relativism and the nihilistic naturalism of the postmodern world. Oops.

But let not your heart be trouble, for while Locke contradictorily asserted that the substance of a thing could be comprehensively known via sensory perception alone in order to make his bifurcation of human apprehension work, he extrapolated his political philosophy from historical experience and the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's historically unique rendering of the Golden Rule, which emphasizes the dignity of the individual over the mundane concerns of the collective. The former not only provides for a more dynamically creative society, but also, for a more cohesive, cooperatively stable society . . . though that be counterintuitive to the statist mindset of universal "tolerance". But it isn't counterintuitive to the alert student of history given the long train of short-lived societies that were given over to the throes of mobocracy of one kind or another, and the reason for their instability is self-evident to those who rightly understand the immutable composition of human nature.

Empiricism is not relativism.

Agree. Technically. But a lot of postmodern empiricists sure do think and talk like relativists as the imperatives of natural law and the essence of the prevailing epistemology that informs it allude them. I have a suggestion for you. Given the fact that empirical data don't interpret themselves and the presupposition of science is metaphysical, consider the advantages of a more pragmatic epistemology: toss the false rationalism-empiricism dichotomy out the window and adopt a synthetically balanced rational-empirical approach.

 

[Toro]

One's ideological lens either affords 20/20 vision or it doesn't; more accurately, one's ideology is either derived from the realities of existence and human nature or it's not.

I'm only going to address your last point. It is false. Thus, the premise of your defense of your own ideology is also false. There is no tautology that any ideology must be completely true.

That doesn't make it false, of course. However, if you look at the world through an ideological lens, you are less likely to come to the correct conclusion than an empiricist.

Most ideologues think they're empirical but most ideologues will also brush aside empirical evidence that contradicts their ideology.

Edit - And to clarify, this is not a relative argument. Empiricism is not relativism.

But I didn't argue anything as obviously stupid as "any ideology must be completely true" in order to be of any value, if I understand you correctly given your qualification tautology. I said that "one's ideology is either derived from the realities of existence . . . or it's not." The thrust of my observation is that no ideology is true, unless it faithfully reflects the realities of existence. That is true by definition, and I'm telling you that there is at least one such system of thought known to the world, in spite of your incredulity.

How did you manage to mangle that one, Mr. Empiricist?

Because you were unclear.

That you acknowledge "Realities of existence" are interpreted differently means that no one ideology has a monopoly on truth or on the interpretation of human nature. Ideology explains how things should be. That's fine. But no ideology has the definitive answer on everything. Ideology is a trap. It puts you in a box and limits your understanding of the world around you.

 

[MACAULAY]

I just wish I'd get a straight up answer but instead I get copy and paste off topic mish mash of words.

I like to bait her into jabbering like a monkey because lots of people read this forum and those with brains in their heads get an entertaining portrait of the addled conservative mind when they read, or try to read through, PC's posts.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I can't tell how many times I have read a post like this in response to a well-reasoned conservative argument.

This one is a bit more pompous...but still carries the main theme of any Left-wing Loon Pinhead response...it attacks the messenger and runs from the message.

And, this one is not profane like most Left-Wing Loon Pinhead responses. The writer can credit himself for that anyway.

 

[MaxGrit]

I'm only going to address your last point. It is false. Thus, the premise of your defense of your own ideology is also false. There is no tautology that any ideology must be completely true.

That doesn't make it false, of course. However, if you look at the world through an ideological lens, you are less likely to come to the correct conclusion than an empiricist.

Most ideologues think they're empirical but most ideologues will also brush aside empirical evidence that contradicts their ideology.

Edit - And to clarify, this is not a relative argument. Empiricism is not relativism.

But I didn't argue anything as obviously stupid as "any ideology must be completely true" in order to be of any value, if I understand you correctly given your qualification tautology. I said that "one's ideology is either derived from the realities of existence . . . or it's not." The thrust of my observation is that no ideology is true, unless it faithfully reflects the realities of existence. That is true by definition, and I'm telling you that there is at least one such system of thought known to the world, in spite of your incredulity.

How did you manage to mangle that one, Mr. Empiricist?

Because you were unclear.

That you acknowledge "Realities of existence" are interpreted differently means that no one ideology has a monopoly on truth or on the interpretation of human nature. Ideology explains how things should be. That's fine. But no ideology has the definitive answer on everything. Ideology is a trap. It puts you in a box and limits your understanding of the world around you.

You seek the truth maker. The world dances to the music of Providence.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm only going to address your last point. It is false. Thus, the premise of your defense of your own ideology is also false. There is no tautology that any ideology must be completely true.

That doesn't make it false, of course. However, if you look at the world through an ideological lens, you are less likely to come to the correct conclusion than an empiricist.

Most ideologues think they're empirical but most ideologues will also brush aside empirical evidence that contradicts their ideology.

Edit - And to clarify, this is not a relative argument. Empiricism is not relativism.

But I didn't argue anything as obviously stupid as "any ideology must be completely true" in order to be of any value, if I understand you correctly given your qualification tautology. I said that "one's ideology is either derived from the realities of existence . . . or it's not." The thrust of my observation is that no ideology is true, unless it faithfully reflects the realities of existence. That is true by definition, and I'm telling you that there is at least one such system of thought known to the world, in spite of your incredulity.

How did you manage to mangle that one, Mr. Empiricist?

Because you were unclear.

That you acknowledge "Realities of existence" are interpreted differently means that no one ideology has a monopoly on truth or on the interpretation of human nature. Ideology explains how things should be. That's fine. But no ideology has the definitive answer on everything. Ideology is a trap. It puts you in a box and limits your understanding of the world around you.

Except, Toro, that you are trying to assert your reality and interpretation over his by simply stating that there is no one dominant ideology or prominent interpretation of human nature. Just by doing that, you are taking the legs right out from under your own position. Using your reasoning, you are deriving that 'no one ideology has a monopoly on the truth' from your own interpretation of reality. Each of us perceives reality differently, even you. That is why there are so many ideologies floating around out there.

I disagree also that having an ideology limits my understanding of the world around me. What I see here is you putting yourself in your own box, you trapping yourself by saying such a thing. When I pick up a pebble, I see a pebble. When the wind hits my face, I perceive it as wind. When I eat a piece of chocolate, it tastes like chocolate. Light is light, darkness is darkness. Right is right, wrong is wrong... Left is left, and right is right; and etc. My 'ideology' does not dictate to me the reality of my existence, my faith does.

Objectively speaking, it is wise not to let ideology get in the way of reality, not to let the two intermingle. Only those who have weak mental discipline would ever allow their ideology to dictate the reality of their own existence. That by itself defies human nature.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But I didn't argue anything as obviously stupid as "any ideology must be completely true" in order to be of any value, if I understand you correctly given your qualification tautology. I said that "one's ideology is either derived from the realities of existence . . . or it's not." The thrust of my observation is that no ideology is true, unless it faithfully reflects the realities of existence. That is true by definition, and I'm telling you that there is at least one such system of thought known to the world, in spite of your incredulity.

How did you manage to mangle that one, Mr. Empiricist?

Because you were unclear.

That you acknowledge "Realities of existence" are interpreted differently means that no one ideology has a monopoly on truth or on the interpretation of human nature. Ideology explains how things should be. That's fine. But no ideology has the definitive answer on everything. Ideology is a trap. It puts you in a box and limits your understanding of the world around you.

Except, Toro, that you are trying to assert your reality and interpretation over his by simply stating that there is no one dominant ideology or prominent interpretation of human nature. Just by doing that, you are taking the legs right out from under your own position. Using your reasoning, you are deriving that 'no one ideology has a monopoly on the truth' from your own interpretation of reality. Each of us perceives reality differently, even you. That is why there are so many ideologies floating around out there.

I disagree also that having an ideology limits my understanding of the world around me. What I see here is you putting yourself in your own box, you trapping yourself by saying such a thing. When I pick up a pebble, I see a pebble. When the wind hits my face, I perceive it as wind. When I eat a piece of chocolate, it tastes like chocolate. Light is light, darkness is darkness. Right is right, wrong is wrong... Left is left, and right is right; and etc. My 'ideology' does not dictate to me the reality of my existence, my faith does.

Objectively speaking, it is wise not to let ideology get in the way of reality, not to let the two intermingle. Only those who have weak mental discipline would ever allow their ideology to dictate the reality of their own existence. That by itself defies human nature.

There are a few hundred thousand posts on this board that call that claim into question. Rather than that "defying" human nature, it defines it.

 

[Peach]

Confirmation bias is a human trait that manifests greatly in politics. People don't want to hear information which contradicts their beliefs even if it's reasonable, and they'll believe ridiculous information if it confirms their beliefs. Hence, liberals watch MSNBC and are more likely to believe that Bush had something to do with 9/11 whereas conservatives watch Fox and are more likely to believe Obama was born in Kenya. Of course, both twoofers and birfers are ridiculous.

This is a human trait, not a political one. Any person who thinks this is just a liberal or a conservative thing is biased and displaying what I'm talking about.

Agreed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong.

I'm saying the opposite. There is truth. But ideology is not truth per se.

Post #100

Confirms my original point.

You attempt to set the premise and define your political opponents based on your ideology.

That doesn't mean your conclusion is necessarily wrong. Communism IS bad. I agree with you. But you have demonstrated ideological bias throughout this thread by creating normative frameworks based on your philosophy.

You're human. Humans do that. Not just liberals.

I'm actually surprised....I've always found you to be truthful.

"Confirms my original point."

No....it does the opposite....it proves, via the actual words of Leftists icons that they believe that they can and will change human nature.


My point has been, throughout, that it cannot be changed and that it must be accepted but tamed.

 

[Toro]

Post #100

Confirms my original point.

You attempt to set the premise and define your political opponents based on your ideology.

That doesn't mean your conclusion is necessarily wrong. Communism IS bad. I agree with you. But you have demonstrated ideological bias throughout this thread by creating normative frameworks based on your philosophy.

You're human. Humans do that. Not just liberals.

I'm actually surprised....I've always found you to be truthful.

"Confirms my original point."

No....it does the opposite....it proves, via the actual words of Leftists icons that they believe that they can and will change human nature.


My point has been, throughout, that it cannot be changed and that it must be accepted but tamed.

You're confusing "truth" with interpretation by accusing me of being untruthful. That again confirms my point. You assume that I'm being untruthful because I disagree with you. That, again, is an example of confirmation bias I mentioned in my first post.

You made a broad sweeping generalization about an ideology. Perhaps you did that due to brevity and being on a message board. If so, fair enough. But if not, your premise is wrong.

Some philosophies may better describe human nature than others, but no one philosophy describes human nature in its entirety.

I gave an example earlier that Leftists do very much understand human nature by tapping into the very real need for safety and security and offering a welfare net. You can then argue that Leftists don't understand how that affects motivation, and I would probably agree with you. But that doesn't obviate the fact that the Left has created a system which taps into the deep seated human desire of survival.

 

[Toro]

But I didn't argue anything as obviously stupid as "any ideology must be completely true" in order to be of any value, if I understand you correctly given your qualification tautology. I said that "one's ideology is either derived from the realities of existence . . . or it's not." The thrust of my observation is that no ideology is true, unless it faithfully reflects the realities of existence. That is true by definition, and I'm telling you that there is at least one such system of thought known to the world, in spite of your incredulity.

How did you manage to mangle that one, Mr. Empiricist?

Because you were unclear.

That you acknowledge "Realities of existence" are interpreted differently means that no one ideology has a monopoly on truth or on the interpretation of human nature. Ideology explains how things should be. That's fine. But no ideology has the definitive answer on everything. Ideology is a trap. It puts you in a box and limits your understanding of the world around you.

Except, Toro, that you are trying to assert your reality and interpretation over his by simply stating that there is no one dominant ideology or prominent interpretation of human nature. Just by doing that, you are taking the legs right out from under your own position. Using your reasoning, you are deriving that 'no one ideology has a monopoly on the truth' from your own interpretation of reality. Each of us perceives reality differently, even you. That is why there are so many ideologies floating around out there.

I disagree also that having an ideology limits my understanding of the world around me. What I see here is you putting yourself in your own box, you trapping yourself by saying such a thing. When I pick up a pebble, I see a pebble. When the wind hits my face, I perceive it as wind. When I eat a piece of chocolate, it tastes like chocolate. Light is light, darkness is darkness. Right is right, wrong is wrong... Left is left, and right is right; and etc. My 'ideology' does not dictate to me the reality of my existence, my faith does.

Objectively speaking, it is wise not to let ideology get in the way of reality, not to let the two intermingle. Only those who have weak mental discipline would ever allow their ideology to dictate the reality of their own existence. That by itself defies human nature.

Good for you.

Was Obama born in Kenya?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Confirms my original point.

You attempt to set the premise and define your political opponents based on your ideology.

That doesn't mean your conclusion is necessarily wrong. Communism IS bad. I agree with you. But you have demonstrated ideological bias throughout this thread by creating normative frameworks based on your philosophy.

You're human. Humans do that. Not just liberals.

I'm actually surprised....I've always found you to be truthful.

"Confirms my original point."

No....it does the opposite....it proves, via the actual words of Leftists icons that they believe that they can and will change human nature.


My point has been, throughout, that it cannot be changed and that it must be accepted but tamed.

You're confusing "truth" with interpretation by accusing me of being untruthful. That again confirms my point. You assume that I'm being untruthful because I disagree with you. That, again, is an example of confirmation bias I mentioned in my first post.

You made a broad sweeping generalization about an ideology. Perhaps you did that due to brevity and being on a message board. If so, fair enough. But if not, your premise is wrong.

Some philosophies may better describe human nature than others, but no one philosophy describes human nature in its entirety.

I gave an example earlier that Leftists do very much understand human nature by tapping into the very real need for safety and security and offering a welfare net. You can then argue that Leftists don't understand how that affects motivation, and I would probably agree with you. But that doesn't obviate the fact that the Left has created a system which taps into the deep seated human desire of survival.

"....Leftists do very much understand human nature...."

Able to be changed, or indelible?

You have yet to relate any of this to post #100, in which I provided direct quotes proving my contention....Leftist doctrine alleges it to be plastic.


Another example?

Sure...feminism, one of the inceptions of the Leftism, preaches that male and female roles are merely social constructs and can simply be changed.

Radical Feminists claim roles to be ‘socially constructed,’ which means that everything about men and women, sans organs of reproduction, can be altered by changes in the social and cultural environment.
a. This view attacks not only men, but institutions responsible for the oppression, such as the family, and traditional religion.
b. Those familiar with the Port Huron Statement of the Sixties radicals with understand the concept that human nature is infinitely malleable and therefore infinitely perfectible. Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962

 

[TemplarKormac]

Because you were unclear.

That you acknowledge "Realities of existence" are interpreted differently means that no one ideology has a monopoly on truth or on the interpretation of human nature. Ideology explains how things should be. That's fine. But no ideology has the definitive answer on everything. Ideology is a trap. It puts you in a box and limits your understanding of the world around you.

Except, Toro, that you are trying to assert your reality and interpretation over his by simply stating that there is no one dominant ideology or prominent interpretation of human nature. Just by doing that, you are taking the legs right out from under your own position. Using your reasoning, you are deriving that 'no one ideology has a monopoly on the truth' from your own interpretation of reality. Each of us perceives reality differently, even you. That is why there are so many ideologies floating around out there.

I disagree also that having an ideology limits my understanding of the world around me. What I see here is you putting yourself in your own box, you trapping yourself by saying such a thing. When I pick up a pebble, I see a pebble. When the wind hits my face, I perceive it as wind. When I eat a piece of chocolate, it tastes like chocolate. Light is light, darkness is darkness. Right is right, wrong is wrong... Left is left, and right is right; and etc. My 'ideology' does not dictate to me the reality of my existence, my faith does.

Objectively speaking, it is wise not to let ideology get in the way of reality, not to let the two intermingle. Only those who have weak mental discipline would ever allow their ideology to dictate the reality of their own existence. That by itself defies human nature.

Good for you.

Was Obama born in Kenya?

Such an asinine response only shows me how disingenuous your claim was. Do you really believe having an ideology entraps someone? Limits their understanding of the world? I feel sorry for you, my friend.

 

[Toro]

Except, Toro, that you are trying to assert your reality and interpretation over his by simply stating that there is no one dominant ideology or prominent interpretation of human nature. Just by doing that, you are taking the legs right out from under your own position. Using your reasoning, you are deriving that 'no one ideology has a monopoly on the truth' from your own interpretation of reality. Each of us perceives reality differently, even you. That is why there are so many ideologies floating around out there.

I disagree also that having an ideology limits my understanding of the world around me. What I see here is you putting yourself in your own box, you trapping yourself by saying such a thing. When I pick up a pebble, I see a pebble. When the wind hits my face, I perceive it as wind. When I eat a piece of chocolate, it tastes like chocolate. Light is light, darkness is darkness. Right is right, wrong is wrong... Left is left, and right is right; and etc. My 'ideology' does not dictate to me the reality of my existence, my faith does.

Objectively speaking, it is wise not to let ideology get in the way of reality, not to let the two intermingle. Only those who have weak mental discipline would ever allow their ideology to dictate the reality of their own existence. That by itself defies human nature.

Good for you.

Was Obama born in Kenya?

Such an asinine response only shows me how disingenuous your claim was. Do you really believe having an ideology entraps someone? Limits their understanding of the world? I feel sorry for you, my friend.

Humor me.

Was Obama born in Kenya?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Because you were unclear.

That you acknowledge "Realities of existence" are interpreted differently means that no one ideology has a monopoly on truth or on the interpretation of human nature. Ideology explains how things should be. That's fine. But no ideology has the definitive answer on everything. Ideology is a trap. It puts you in a box and limits your understanding of the world around you.

Except, Toro, that you are trying to assert your reality and interpretation over his by simply stating that there is no one dominant ideology or prominent interpretation of human nature. Just by doing that, you are taking the legs right out from under your own position. Using your reasoning, you are deriving that 'no one ideology has a monopoly on the truth' from your own interpretation of reality. Each of us perceives reality differently, even you. That is why there are so many ideologies floating around out there.

I disagree also that having an ideology limits my understanding of the world around me. What I see here is you putting yourself in your own box, you trapping yourself by saying such a thing. When I pick up a pebble, I see a pebble. When the wind hits my face, I perceive it as wind. When I eat a piece of chocolate, it tastes like chocolate. Light is light, darkness is darkness. Right is right, wrong is wrong... Left is left, and right is right; and etc. My 'ideology' does not dictate to me the reality of my existence, my faith does.

Objectively speaking, it is wise not to let ideology get in the way of reality, not to let the two intermingle. Only those who have weak mental discipline would ever allow their ideology to dictate the reality of their own existence. That by itself defies human nature.

There are a few hundred thousand posts on this board that call that claim into question. Rather than that "defying" human nature, it defines it.

That was my point doc. Most people let their ideology drive their own existences, and therefore it becomes their nature. Instinct should drive existence not ideology. Ideology is not bad mind you, but it should not be an integral part of your humanity.