Philosophy and ideology (marginal notes)

Abstract

The institute methodological seminar is running at the Institute of Philosophy RAS since 2016. There were three meetings. Presentations were made by Professor E.Y. Soloviev, Professor V.A. Podoroga and Professor V.M. Mezhuev. These discussions showed that the Institute has accumulated considerable intellectual potential, which allows to analyse philosophical problems at the level of serious reflection. In fact, the speakers chose the theme of "Philosophy and ideology". I can't say that this problem (significant in itself) promises a methodological revelation. Major debates around ideology in European philosophy — the "deideologization" (50-60-ies of the last century), "reideologization" (the 70-ies of the same century), "jargon of authenticity" (T. Adorno about the German ideology), the idea of the simulacrum and simulation (J. Baudrillard), the position of Sl. Žižek ("reality itself has become ideological") — has lost their indisputable novelty. Methodological coverage of the topic assumes familiarity with major mass examinations of the problem. However, the speakers not appealed to the history of the issue at least on the material of the last century. Incidentally, the same "detachment" from modern European thought distinguishes the article by G.Yu. Semigin "Ideology" published in the New philosophical encyclopedia. In a polemical field of our discussions was involved the familiar historical and philosophical material – from Destutt de Tracy to Marx. Of course, every seminar is interesting not only by recording of sources, but rather by unexpected approaches, depth and originality of argumentation. Our reputable philosophers were somehow very productive. Well and passionately they till their own parcel. But beyond the parcel loom other, very serious approaches to the topic.

The published material should not be considered a protocol report from meetings or review report. This is likely an attempt to expand the problem field of the discussion.

Philosophy is often seen as a supplement to something. It really is related to science, politics, history. The question is, does it have its autonomy? After all, at certain stages of history, it was a handmaiden of theology, science, politics. The originality of V.M. Mezhuev's position consists in defending belonging of philosophy to ideology. Schematically, the concept can be expressed as follows: philosophy deals with ideas, every idea is ideological itself. The speaker relies on the French enlightenment philosophers of the XVIII century, which legalized the statement. However, a vast array of philosophy is not correlated with ideology.

A large part of philosophical discoveries connected, for example, with the analysis of time, space, existence, has no bearing on ideology. The mission of philosophy is to introduce new ideas, new meanings and train of thought into the culture. The power of philosophy is determined by its non-borrowing. Working with the available ideological material, philosophy is still a special way of world cognition.Was Heraclitus, cherishing his doctrine of the eternal fire, guided by an ideological order? Did the idea of eidos occur to Plato at the peak of the pragmatic disputes of the ancient sages? What ideological calculations dictated to the ancient philosopher the doctrine of the identification of being, ideas, of one, of benefit in the first principle and of nothingness, matter, of plurality and evil in the second principle? Was Leibnitz, building a doctrine of the monads, guided by the instructions of German king?

How the idea of ideology as a mechanism of relentless clutch of ideas was born? Why assume that philosophical thought is immediately cluttered with similar stories and is cemented as an ideology? I guess the reason of it is the wrong interpretation of the thoughts of the French enlightenmentphilosophers A. Destutt de Tracy, P. Cabanis and others. They haven’t had in mind the ideology as a meaningful political doctrine. For them, ideology was the realm of social knowledge, nothing more. Their interest was to understand how ideas are born and find solidarity and how to make the ideology an area of theoretical thought. But while they can't be blamed for their concept reflect someone's ideology.

Yes, the word "ideology" was first used by A. Destutt de Tracy in 1796. At the turn of XVIII–XIX centuries the late philosophers of Enlightenment turned the doctrine of ideas in moral and political doctrine, emphasizing the active nature, the practical significance of ideology. Pay attention to the fact that the leaders of that time tried to comprehend theoretically how the philosophical ideas influence policy. However, none of them believed that philosophy is ideology. In particular, P. Cabanis believed that ideas have the greatest impact on public morality, which was seen by him as a source of political passions.

V.M. Mezhuev, apparently, is right in arguing that for Marx critique of ideology is the critique of all philosophy. The analysis of the Marxist interpretation of ideology is made by M.V. Mazhuev very professionally. But the report of E.Y. Solovyov concerned with a different historical reality. Multiannual tradition of the critique of ideology as a social phenomenon has established. This means that philosophy is not only an ideological phenomenon. Ideology is criticized, but without an appeal to the historical destiny of philosophy.

What ideology are we talking about these days? What is its role in historical processes? Distinguished contemporary philosophers including Paul Ricoeur, Jacques Baudrillard, Jürgen Habermas, Slavoj Žižek and others joined to a sober understanding of the ideology at the end of last and beginning of present century. In this case, referring to ideology, they least of all engaged in criticism of philosophical ideas. The main thing is to recognize the purpose of ideology in our day. E.Y. Soloviev, in his report, don’t record ideologies or create them. The value of his report is the attraction of attention to a critique of ideology in the new historical conditions.A worrying trend is the permanent the lack of interest among philosophers in contemporary European and Eastern philosophy. In the discussions on the seminar aren’t references to significant philosophical achievements of our foreign colleagues. M. Foucault, as is known, proposed in the analysis of power to distance from concrete practice as possible. His idea of dispersal of power allowed to see the unexpected facets of this phenomenon. Modern ideological practice needs not so much in criticism of its self-deception, as in the philosophical analysis of its deep sociological foundations. Manipulators eliminate from the communication space the reality itself, replacing it with the virtual world. The spectators increasingly have at their disposal social facts that never happened. The matter is not so much in the semantics of "information flashes", as in removing and darkening of reality itself.

Looking at the screen today, we are already thinking not so much about the truth of interpreted facts and events, as about whether they are real or arbitrary fictional. Ideas are losing sense. The idea of progress has disappeared, but the progress continues. The idea of wealth involving the production, vanished, but the production exists. The TV would have continued to create images, even if mankind disappeared. All is sexual, political, aesthetical.But where is the very authenticity? Images supplied by the media, never fall silent: images of the messages should follow each other without interruption. But we thoroughly catapult ourself in virtual reality. Was there a war in the Persian Gulf? Was there a nuclear test in Iran? Is it true about the use of chemical weapons in Syria? From mass media you will get the most bizarre answers to these questions.

J. Baudrillard emphasizes that in modern ideological practice it is impossible to find the absolute level of the real. The illusion is no longer possible, because the reality is no longer possible.

The importance of this subject is obvious. The ideology today is a distortion of reality through signs. Simulation is a short circuit of reality and its duplication by signs. We want to restore the objective process by the intellectual participation in an ideological discourse. But isn't the restoration of truth within the framework of the simulacrum a false statement of the problem? The philosophical meaning of the problem is that ideology is not simply "false consciousness", an illusory representation of reality. The ideology is now reality itself. Slavoj Žižek describes ideology as a social mechanism which homeostasis assumes that "individuals do not realize that they're doing". The ideological is consequently not "false consciousness" of social existence. But the existence has a basis in false consciousness. Philosophy is not ideology. It is the experience of the individualization of thought.