MathOverflow will be down for maintenance for approximately 3 hours, starting Monday evening (06/24/2013) at approximately 9:00 PM Eastern time (UTC-4).

Obviously, it is possible to define some topology. However, the obvious generalization of the Zariski topology, to take a set to be closed if and only if it is of the form $V(I) = {J : I \subset J}$ for some fixed ideal $I$, does not work since this collection of sets is not generally closed under finite unions. Consider the set $A$ of all ideals of $\mathbb{Z}$ containing (2) or (3). If $A$ were of the form $V(n)$ for any $n \in \mathbb{Z}$, then $(n) \in A$; thus, would not contain (2n), a contradiction2) or (3), i.e., n would divide 2 or 3, which is absurd. However, the set of all prime ideals containing (2) or (3) is equal to the set of all prime ideals containing (6).
Nevertheless, using schemes, one can give geometric meaning to the set of all ideals of a ring. Specifically, the ideals of $R$ correspond naturally to the set of closed subschemes of Spec $R$.
Obviously, it is possible to define some topology. However, the obvious generalization of the Zariski topology, to take a set to be closed if and only if it is of the form $V(I) = {J : I \subset J}$ for some fixed ideal $I$, does not work since this collection of sets is not generally closed under finite unions. Consider the set $A$ of all ideals of $\mathbb{Z}$ containing (2) or (3). If $A$ were of the form $V(n)$ for any $n \in \mathbb{Z}$, then $A$ would not contain (2n), a contradiction. However, the set of all prime ideals containing (2) or (3) is equal to the set of all prime ideals containing (6).
Nevertheless, using schemes, one can give geometric meaning to the set of all ideals of a ring. Specifically, the ideals of $R$ correspond naturally to the set of closed subschemes of Spec $R$.