There are a lot of academics, who often ask themselves how socialist regimes, capitalist systems and fundamental administrations may collaborate with each other, whether diplomatically, fiscally or militarily, while they are commonsensically and diametrically contrasting with each other. For instance, while one pole may proclaim modernism and broadmindedness, another pole may declare complete orthodoxy or conservatism. Accordingly, and rationally, no genuine political alliance may be supposed among them. But while such a partnership is in fact discernable, some idealistic individuals or bystanders may experience it as a kind of cognitive dissociation, which means incongruity in a person’s beliefs, thoughts, or actions, which may cause an uncomfortable inner tension or perplexity. Therefore, if philosophy or ethics does not have anything to do with sociopolitical relationships, then why or how they may be appreciated as important or useful hypothetical or academic perspectives. Nevertheless, while compromise may be a fitting problem-solving strategy, ideology was never an indissoluble barricade between philosophical opponents because basic needs may determine the applicability of ideology, not ethical or theoretical considerations. Anyhow, though presently many scholars may believe that the epoch of ideology is over, ideology is not limited to Marxism or fundamentalism, and liberalism, conservatism, globalization, nationalism or fascism, too, may be acknowledged as different kinds of ideology. Principally, every financial or sociopolitical doctrine that becomes compulsive, according to its believers or doctrinaires, and turns into an over-valued idea, may be known as a kind of ideology. In the present article, the relationship between ideology, politics, economics and ethics has been, briefly, probed.
Saeed Shoja Shafti (Thu,) studied this question.