I've noticed a recent influx of people spouting idealistic views lately, and I would like to create a thread in which they can do so, freely, albeit with the caveat that ANYONE is welcome to present their own views here. I'll start:
I have a problem with idealism. Namely, that it seems to be worthless. Idealists seem to focus on what they think humanity could be, instead of on what humanity is, or what humanity really could be, and yearn for a world that cannot and (in my opinion) should not exist. Even eastern mysticism, which is one of the major influences on the new-age culture in the western world which has spawned so many idealists understands the difference between reality and fantasy. The first step on the road to enlightenment is learning to see the world as it is, and not as you wish it to be. Is meditation, universal love and respect, and emotional self control the only aspects of Buddhism that these people accept?
"If everyone would just get along, the would be no more crime or poverty or hunger."
I hear variations of this all the time, and quite frankly, if that's the only insight all your soul searching has given you, why bother soul searching in the first place? Perhaps some more meditation will reveal to you that you must breathe to survive. Or maybe some advanced hyper-awareness will make it apparent that the sky is blue and grass is green. Of course crime, poverty and hunger would disappear if everyone got along! The whole world would be one big, happy, government-less socialism. That's blatantly obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Why do some people need to meditate and soul-search and engage in social experiments to discover this?
One person recently told me that if all of humanity showed unconditional love to their fellow men, then all the problems in the world would be solved. Well, the problem with that is that if all of humanity was even capable of showing unconditional love for the rest of humanity, there would be no problems to solve in the first place! Another problem is that natural disasters, disease and accidents would still happen. Those are problems. I suppose loving your co-worker will somehow prevent a scaffolding from falling on your head? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think people are even capable of expressing unconditional love for more than a small handful of others. When argued with, the idealists here resort to the same insulting and lying behavior they so often claim to want nothing to do with, and usually even refuse to admit to themselves that they are doing so! Obviously, that's not unconditional love. Love requires more than just affection. It requires trust, and respect. This particular person claims to have unconditional love for everyone, yet clearly neither trusts nor respects me. All I did was disagree, and I've been insulted and lied to as a result. Where is the love in that?
Another such argument was about respect. I was told by someone that they have respect for everyone else, respect based on others simple humanity, not on any abilities, accomplishments, or the character of the person in question. While that was a bit more palatable that the unconditional love spiel, it was still an example of extreme hypocrisy. This same person -when disagreed with- resorted to lying, name-calling, directly insulting and engaging in insulting pop-psychoanalysis of me. How respectful was that? Can you really have respect for someone whom you accuse of being a juvenile-minded, arrogant jerk? If so, then why accuse them of such things in the first place? Not to mention refusing to play by your own stated rules, refusing to admit when you are caught in a lie, and refusing to acknowledge any valid points made by the person with whom you are arguing. There's not a shred of respect in that behavior. Not one little bit. Yet, in this person's mind, I was the arrogant one, the immature one, the hypocritical one.
Then there's the issue of judgment. "Judge not lest ye be judged," and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," are biblical quotes I've seen hurled about on this site since I first arrived here. Well, if you refuse to engage in judgments, then how can you better yourself? You cannot look at someone sliding down a slippery slope and vow not to become that person, because that would entail judging them to be inferior to you in some way. You cannot dismiss the morality of a criminal sociopath because that would be judging his character as inferior to your own. You would be forced to accept as truth anything said to you, and to believe that a sociopathic, murderous pedophile has an equal value to a thoughtful, considerate, philanthropist police officer! Can anyone truly and honestly look into the eyes of a man who just laid down his own life in order to save your life and the lives of your friends and family, and tell him he is worth no more than a man who'd raped and killed a dozen children? That's just ridiculous!
Finally, there are the goals of such idealists. They want to live in a world with no arguments. No wars, no crime, no betrayals, no feuding... Would anyone truly want to live in such a world for more than a few hours?
"All great art is born of suffering."
"Adversity breeds determination, impossibility breeds ingenuity, and conflict breeds strength."
"No pain, no gain."
"You must pay your dues before you reap the rewards."
The English language is replete with saying that equate hardship with benefit. Do they all have no basis whatsoever? What would the world be like if there were nothing but love for all of mankind? Would mankind have developed the chariot? No. Would mankind have developed charity and government? No. None of these things would have been needed. Ok, so that's not such a big loss, but what about art and culture? What would the epic poetry of our history be about, if not about adversity and conflict? What would Edgar Allen Poe, Shakespeare or Vincent Van Gogh have done with their lives, absent the suffering that led them to their art? How many fewer clean-operating nuclear reactors, and how many more carbon-spewing coal and natural gas power plants would there be if we had not developed the nuclear bomb? How structurally sound would buildings be, if we had not invented steel for our swords?
Who would our heroes be?
That's not a world in which I want to live. A Utopian society is a stagnant and meaningless society. I for one, prefer to live in this world, full of hurt and suffering as it may be, for it is in this world that I can grow. It is in this world that I can overcome adversity, achieve victory in conflict, compare myself favorably with the criminal element and strive to be more like my heroes. Pain, suffering, hunger, strife, war, famine, betrayal, poverty, disease, bad luck: These are the foods of the human soul, and without them, we will most assuredly wither and die.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
They want to live in a world with no arguments. No wars, no crime, no betrayals, no feuding... Would anyone truly want to live in such a world for more than a few hours?
Nope. I think I'd go insane after the first week.
Agreed. The things that destroy us are essential to the very essence of humanity.
Nope. I think I'd go insane after the first week.
QUOTE
A Utopian society is a stagnant and meaningless society. I for one, prefer to live in this world, full of hurt and suffering as it may be, for it is in this world that I can grow. It is in this world that I can overcome adversity, achieve victory in conflict, compare myself favorably with the criminal element and strive to be more like my heroes. Pain, suffering, hunger, strife, war, famine, betrayal, poverty, disease, bad luck: These are the foods of the human soul, and without them, we will most assuredly wither and die.
Agreed. The things that destroy us are essential to the very essence of humanity.
Without evil there could be no good? No. it is merely the contrast that we see. Enrico Fermi, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leó Szilárd, Albert Einstein, Robert Rathbun Wilson, and etc., all possessed theories and knowledge, which contributed to the development of nuclear power. Tyranny made their efforts imperative rather than simply important.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 19 2008, 01:53 PM)
Without evil there could be no good? No. it is merely the contrast that we see. Enrico Fermi, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Leó Szilárd, Albert Einstein, Robert Rathbun Wilson, and etc., all possessed theories and knowledge, which contributed to the development of nuclear power. Tyranny made their efforts imperative rather than simply important.
If you want to argue my premise, I'd greatly appreciate it if you tried rebutting some more of my points.
Do you believe that nuclear power would have been invented absent the motivation of war? If so, what would be the motivation for it? Keep in mind that people rarely start with the goals, then invent technology to accomplish them, and far far more often see the potential for a different use of current technologies.
If you want to argue my premise, I'd greatly appreciate it if you tried rebutting some more of my points.
Do you believe that nuclear power would have been invented absent the motivation of war? If so, what would be the motivation for it? Keep in mind that people rarely start with the goals, then invent technology to accomplish them, and far far more often see the potential for a different use of current technologies.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 19 2008, 07:06 PM)
Do you believe that nuclear power would have been invented absent the motivation of war?
Yes. In the 1930’s work had begun. But if not for war the development would have been much later. Evil has and always will exist. And the need for modern weaponry will continue to lead the technological advancements.
Specifically the Manhattan Project was developing the “devices” for use against Germany. Ultimately Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the targets. The development of weaponry is designed for future enemies. And war does speed up the process.
Yes. In the 1930’s work had begun. But if not for war the development would have been much later. Evil has and always will exist. And the need for modern weaponry will continue to lead the technological advancements.
Specifically the Manhattan Project was developing the “devices” for use against Germany. Ultimately Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the targets. The development of weaponry is designed for future enemies. And war does speed up the process.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 19 2008, 02:28 PM)
Yes. In the 1930’s work had begun. But if not for war the development would have been much later. Evil has and always will exist. And the need for modern weaponry will continue to lead the technological advancements.
Specifically the Manhattan Project was developing the “devices” for use against Germany. Ultimately Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the targets. The development of weaponry is designed for future enemies. And war does speed up the process.
Specifically the Manhattan Project was developing the “devices” for use against Germany. Ultimately Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the targets. The development of weaponry is designed for future enemies. And war does speed up the process.
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
In the aftermath of World War I, the defeated German Empire was made to sign the Treaty of Versailles. This restricted German military and territorial growth and required the payment of massive war reparations. Civil war in Russia led to the creation of the communist Soviet Union which soon fell under the control of Joseph Stalin. In Italy, Benito Mussolini seized power as a fascist dictator promising to create a "New Roman Empire".[6] The ruling Kuomintang party in China launched a unification campaign against rebelling warlords in the mid-1920s, but was soon embroiled in a civil war against its former Chinese communist allies. In 1931, an increasingly militaristic Japanese Empire, which had long sought influence in China[7] as the first step of its right to rule Asia, used the Mukden Incident as justification to invade Manchuria; the two nations then fought several small conflicts until the Tanggu Truce in 1933.
In 1933, National Socialist Adolf Hitler became the leader of Germany and began a massive rearming campaign.[8] This worried France and the United Kingdom, who had lost much in the previous war, as well as Italy, which saw its territorial ambitions threatened by those of Germany.[9] To secure its alliance, the French allowed Italy a free hand in Ethiopia, which Italy desired to conquer. The situation was aggravated in early 1935 when the Saarland was legally reunited with Germany and Hitler repudiated the Treaty of Versailles, speeding up remilitarization and introducing conscription. Hoping to contain Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy formed the Stresa Front. The Soviet Union, also concerned due to Germany's goals of capturing vast areas of eastern Europe, concluded a treaty of mutual assistance with France.
Wikipedia - World War II, Background
In 1933, National Socialist Adolf Hitler became the leader of Germany and began a massive rearming campaign.[8] This worried France and the United Kingdom, who had lost much in the previous war, as well as Italy, which saw its territorial ambitions threatened by those of Germany.[9] To secure its alliance, the French allowed Italy a free hand in Ethiopia, which Italy desired to conquer. The situation was aggravated in early 1935 when the Saarland was legally reunited with Germany and Hitler repudiated the Treaty of Versailles, speeding up remilitarization and introducing conscription. Hoping to contain Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy formed the Stresa Front. The Soviet Union, also concerned due to Germany's goals of capturing vast areas of eastern Europe, concluded a treaty of mutual assistance with France.
Wikipedia - World War II, Background
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
Nuclear fission was first experimentally achieved by Enrico Fermi in 1934 when his team bombarded uranium with neutrons.[9] In 1938, German chemists Otto Hahn[10] and Fritz Strassmann, along with Austrian physicists Lise Meitner[11] and Meitner's nephew, Otto Robert Frisch,[12] conducted experiments with the products of neutron-bombarded uranium. They determined that the relatively tiny neutron split the nucleus of the massive uranium atoms into two roughly equal pieces, which was a surprising result. Numerous scientists, including Leo Szilard who was one of the first, recognized that if fission reactions released additional neutrons, a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction could result. This spurred scientists in many countries (including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the Soviet Union) to petition their government for support of nuclear fission research.
Wikipedia - Nuclear Power, History
It seems to me like the scent of war was already in the air by the time fission was first observed. Do you think that this had nothing to do with the funding of nuclear research? I personally don't see enough reason to fund nuclear research at the rate that it was funded, given the level of knowledge of the subject at the time, and the scientific consensus on it. (At the time, it was generally seen as impossible to produce fission through neutron bombardment.)
Of course, if I was the ruler of a government in those times, with the tidings of war about, and I heard about nuclear fission and had a scientist explain to me the energy potential of it, I would have funded the living crap out of such research.
Absent the threat of war, however, I wouldn't have funded it hardly at all. Many scientists would not have pursued it, either.
Wikipedia - Nuclear Power, History
It seems to me like the scent of war was already in the air by the time fission was first observed. Do you think that this had nothing to do with the funding of nuclear research? I personally don't see enough reason to fund nuclear research at the rate that it was funded, given the level of knowledge of the subject at the time, and the scientific consensus on it. (At the time, it was generally seen as impossible to produce fission through neutron bombardment.)
Of course, if I was the ruler of a government in those times, with the tidings of war about, and I heard about nuclear fission and had a scientist explain to me the energy potential of it, I would have funded the living crap out of such research.
Absent the threat of war, however, I wouldn't have funded it hardly at all. Many scientists would not have pursued it, either.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 19 2008, 02:28 PM)
But if not for war the development would have been much later.
I wanted to point out that I'm not claiming that nuclear power would never have been invented without war, I'm just claiming it would have been invented much later, so I wholheartedly agree with this part.
Those were two of the points I was attempting to make with the OP.
I wanted to point out that I'm not claiming that nuclear power would never have been invented without war, I'm just claiming it would have been invented much later, so I wholheartedly agree with this part.
QUOTE
Evil has and always will exist. And the need for modern weaponry will continue to lead the technological advancements.
Those were two of the points I was attempting to make with the OP.
BDW,
In your opening post you say that the first step on the road to enlightenment is to see the world as it is - no problem with this.
Further on you talk of pain, suffering,hunger, strife, war etc as being essential to the world in which you want to live.
If this is your view of current reality or your ideal?
edward 3
In your opening post you say that the first step on the road to enlightenment is to see the world as it is - no problem with this.
Further on you talk of pain, suffering,hunger, strife, war etc as being essential to the world in which you want to live.
If this is your view of current reality or your ideal?
edward 3
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 19 2008, 04:22 PM)
BDW,
In your opening post you say that the first step on the road to enlightenment is to see the world as it is - no problem with this.
Further on you talk of pain, suffering,hunger, strife, war etc as being essential to the world in which you want to live.
If this is your view of current reality or your ideal?
edward 3
Both, actually. The world in which we live is not something I wish to change in any macroscopic way. There are smaller changes I would love to see (a lifting of the moratorium on gay marriages and stem cell research, the complete reform of the catholic church, the abolishing of fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, the decriminalization of marijuana, the refocusing of the US criminal justice system on reform, rather than incarceration, etc, etc...) but I would not want to change this world the way so many idealists would.
In your opening post you say that the first step on the road to enlightenment is to see the world as it is - no problem with this.
Further on you talk of pain, suffering,hunger, strife, war etc as being essential to the world in which you want to live.
If this is your view of current reality or your ideal?
edward 3
Both, actually. The world in which we live is not something I wish to change in any macroscopic way. There are smaller changes I would love to see (a lifting of the moratorium on gay marriages and stem cell research, the complete reform of the catholic church, the abolishing of fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, the decriminalization of marijuana, the refocusing of the US criminal justice system on reform, rather than incarceration, etc, etc...) but I would not want to change this world the way so many idealists would.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 19 2008, 09:22 PM)
BDW,
In your opening post you say that the first step on the road to enlightenment is to see the world as it is - no problem with this.
Further on you talk of pain, suffering,hunger, strife, war etc as being essential to the world in which you want to live.
If this is your view of current reality or your ideal?
edward 3
Did he not make this clear already?
He means that all the bad stuff (war, poverty, suffering) is NECESSARY to the survival and advancement of human society, fact. Without war or poverty, it's unlikely that humanity would be anywhere near as advanced as we are today.
Do you understand this?
In your opening post you say that the first step on the road to enlightenment is to see the world as it is - no problem with this.
Further on you talk of pain, suffering,hunger, strife, war etc as being essential to the world in which you want to live.
If this is your view of current reality or your ideal?
edward 3
Did he not make this clear already?
He means that all the bad stuff (war, poverty, suffering) is NECESSARY to the survival and advancement of human society, fact. Without war or poverty, it's unlikely that humanity would be anywhere near as advanced as we are today.
Do you understand this?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
I would not want to change this world the way so many idealists would.
I am in complete agreement with this statement.
I am in complete agreement with this statement.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 20 2008, 08:48 AM)
Of course, if I was the ruler of a government in those times, with the tidings of war about, and I heard about nuclear fission and had a scientist explain to me the energy potential of it, I would have funded the living crap out of such research.
Absent the threat of war, however, I wouldn't have funded it hardly at all. Many scientists would not have pursued it, either.
We are in a similar situation now with nanotechnology. The enormous effort, time and expense involved in developing this technology is putting off government funding. But the potential advantages it gives an enemy is providing enough incentive to maintain high funding levels.
Absent the threat of war, however, I wouldn't have funded it hardly at all. Many scientists would not have pursued it, either.
We are in a similar situation now with nanotechnology. The enormous effort, time and expense involved in developing this technology is putting off government funding. But the potential advantages it gives an enemy is providing enough incentive to maintain high funding levels.
BDW,
Based on that list, you are one hell of an idealist. Can you give me a few examples of you would not want to see changed? Seriously, if this is a good representative sample of what you term realism, then I´m a full-on realist !!
Doc,
Believe me, BDW can look after himself without your sycophantic support -and no, I am not suggesting you should not post - just give us some of your views on the topic, or even some considered criticism of other posts.
regards
edward 3
Based on that list, you are one hell of an idealist. Can you give me a few examples of you would not want to see changed? Seriously, if this is a good representative sample of what you term realism, then I´m a full-on realist !!
Doc,
Believe me, BDW can look after himself without your sycophantic support -and no, I am not suggesting you should not post - just give us some of your views on the topic, or even some considered criticism of other posts.
regards
edward 3
QUOTE (Edward 3+)
just give us some of your views on the topic, or even some considered criticism of other posts.
Doc,
As I expected , you got back on this before BDW - he is still thinking - try it, it will be a whole new experience for you.
As I expected , you got back on this before BDW - he is still thinking - try it, it will be a whole new experience for you.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 19 2008, 09:49 PM)
Doc,
As I expected , you got back on this before BDW - he is still thinking - try it, it will be a whole new experience for you.
Maybe you should try thinking for a change, bozo. Like, say, thinking about the possibility that I might share a view similar to BDW's. Or thinking about the fact that I've already provided a brief description of my feelings towards the issue.
Go ahead, try thinking. It will be a whole new experience for you!
As I expected , you got back on this before BDW - he is still thinking - try it, it will be a whole new experience for you.
Maybe you should try thinking for a change, bozo. Like, say, thinking about the possibility that I might share a view similar to BDW's. Or thinking about the fact that I've already provided a brief description of my feelings towards the issue.
Go ahead, try thinking. It will be a whole new experience for you!
Hey Doc,
That was slow - you´re not going to make your 56 posts daily average today - what a pity!!!
That was slow - you´re not going to make your 56 posts daily average today - what a pity!!!
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 19 2008, 09:59 PM)
Hey Doc,
That was slow - you´re not going to make your 56 posts daily average today - what a pity!!!
Can't actually respond to anything I said huh? Pity, but not a surprise.
And don't worry about my 56 posts daily average - I've already hit 56.1
That was slow - you´re not going to make your 56 posts daily average today - what a pity!!!
Can't actually respond to anything I said huh? Pity, but not a surprise.
And don't worry about my 56 posts daily average - I've already hit 56.1
I do not find humanity to be ideal in any way.
And i definitely would like it to change.
Stupidity poverty greed and egotism rule.
It has nothing to do with Idealism.
That as so many other 'ideals' is just ways to sneak out from responsibility.
We writing here lives mostly on top of the food chain using our meager experiences as the ground from were to draw our conclusions.
Tell those tales to a child soldier in Iraq in Africa Afghanistan, *** knows where not...
Or to those that starve.
To call the will to change that into something worthy of respect?
Is that idealistic.
To honor violence, believing that to be a natural right in itself.
Civilization :)
F* no, only immature stupidity.
And i definitely would like it to change.
Stupidity poverty greed and egotism rule.
It has nothing to do with Idealism.
That as so many other 'ideals' is just ways to sneak out from responsibility.
We writing here lives mostly on top of the food chain using our meager experiences as the ground from were to draw our conclusions.
Tell those tales to a child soldier in Iraq in Africa Afghanistan, *** knows where not...
Or to those that starve.
To call the will to change that into something worthy of respect?
Is that idealistic.
To honor violence, believing that to be a natural right in itself.
Civilization :)
F* no, only immature stupidity.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 19 2008, 04:39 PM)
BDW,
Based on that list, you are one hell of an idealist. Can you give me a few examples of you would not want to see changed? Seriously, if this is a good representative sample of what you term realism, then I´m a full-on realist !!
Things I don't want to see changed? Do you mean massive concepts like the existence of war and poverty, or more realistically changed things, on par with what I gave as examples of things I would like to see changed?
If the second, then it's fairly easy to answer.
The (too) slowly-increasing public interest in and awareness of science. (although I would like to see it speed up.)
The exponentially growing rate of technology.
Stem cell research. (While it may not be PC in the USA, and thus progressing very slowly, it's still happening elsewhere in the world.)
The (too) slowly-progressing global awareness of human rights.
Television and the movies as an acceptable medium of artistic expression, and the mainstream presentation of such works in the genre. (Joss Whedon, Tim Kring, Stephen Chbosky, M. Night Shyamalan and John Woo are all examples of famous expressive artists working in the genre of film and tv.)
The USA as a champion of human rights and civil liberties to the rest of the world. Although it may be too late for that, I have hope still.
Those are just some examples...
[QUOTE]Doc,
Believe me, BDW can look after himself without your sycophantic support[/QUOTE]
He did. Albiet by agreeing with me, but still. It is entirely possible that two people share the same views on a subject, and very likely that two people known to be on friendly terms with each other and share some common goals will.
Besides, in the Robin Parsons Stalking thread, Me and TheDoc gave the same support for Gorgeous, just yesterday. It's not a clique thing so much as it is a character trait. He, like me, passionately defends what he sees as right, and certainly no one on this board can criticize him for that. We all do so.
[QUOTE=N O M]We are in a similar situation now with nanotechnology. The enormous effort, time and expense involved in developing this technology is putting off government funding. But the potential advantages it gives an enemy is providing enough incentive to maintain high funding levels. [/QUOTE]
Absolutely. And imagine the non-military advantages that might spring forth from it. It boggles the mind. The combination of stem cell technologies (the cloning and regrowing of organs and tissues which would otherwise be irreplacable) with medical nanotechnology (bacteria-sized machines which can attack or repair specific cells) could be a literal fountain of youth, the holy grail of medicine. The cure for all desease and injury is not quite as unrealistic, or as far ahead of us as we think.
Of course, we'll make up for that lack of suffering in some other field. Look at how america has replaced starvation, murder and accidents with emotional trauma and mental illness. If we're not suffering one way, we'll just suffer another.
[QUOTEyor_on]We writing here lives mostly on top of the food chain using our meager experiences as the ground from were to draw our conclusions.
Tell those tales to a child soldier in Iraq in Africa Afghanistan, *** knows where not...
[/QUOTE]
Well, I understand your point, but I'm not writing from the top of the foodchain. I've delt with Asperger's syndrome, a drug addiction, more violence crime than most (mostly due to my own younger stupidity and growing up in a high-crime area), the deaths of my first girlfriend, two of my close friends, my 6th grade teacher, my favorite uncle and my paternal grandparents. I don't think that qualifies me as pampered, in any way.
Based on that list, you are one hell of an idealist. Can you give me a few examples of you would not want to see changed? Seriously, if this is a good representative sample of what you term realism, then I´m a full-on realist !!
Things I don't want to see changed? Do you mean massive concepts like the existence of war and poverty, or more realistically changed things, on par with what I gave as examples of things I would like to see changed?
If the second, then it's fairly easy to answer.
The (too) slowly-increasing public interest in and awareness of science. (although I would like to see it speed up.)
The exponentially growing rate of technology.
Stem cell research. (While it may not be PC in the USA, and thus progressing very slowly, it's still happening elsewhere in the world.)
The (too) slowly-progressing global awareness of human rights.
Television and the movies as an acceptable medium of artistic expression, and the mainstream presentation of such works in the genre. (Joss Whedon, Tim Kring, Stephen Chbosky, M. Night Shyamalan and John Woo are all examples of famous expressive artists working in the genre of film and tv.)
The USA as a champion of human rights and civil liberties to the rest of the world. Although it may be too late for that, I have hope still.
Those are just some examples...
[QUOTE]Doc,
Believe me, BDW can look after himself without your sycophantic support[/QUOTE]
He did. Albiet by agreeing with me, but still. It is entirely possible that two people share the same views on a subject, and very likely that two people known to be on friendly terms with each other and share some common goals will.
Besides, in the Robin Parsons Stalking thread, Me and TheDoc gave the same support for Gorgeous, just yesterday. It's not a clique thing so much as it is a character trait. He, like me, passionately defends what he sees as right, and certainly no one on this board can criticize him for that. We all do so.
[QUOTE=N O M]We are in a similar situation now with nanotechnology. The enormous effort, time and expense involved in developing this technology is putting off government funding. But the potential advantages it gives an enemy is providing enough incentive to maintain high funding levels. [/QUOTE]
Absolutely. And imagine the non-military advantages that might spring forth from it. It boggles the mind. The combination of stem cell technologies (the cloning and regrowing of organs and tissues which would otherwise be irreplacable) with medical nanotechnology (bacteria-sized machines which can attack or repair specific cells) could be a literal fountain of youth, the holy grail of medicine. The cure for all desease and injury is not quite as unrealistic, or as far ahead of us as we think.
Of course, we'll make up for that lack of suffering in some other field. Look at how america has replaced starvation, murder and accidents with emotional trauma and mental illness. If we're not suffering one way, we'll just suffer another.
[QUOTEyor_on]We writing here lives mostly on top of the food chain using our meager experiences as the ground from were to draw our conclusions.
Tell those tales to a child soldier in Iraq in Africa Afghanistan, *** knows where not...
[/QUOTE]
Well, I understand your point, but I'm not writing from the top of the foodchain. I've delt with Asperger's syndrome, a drug addiction, more violence crime than most (mostly due to my own younger stupidity and growing up in a high-crime area), the deaths of my first girlfriend, two of my close friends, my 6th grade teacher, my favorite uncle and my paternal grandparents. I don't think that qualifies me as pampered, in any way.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
It is entirely possible that two people share the same views on a subject, and very likely that two people known to be on friendly terms with each other and share some common goals will.
Besides, in the Robin Parsons Stalking thread, Me and TheDoc gave the same support for Gorgeous, just yesterday. It's not a clique thing so much as it is a character trait. He, like me, passionately defends what he sees as right, and certainly no one on this board can criticize him for that. We all do so.
Apparently this is beyond the reach of ol' Eddie, who didn't bother to think about that before he posted.
EDIT:
Besides, in the Robin Parsons Stalking thread, Me and TheDoc gave the same support for Gorgeous, just yesterday. It's not a clique thing so much as it is a character trait. He, like me, passionately defends what he sees as right, and certainly no one on this board can criticize him for that. We all do so.
Apparently this is beyond the reach of ol' Eddie, who didn't bother to think about that before he posted.
EDIT:
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
Well, I understand your point, but I'm not writing from the top of the foodchain. I've delt with Asperger's syndrome, a drug addiction, more violence crime than most (mostly due to my own younger stupidity and growing up in a high-crime area), the deaths of my first girlfriend, two of my close friends, my 6th grade teacher, my favorite uncle and my paternal grandparents. I don't think that qualifies me as pampered, in any way.
What HAPPENED?
What HAPPENED?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 19 2008, 06:27 PM)
I've noticed a recent influx of people spouting idealistic views lately, and I would like to create a thread in which they can do so, freely, albeit with the caveat that ANYONE is welcome to present their own views here. I'll start:
I have a problem with idealism. Namely, that it seems to be worthless. Idealists seem to focus on what they think humanity could be, instead of on what humanity is, or what humanity really could be, and yearn for a world that cannot and (in my opinion) should not exist. Even eastern mysticism, which is one of the major influences on the new-age culture in the western world which has spawned so many idealists understands the difference between reality and fantasy. The first step on the road to enlightenment is learning to see the world as it is, and not as you wish it to be. Is meditation, universal love and respect, and emotional self control the only aspects of Buddhism that these people accept?
"If everyone would just get along, the would be no more crime or poverty or hunger."
I hear variations of this all the time, and quite frankly, if that's the only insight all your soul searching has given you, why bother soul searching in the first place? Perhaps some more meditation will reveal to you that you must breathe to survive. Or maybe some advanced hyper-awareness will make it apparent that the sky is blue and grass is green. Of course crime, poverty and hunger would disappear if everyone got along! The whole world would be one big, happy, government-less socialism. That's blatantly obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Why do some people need to meditate and soul-search and engage in social experiments to discover this?
One person recently told me that if all of humanity showed unconditional love to their fellow men, then all the problems in the world would be solved. Well, the problem with that is that if all of humanity was even capable of showing unconditional love for the rest of humanity, there would be no problems to solve in the first place! Another problem is that natural disasters, disease and accidents would still happen. Those are problems. I suppose loving your co-worker will somehow prevent a scaffolding from falling on your head? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think people are even capable of expressing unconditional love for more than a small handful of others. When argued with, the idealists here resort to the same insulting and lying behavior they so often claim to want nothing to do with, and usually even refuse to admit to themselves that they are doing so! Obviously, that's not unconditional love. Love requires more than just affection. It requires trust, and respect. This particular person claims to have unconditional love for everyone, yet clearly neither trusts nor respects me. All I did was disagree, and I've been insulted and lied to as a result. Where is the love in that?
Another such argument was about respect. I was told by someone that they have respect for everyone else, respect based on others simple humanity, not on any abilities, accomplishments, or the character of the person in question. While that was a bit more palatable that the unconditional love spiel, it was still an example of extreme hypocrisy. This same person -when disagreed with- resorted to lying, name-calling, directly insulting and engaging in insulting pop-psychoanalysis of me. How respectful was that? Can you really have respect for someone whom you accuse of being a juvenile-minded, arrogant jerk? If so, then why accuse them of such things in the first place? Not to mention refusing to play by your own stated rules, refusing to admit when you are caught in a lie, and refusing to acknowledge any valid points made by the person with whom you are arguing. There's not a shred of respect in that behavior. Not one little bit. Yet, in this person's mind, I was the arrogant one, the immature one, the hypocritical one.
Then there's the issue of judgment. "Judge not lest ye be judged," and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," are biblical quotes I've seen hurled about on this site since I first arrived here. Well, if you refuse to engage in judgments, then how can you better yourself? You cannot look at someone sliding down a slippery slope and vow not to become that person, because that would entail judging them to be inferior to you in some way. You cannot dismiss the morality of a criminal sociopath because that would be judging his character as inferior to your own. You would be forced to accept as truth anything said to you, and to believe that a sociopathic, murderous pedophile has an equal value to a thoughtful, considerate, philanthropist police officer! Can anyone truly and honestly look into the eyes of a man who just laid down his own life in order to save your life and the lives of your friends and family, and tell him he is worth no more than a man who'd raped and killed a dozen children? That's just ridiculous!
Finally, there are the goals of such idealists. They want to live in a world with no arguments. No wars, no crime, no betrayals, no feuding... Would anyone truly want to live in such a world for more than a few hours?
"All great art is born of suffering."
"Adversity breeds determination, impossibility breeds ingenuity, and conflict breeds strength."
"No pain, no gain."
"You must pay your dues before you reap the rewards."
The English language is replete with saying that equate hardship with benefit. Do they all have no basis whatsoever? What would the world be like if there were nothing but love for all of mankind? Would mankind have developed the chariot? No. Would mankind have developed charity and government? No. None of these things would have been needed. Ok, so that's not such a big loss, but what about art and culture? What would the epic poetry of our history be about, if not about adversity and conflict? What would Edgar Allen Poe, Shakespeare or Vincent Van Gogh have done with their lives, absent the suffering that led them to their art? How many fewer clean-operating nuclear reactors, and how many more carbon-spewing coal and natural gas power plants would there be if we had not developed the nuclear bomb? How structurally sound would buildings be, if we had not invented steel for our swords?
Who would our heroes be?
That's not a world in which I want to live. A Utopian society is a stagnant and meaningless society. I for one, prefer to live in this world, full of hurt and suffering as it may be, for it is in this world that I can grow. It is in this world that I can overcome adversity, achieve victory in conflict, compare myself favorably with the criminal element and strive to be more like my heroes. Pain, suffering, hunger, strife, war, famine, betrayal, poverty, disease, bad luck: These are the foods of the human soul, and without them, we will most assuredly wither and die.
Hi BDW, (You're not just a BDW, are you?
)
I think this is a great assessment. And is also much of the reason why I, personally, like to study/uncover-more-about existentialism (the Reality of how things necessarily 'work').
It is apparent that there is no such thing as 'perfection'. Not because I say so, but because it CANNOT exist in an environment that is constantly changing. The moment any level is 'attained', it must change with the natural laws of motion.
That, really, is the existential basis of idealism being a misnomer. Psychologically, the reasons are many-fold, because people are unique aspects of the same thing (life/existence).
'Idealism' is, then, the 'subjective' view. As such, it cannot represent the 'Objectivity' of the Reality we must exist within.
Everybody would like to live 'nice', 'happy' lives, and we strive for these 'achievements', but we will never be able to live like this on a permanent basis, as this is NOT the Reality of how things exist. The best Humans can possibly attain is an agreement within themselves and each other, and even such agreements are temporary also.
This 'unconditional love' is also another 'unattainable perfection-state', and correlates with many other forms of 'perfection' that Humans are reluctant to let go of; 'nothingness', and even 'god', are among many others. The only possible way of understanding these 'states' is from a REAL perspective: Why do we think of such things at all? Is it just another attempt at escape from the inevitable? Besides which, 'unconditional love' is actually not 'good' for much of anything! These people are simply arm-wavers, 'emotionalists' who are not balanced with logical correlation of thought. However much 'nicety' we would wish for, it is clearly something that Humans have to work extremely hard for. If we just give people things, we create a whole lot of 'takers', unconsciously, despite our 'good' intentions.
The REAL perspective is what 'science' is designed to uncover (and is also why 'psychology' is most definitely a science!). Those opposed to this uncovering of the REAL, will do so because they fear it. No other reason. NOM's remark in the 'sad news' thread is apt..."I don't actually find it sad when someone dies who has lead a long life to the full." I agree with this, wholeheartedly! - And thus I think that the idealist approach is limited to searching for ways in which we can all enjoy the 'leading of a long life to the full'. 'Tragedy' is also a part of the life-experience, and we can limit this tragedy only to a certain degree. 'Life' is much bigger than just us, or our opinions, and we must get it in perspective in order to truly understand it.
Perhaps an altogether more sensible approach may be to see existence itself as the 'ideal', whatever it throws at us? After all, if we have a mind to learn, any experience becomes an opportunity to advance our understanding...
If only the 'Lovies' could see past their own self-righteous and unbalanced blindness, they would also be able to have constructive conversations such as this. Well done to you, BDW!
g.
I have a problem with idealism. Namely, that it seems to be worthless. Idealists seem to focus on what they think humanity could be, instead of on what humanity is, or what humanity really could be, and yearn for a world that cannot and (in my opinion) should not exist. Even eastern mysticism, which is one of the major influences on the new-age culture in the western world which has spawned so many idealists understands the difference between reality and fantasy. The first step on the road to enlightenment is learning to see the world as it is, and not as you wish it to be. Is meditation, universal love and respect, and emotional self control the only aspects of Buddhism that these people accept?
"If everyone would just get along, the would be no more crime or poverty or hunger."
I hear variations of this all the time, and quite frankly, if that's the only insight all your soul searching has given you, why bother soul searching in the first place? Perhaps some more meditation will reveal to you that you must breathe to survive. Or maybe some advanced hyper-awareness will make it apparent that the sky is blue and grass is green. Of course crime, poverty and hunger would disappear if everyone got along! The whole world would be one big, happy, government-less socialism. That's blatantly obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Why do some people need to meditate and soul-search and engage in social experiments to discover this?
One person recently told me that if all of humanity showed unconditional love to their fellow men, then all the problems in the world would be solved. Well, the problem with that is that if all of humanity was even capable of showing unconditional love for the rest of humanity, there would be no problems to solve in the first place! Another problem is that natural disasters, disease and accidents would still happen. Those are problems. I suppose loving your co-worker will somehow prevent a scaffolding from falling on your head? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think people are even capable of expressing unconditional love for more than a small handful of others. When argued with, the idealists here resort to the same insulting and lying behavior they so often claim to want nothing to do with, and usually even refuse to admit to themselves that they are doing so! Obviously, that's not unconditional love. Love requires more than just affection. It requires trust, and respect. This particular person claims to have unconditional love for everyone, yet clearly neither trusts nor respects me. All I did was disagree, and I've been insulted and lied to as a result. Where is the love in that?
Another such argument was about respect. I was told by someone that they have respect for everyone else, respect based on others simple humanity, not on any abilities, accomplishments, or the character of the person in question. While that was a bit more palatable that the unconditional love spiel, it was still an example of extreme hypocrisy. This same person -when disagreed with- resorted to lying, name-calling, directly insulting and engaging in insulting pop-psychoanalysis of me. How respectful was that? Can you really have respect for someone whom you accuse of being a juvenile-minded, arrogant jerk? If so, then why accuse them of such things in the first place? Not to mention refusing to play by your own stated rules, refusing to admit when you are caught in a lie, and refusing to acknowledge any valid points made by the person with whom you are arguing. There's not a shred of respect in that behavior. Not one little bit. Yet, in this person's mind, I was the arrogant one, the immature one, the hypocritical one.
Then there's the issue of judgment. "Judge not lest ye be judged," and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," are biblical quotes I've seen hurled about on this site since I first arrived here. Well, if you refuse to engage in judgments, then how can you better yourself? You cannot look at someone sliding down a slippery slope and vow not to become that person, because that would entail judging them to be inferior to you in some way. You cannot dismiss the morality of a criminal sociopath because that would be judging his character as inferior to your own. You would be forced to accept as truth anything said to you, and to believe that a sociopathic, murderous pedophile has an equal value to a thoughtful, considerate, philanthropist police officer! Can anyone truly and honestly look into the eyes of a man who just laid down his own life in order to save your life and the lives of your friends and family, and tell him he is worth no more than a man who'd raped and killed a dozen children? That's just ridiculous!
Finally, there are the goals of such idealists. They want to live in a world with no arguments. No wars, no crime, no betrayals, no feuding... Would anyone truly want to live in such a world for more than a few hours?
"All great art is born of suffering."
"Adversity breeds determination, impossibility breeds ingenuity, and conflict breeds strength."
"No pain, no gain."
"You must pay your dues before you reap the rewards."
The English language is replete with saying that equate hardship with benefit. Do they all have no basis whatsoever? What would the world be like if there were nothing but love for all of mankind? Would mankind have developed the chariot? No. Would mankind have developed charity and government? No. None of these things would have been needed. Ok, so that's not such a big loss, but what about art and culture? What would the epic poetry of our history be about, if not about adversity and conflict? What would Edgar Allen Poe, Shakespeare or Vincent Van Gogh have done with their lives, absent the suffering that led them to their art? How many fewer clean-operating nuclear reactors, and how many more carbon-spewing coal and natural gas power plants would there be if we had not developed the nuclear bomb? How structurally sound would buildings be, if we had not invented steel for our swords?
Who would our heroes be?
That's not a world in which I want to live. A Utopian society is a stagnant and meaningless society. I for one, prefer to live in this world, full of hurt and suffering as it may be, for it is in this world that I can grow. It is in this world that I can overcome adversity, achieve victory in conflict, compare myself favorably with the criminal element and strive to be more like my heroes. Pain, suffering, hunger, strife, war, famine, betrayal, poverty, disease, bad luck: These are the foods of the human soul, and without them, we will most assuredly wither and die.
Hi BDW, (You're not just a BDW, are you?
)I think this is a great assessment. And is also much of the reason why I, personally, like to study/uncover-more-about existentialism (the Reality of how things necessarily 'work').
It is apparent that there is no such thing as 'perfection'. Not because I say so, but because it CANNOT exist in an environment that is constantly changing. The moment any level is 'attained', it must change with the natural laws of motion.
That, really, is the existential basis of idealism being a misnomer. Psychologically, the reasons are many-fold, because people are unique aspects of the same thing (life/existence).
'Idealism' is, then, the 'subjective' view. As such, it cannot represent the 'Objectivity' of the Reality we must exist within.
Everybody would like to live 'nice', 'happy' lives, and we strive for these 'achievements', but we will never be able to live like this on a permanent basis, as this is NOT the Reality of how things exist. The best Humans can possibly attain is an agreement within themselves and each other, and even such agreements are temporary also.
This 'unconditional love' is also another 'unattainable perfection-state', and correlates with many other forms of 'perfection' that Humans are reluctant to let go of; 'nothingness', and even 'god', are among many others. The only possible way of understanding these 'states' is from a REAL perspective: Why do we think of such things at all? Is it just another attempt at escape from the inevitable? Besides which, 'unconditional love' is actually not 'good' for much of anything! These people are simply arm-wavers, 'emotionalists' who are not balanced with logical correlation of thought. However much 'nicety' we would wish for, it is clearly something that Humans have to work extremely hard for. If we just give people things, we create a whole lot of 'takers', unconsciously, despite our 'good' intentions.
The REAL perspective is what 'science' is designed to uncover (and is also why 'psychology' is most definitely a science!). Those opposed to this uncovering of the REAL, will do so because they fear it. No other reason. NOM's remark in the 'sad news' thread is apt..."I don't actually find it sad when someone dies who has lead a long life to the full." I agree with this, wholeheartedly! - And thus I think that the idealist approach is limited to searching for ways in which we can all enjoy the 'leading of a long life to the full'. 'Tragedy' is also a part of the life-experience, and we can limit this tragedy only to a certain degree. 'Life' is much bigger than just us, or our opinions, and we must get it in perspective in order to truly understand it.
Perhaps an altogether more sensible approach may be to see existence itself as the 'ideal', whatever it throws at us? After all, if we have a mind to learn, any experience becomes an opportunity to advance our understanding...
If only the 'Lovies' could see past their own self-righteous and unbalanced blindness, they would also be able to have constructive conversations such as this. Well done to you, BDW!
g.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 19 2008, 08:15 PM)
What HAPPENED?
In the same order:
Auto accident
Murdered (friend 1)
Suicide (friend 2)
Medulloblastoma (brain cancer)
Lung Cancer
Fire (both grandparents)
In the same order:
Auto accident
Murdered (friend 1)
Suicide (friend 2)
Medulloblastoma (brain cancer)
Lung Cancer
Fire (both grandparents)
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
Perhaps an altogether more sensible approach may be to see existence itself as the 'ideal', whatever it throws at us?
That's exactly my position.
I couldn't agree more. For all of the idealism I've seen, I've yet to see a single person live up to their own ideals. This does not apply to high-level Buddhists, however. They may seem like idealists at first glance, but they are completely aware of the reality of human life and the world around us, and seek to do the most good within that world, rather than trying to change the world to suit them.
I couldn't agree more. For all of the idealism I've seen, I've yet to see a single person live up to their own ideals. This does not apply to high-level Buddhists, however. They may seem like idealists at first glance, but they are completely aware of the reality of human life and the world around us, and seek to do the most good within that world, rather than trying to change the world to suit them.
This 'unconditional love' is also another 'unattainable perfection-state', and correlates with many other forms of 'perfection' that Humans are reluctant to let go of; 'nothingness', and even 'god', are among many others. The only possible way of understanding these 'states' is from a REAL perspective: Why do we think of such things at all? Is it just another attempt at escape from the inevitable? Besides which, 'unconditional love' is actually not 'good' for much of anything! These people are simply arm-wavers, 'emotionalists' who are not balanced with logical correlation of thought. However much 'nicety' we would wish for, it is clearly something that Humans have to work extremely hard for. If we just give people things, we create a whole lot of 'takers', unconsciously, despite our 'good' intentions.
This is a very salient point. Without incorporating logical thought processes into one's emotional life, one is allowing themselves to become an emotional whirlwind. Being able to love and joy without restraint can be quite nice, but without logic, one also feels anger and hatred and jealousy without restraint. One would bounce back and forth between various feelings about their wife, for instance. When you come home from work to find her in slinky lingerie, giving you a come-hither look, you feel unbridled physical attraction for her. Later that night as you cuddle on the couch, you feel unbridled love for her. The next morning when she asks you if she looks fat in some dress, and you say no, only to have her accuse you of lying to keep her from flying off the handle, you feel unbridled anger at her. Is that really love? Can one even call the way they feel about someone "love" if there's no consistency to it? I know from my own personal experience that even when I get angry at my girlfriend and yell at her and tell her to shut the f**k up, I still feel bad almost as soon as the words are out of my mouth, no matter how justified I may have been in saying them. I know that no matter how angry at her I get, I don't want to break up, I don't want to call up one of my exes and "blow off some steam, hehe" and I don't want to hurt her. That, to me is real love. This emotional roller coaster that so many people have pertaining to their spouses is not love. It's "sometimes love," and what gets me is the way love (even "sometimes love") can magnify any other emotion, including anger. Ever notice that most crimes of passion are committed by highly emotional people? Why would you want to have the type of emotional behavior that can lead you to murder the one you "sometimes love" the most?
That's exactly my position.
QUOTE
If only the 'Lovies' could see past their own self-righteous and unbalanced blindness, they would also be able to have constructive conversations such as this.
I couldn't agree more. For all of the idealism I've seen, I've yet to see a single person live up to their own ideals. This does not apply to high-level Buddhists, however. They may seem like idealists at first glance, but they are completely aware of the reality of human life and the world around us, and seek to do the most good within that world, rather than trying to change the world to suit them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If only the 'Lovies' could see past their own self-righteous and unbalanced blindness, they would also be able to have constructive conversations such as this. |
I couldn't agree more. For all of the idealism I've seen, I've yet to see a single person live up to their own ideals. This does not apply to high-level Buddhists, however. They may seem like idealists at first glance, but they are completely aware of the reality of human life and the world around us, and seek to do the most good within that world, rather than trying to change the world to suit them.
This 'unconditional love' is also another 'unattainable perfection-state', and correlates with many other forms of 'perfection' that Humans are reluctant to let go of; 'nothingness', and even 'god', are among many others. The only possible way of understanding these 'states' is from a REAL perspective: Why do we think of such things at all? Is it just another attempt at escape from the inevitable? Besides which, 'unconditional love' is actually not 'good' for much of anything! These people are simply arm-wavers, 'emotionalists' who are not balanced with logical correlation of thought. However much 'nicety' we would wish for, it is clearly something that Humans have to work extremely hard for. If we just give people things, we create a whole lot of 'takers', unconsciously, despite our 'good' intentions.
This is a very salient point. Without incorporating logical thought processes into one's emotional life, one is allowing themselves to become an emotional whirlwind. Being able to love and joy without restraint can be quite nice, but without logic, one also feels anger and hatred and jealousy without restraint. One would bounce back and forth between various feelings about their wife, for instance. When you come home from work to find her in slinky lingerie, giving you a come-hither look, you feel unbridled physical attraction for her. Later that night as you cuddle on the couch, you feel unbridled love for her. The next morning when she asks you if she looks fat in some dress, and you say no, only to have her accuse you of lying to keep her from flying off the handle, you feel unbridled anger at her. Is that really love? Can one even call the way they feel about someone "love" if there's no consistency to it? I know from my own personal experience that even when I get angry at my girlfriend and yell at her and tell her to shut the f**k up, I still feel bad almost as soon as the words are out of my mouth, no matter how justified I may have been in saying them. I know that no matter how angry at her I get, I don't want to break up, I don't want to call up one of my exes and "blow off some steam, hehe" and I don't want to hurt her. That, to me is real love. This emotional roller coaster that so many people have pertaining to their spouses is not love. It's "sometimes love," and what gets me is the way love (even "sometimes love") can magnify any other emotion, including anger. Ever notice that most crimes of passion are committed by highly emotional people? Why would you want to have the type of emotional behavior that can lead you to murder the one you "sometimes love" the most?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
In the same order:
Auto accident
Murdered (friend 1)
Suicide (friend 2)
Medulloblastoma (brain cancer)
Lung Cancer
Fire (both grandparents)
My sympathies, BDW.
Excellently said.
Auto accident
Murdered (friend 1)
Suicide (friend 2)
Medulloblastoma (brain cancer)
Lung Cancer
Fire (both grandparents)
My sympathies, BDW.
QUOTE
I know from my own personal experience that even when I get angry at my girlfriend and yell at her and tell her to shut the f**k up, I still feel bad almost as soon as the words are out of my mouth, no matter how justified I may have been in saying them. I know that no matter how angry at her I get, I don't want to break up, I don't want to call up one of my exes and "blow off some steam, hehe" and I don't want to hurt her. That, to me is real love.
Excellently said.
Doc,
You want to know why I don´t respond to what you say ? - Simple, you havn´t actually said anything , you just parrot other people´s contributions.
BDW,
Sorry for not responding sooner - a major thunderstorm across the south of Spain put me offline. I am still not clear what it is about idealism that has provoked your starting this thread - when I asked you for a few examples of what you would not want to see changed, you actually provided a supplementary list of more of the things you would like to change.
I actually checked the definition of the word "idealism" and the following is from the O.E.D - " the practice of forming or pursuing ideals, especially unrealistically" Now, I wonder if a few of your goals, like serious reform within the RC church, are not drifting seriously close to idealism.
regards
"Eddie"
You want to know why I don´t respond to what you say ? - Simple, you havn´t actually said anything , you just parrot other people´s contributions.
BDW,
Sorry for not responding sooner - a major thunderstorm across the south of Spain put me offline. I am still not clear what it is about idealism that has provoked your starting this thread - when I asked you for a few examples of what you would not want to see changed, you actually provided a supplementary list of more of the things you would like to change.
I actually checked the definition of the word "idealism" and the following is from the O.E.D - " the practice of forming or pursuing ideals, especially unrealistically" Now, I wonder if a few of your goals, like serious reform within the RC church, are not drifting seriously close to idealism.
regards
"Eddie"
QUOTE (Edward 3+)
Doc,
You want to know why I don´t respond to what you say ? - Simple, you havn´t actually said anything , you just parrot other people´s contributions.
No, I just share many of the same feelings as BDW. He already explained this:
You want to know why I don´t respond to what you say ? - Simple, you havn´t actually said anything , you just parrot other people´s contributions.
No, I just share many of the same feelings as BDW. He already explained this:
QUOTE (BDW+)
He did. Albiet by agreeing with me, but still. It is entirely possible that two people share the same views on a subject, and very likely that two people known to be on friendly terms with each other and share some common goals will.
Besides, in the Robin Parsons Stalking thread, Me and TheDoc gave the same support for Gorgeous, just yesterday. It's not a clique thing so much as it is a character trait. He, like me, passionately defends what he sees as right, and certainly no one on this board can criticize him for that. We all do so.
But since you're probably so narrow-minded and entrenched in your views of "If you agree with him you're a parrot!" I doubt you'd understand it.
Besides, in the Robin Parsons Stalking thread, Me and TheDoc gave the same support for Gorgeous, just yesterday. It's not a clique thing so much as it is a character trait. He, like me, passionately defends what he sees as right, and certainly no one on this board can criticize him for that. We all do so.
But since you're probably so narrow-minded and entrenched in your views of "If you agree with him you're a parrot!" I doubt you'd understand it.
Edit.
I am not able to fully get my mind around this topic as I am not really sure what Idealism means. Are good ideas that are completely disconnected from reality called Idealism?
Taking the "Universal love" example you mentioned. "If everyone would just get along, there would be no more crime or poverty or hunger." It is clearly not realistic to expect everyone in the world to "just get along", when we have difficulty in getting along with our own spouse or siblings or parents. According to Dawkins (The Selfish Gene), we are most altruistic towards those with whom we share the most genes. It implies we would need to do "unnatural" behavioral changes to be altruistic towards a person say from another country. It is natural to expect to protect our own interests first.
So what is idealism? It seems idealistic say for people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to donate a large portion of their fortune towards curing Aids. Why would these men want to "waste" their hard earned fortunes on something that wouldn't benefit them in any way?
Some people write free open source software. Is it just some sort of job satisfaction that motivates these people? Why would these guys spend huge amounts of effort on something that is not beneficial to them? Why should people get anything Free? Is that idealistic?
how about tree huggers or animal rights activists? Realistically, probably more trees get destroyed and more animals die from natural disasters than those the tree huggers/animal rights activists are able to save. So should people stop hugging trees and saving animals from cruelty?
It is true that a large percentage of scientific research is motivated by military needs. The Internet on which you are reading this post is derived from Arpanet, a military project. It is also true that a huge percentage of the budgets of almost every country is spent towards defense. This includes weapon stockpiles, research, training personnel, fleets of ships and aircraft, which are idle when there are no wars. It is true that even a small percentage of this money if used towards eradicating disease or hunger or education can do a whole lot of good.
So what is idealism? Is it idealistic for a man to serve his country by joining the military? It would seem that way since it is hardly realistic to put your life in danger to serve your country or your unit. It seems definitely something more than cool rational calculation.
Recently in Berkley California, the liberal or idealistic city council told Army recruiters that they are not welcome in that city and preferred that they left. Seems highly unrealistic action to me.
It seems impossible to be completely realistic. There has to be a balance. Someone on Physorg has something like this on their signature -
"Schrodinger's voter. I am both liberal and conservative until you ask me a specific question".
I am somewhat like this when it comes to Idealism and Reality.
Taking the "Universal love" example you mentioned. "If everyone would just get along, there would be no more crime or poverty or hunger." It is clearly not realistic to expect everyone in the world to "just get along", when we have difficulty in getting along with our own spouse or siblings or parents. According to Dawkins (The Selfish Gene), we are most altruistic towards those with whom we share the most genes. It implies we would need to do "unnatural" behavioral changes to be altruistic towards a person say from another country. It is natural to expect to protect our own interests first.
So what is idealism? It seems idealistic say for people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to donate a large portion of their fortune towards curing Aids. Why would these men want to "waste" their hard earned fortunes on something that wouldn't benefit them in any way?
Some people write free open source software. Is it just some sort of job satisfaction that motivates these people? Why would these guys spend huge amounts of effort on something that is not beneficial to them? Why should people get anything Free? Is that idealistic?
how about tree huggers or animal rights activists? Realistically, probably more trees get destroyed and more animals die from natural disasters than those the tree huggers/animal rights activists are able to save. So should people stop hugging trees and saving animals from cruelty?
It is true that a large percentage of scientific research is motivated by military needs. The Internet on which you are reading this post is derived from Arpanet, a military project. It is also true that a huge percentage of the budgets of almost every country is spent towards defense. This includes weapon stockpiles, research, training personnel, fleets of ships and aircraft, which are idle when there are no wars. It is true that even a small percentage of this money if used towards eradicating disease or hunger or education can do a whole lot of good.
So what is idealism? Is it idealistic for a man to serve his country by joining the military? It would seem that way since it is hardly realistic to put your life in danger to serve your country or your unit. It seems definitely something more than cool rational calculation.
Recently in Berkley California, the liberal or idealistic city council told Army recruiters that they are not welcome in that city and preferred that they left. Seems highly unrealistic action to me.
It seems impossible to be completely realistic. There has to be a balance. Someone on Physorg has something like this on their signature -
"Schrodinger's voter. I am both liberal and conservative until you ask me a specific question".
I am somewhat like this when it comes to Idealism and Reality.
Idealism is fine and noble, but it is still wise to carry a gun.
Doc,
If you post ideas of your own I will respond - but if you simply say - in respect to other people´s posts -"I agree with him ", I will respond to the original post. Why should I deal with poor imitation when I can address the original?
edward 3
If you post ideas of your own I will respond - but if you simply say - in respect to other people´s posts -"I agree with him ", I will respond to the original post. Why should I deal with poor imitation when I can address the original?
edward 3
QUOTE (Edward-3+Mar 20 2008, 07:49 PM)
Doc,
If you post ideas of your own I will respond - but if you simply say - in respect to other people´s posts -"I agree with him ", I will respond to the original post. Why should I deal with poor imitation when I can address the original?
edward-3
If you post ideas of your own I will respond - but if you simply say - in respect to other people´s posts -"I agree with him ", I will respond to the original post. Why should I deal with poor imitation when I can address the original?
edward-3
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 20 2008, 01:38 PM)
I am still not clear what it is about idealism that has provoked your starting this thread
The fact that it's so far removed from reality, and that it's so often presented here.
No. You need to read the whole thing. Just because I'd like to change the speed at which the public is becoming aware of science doesn't mean I would like to see the fact that the public is becoming aware of science change. And why would you assume I'd want to slow down the growth rate of new technologies?
No. You need to read the whole thing. Just because I'd like to change the speed at which the public is becoming aware of science doesn't mean I would like to see the fact that the public is becoming aware of science change. And why would you assume I'd want to slow down the growth rate of new technologies?
I actually checked the definition of the word "idealism" and the following is from the O.E.D - " the practice of forming or pursuing ideals, especially unrealistically"
I took the liberty of bolding the key portion of this quote.
The Church has reformed itself on many issues many times in the past. The spherical earth, evolution, their treatment of pagans... Why must a complete reform be a single, distinct event? I always imagine it as an on-going process, albeit one far far faster than was has happened, thus far.
The Church has reformed itself on many issues many times in the past. The spherical earth, evolution, their treatment of pagans... Why must a complete reform be a single, distinct event? I always imagine it as an on-going process, albeit one far far faster than was has happened, thus far.
I am not able to fully get my mind around this topic as I am not really sure what Idealism means. Are good ideas that are completely disconnected from reality called Idealism?
Well, how can an idea be any good if it's completely disconnected from reality?
What about the tax write-off? When you make that much money, keeping your money is less important than avoiding paying taxes on it. That's why so many large companies donate so much to charity. Also there's the prestige and advertising. I know a few people who would buy Windows Vista, just because Bill donated so much money to charity. I know a lot of people who would tell him what a great guy he is for doing so, as well. Never underestimate the allure of a good ego-rub.
What about the tax write-off? When you make that much money, keeping your money is less important than avoiding paying taxes on it. That's why so many large companies donate so much to charity. Also there's the prestige and advertising. I know a few people who would buy Windows Vista, just because Bill donated so much money to charity. I know a lot of people who would tell him what a great guy he is for doing so, as well. Never underestimate the allure of a good ego-rub.
Some people write free open source software. Is it just some sort of job satisfaction that motivates these people? Why would these guys spend huge amounts of effort on something that is not beneficial to them? Why should people get anything Free? Is that idealistic?
Why did hackers in the late 80's and early 90's hack into government and corporate computer systems? There was little money to be made for all but the very best, and even then, criminal connections (the kind most hackers wouldn't have had) would have been needed to capitalize on it. Then there's acting on principles. It's not quite the same thing as idealism, but it's quite similar. And then there's idealism. Yep, some people who make open source software are convinced that if they just program enough of it, the whole software industry will collapse and everyone will get Halo 7: Master Sargent Meets Godzilla free from your 'local' website. Those people are just as wrong as the tree-hugging hippies.
Most of them are idealists, yes. Not all. Most, though. And as you pointed out, more animals die from accidents than they can save. There's no real point to such low-level animal activism, and it becomes downright harmful when you consider eco-terrorism. Do you want to save the spotted Brazilian squirrel? Save the whole rainforest, not just the spotted Brazilian squirrel.
Most of them are idealists, yes. Not all. Most, though. And as you pointed out, more animals die from accidents than they can save. There's no real point to such low-level animal activism, and it becomes downright harmful when you consider eco-terrorism. Do you want to save the spotted Brazilian squirrel? Save the whole rainforest, not just the spotted Brazilian squirrel.
So what is idealism?
As I said before, the specific form of idealism I have a problem with is those who think they have "The Answers." People who think that human life is less important than animal life fit in there, too. Gene Roddenberry was an idealist of the type I despise, but fortunately for him, he was a wonderfully imaginative storyteller, to the extent that that trait made up for his idealism, to a great degree. Timothy Leary was an idealist. "Make love, not war" hippies are idealists.
Anyone who thinks they know how to end worldwide problems if they can just get enough people to listen to them, basically.
Only in the broader sense of the word. I did that, but you must keep in mind: Few people join the military JUST for the opportunity to serve their country. Some enlist to avoid being drafted, some to avoid jail time, some for the money, some because they have something to prove, some for the real-world experience, some for the opportunity to kill people legally... I didn't just join because my principles told me it would be a good and honorable thing to do, I did it for money and to prove something, as well.
Only in the broader sense of the word. I did that, but you must keep in mind: Few people join the military JUST for the opportunity to serve their country. Some enlist to avoid being drafted, some to avoid jail time, some for the money, some because they have something to prove, some for the real-world experience, some for the opportunity to kill people legally... I didn't just join because my principles told me it would be a good and honorable thing to do, I did it for money and to prove something, as well.
Recently in Berkley California, the liberal or idealistic city council told Army recruiters that they are not welcome in that city and preferred that they left. Seems highly unrealistic action to me.
It seems that way to me, too. Of course, the army recruiters are among the most determined, ruthless salesmen in the world, but regulation could have fixed that. This idealistic city council never stopped to think about that, they just decided to ban them, the hallmark of harmful idealism.
Of course, I'm not advocating the abandoning of all emotion and turning ourselves completely over to the rule of logic, that in itself would be idealistic to the extreme. I'm saying the same thing you just did: You can try to change the world all you want. Good luck to you. But you MUST understand the way the world is, the way the world works, and the fact that there is no higher power guiding us (even the bible doesn't claim that God controls or even directly influences our lives.) and putting right the wrongs in the word before you'll be able to know how to accomplish that change.
The fact that it's so far removed from reality, and that it's so often presented here.
QUOTE
when I asked you for a few examples of what you would not want to see changed, you actually provided a supplementary list of more of the things you would like to change.
No. You need to read the whole thing. Just because I'd like to change the speed at which the public is becoming aware of science doesn't mean I would like to see the fact that the public is becoming aware of science change. And why would you assume I'd want to slow down the growth rate of new technologies?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| when I asked you for a few examples of what you would not want to see changed, you actually provided a supplementary list of more of the things you would like to change. |
No. You need to read the whole thing. Just because I'd like to change the speed at which the public is becoming aware of science doesn't mean I would like to see the fact that the public is becoming aware of science change. And why would you assume I'd want to slow down the growth rate of new technologies?
I actually checked the definition of the word "idealism" and the following is from the O.E.D - " the practice of forming or pursuing ideals, especially unrealistically"
I took the liberty of bolding the key portion of this quote.
QUOTE
Now, I wonder if a few of your goals, like serious reform within the RC church, are not drifting seriously close to idealism.
The Church has reformed itself on many issues many times in the past. The spherical earth, evolution, their treatment of pagans... Why must a complete reform be a single, distinct event? I always imagine it as an on-going process, albeit one far far faster than was has happened, thus far.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now, I wonder if a few of your goals, like serious reform within the RC church, are not drifting seriously close to idealism. |
The Church has reformed itself on many issues many times in the past. The spherical earth, evolution, their treatment of pagans... Why must a complete reform be a single, distinct event? I always imagine it as an on-going process, albeit one far far faster than was has happened, thus far.
I am not able to fully get my mind around this topic as I am not really sure what Idealism means. Are good ideas that are completely disconnected from reality called Idealism?
Well, how can an idea be any good if it's completely disconnected from reality?
QUOTE
So what is idealism? It seems idealistic say for people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to donate a large portion of their fortune towards curing Aids. Why would these men want to "waste" their hard earned fortunes on something that wouldn't benefit them in any way?
What about the tax write-off? When you make that much money, keeping your money is less important than avoiding paying taxes on it. That's why so many large companies donate so much to charity. Also there's the prestige and advertising. I know a few people who would buy Windows Vista, just because Bill donated so much money to charity. I know a lot of people who would tell him what a great guy he is for doing so, as well. Never underestimate the allure of a good ego-rub.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So what is idealism? It seems idealistic say for people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet to donate a large portion of their fortune towards curing Aids. Why would these men want to "waste" their hard earned fortunes on something that wouldn't benefit them in any way? |
What about the tax write-off? When you make that much money, keeping your money is less important than avoiding paying taxes on it. That's why so many large companies donate so much to charity. Also there's the prestige and advertising. I know a few people who would buy Windows Vista, just because Bill donated so much money to charity. I know a lot of people who would tell him what a great guy he is for doing so, as well. Never underestimate the allure of a good ego-rub.
Some people write free open source software. Is it just some sort of job satisfaction that motivates these people? Why would these guys spend huge amounts of effort on something that is not beneficial to them? Why should people get anything Free? Is that idealistic?
Why did hackers in the late 80's and early 90's hack into government and corporate computer systems? There was little money to be made for all but the very best, and even then, criminal connections (the kind most hackers wouldn't have had) would have been needed to capitalize on it. Then there's acting on principles. It's not quite the same thing as idealism, but it's quite similar. And then there's idealism. Yep, some people who make open source software are convinced that if they just program enough of it, the whole software industry will collapse and everyone will get Halo 7: Master Sargent Meets Godzilla free from your 'local' website. Those people are just as wrong as the tree-hugging hippies.
QUOTE
how about tree huggers or animal rights activists? Realistically, probably more trees get destroyed and more animals die from natural disasters than those the tree huggers/animal rights activists are able to save. So should people stop hugging trees and saving animals from cruelty?
Most of them are idealists, yes. Not all. Most, though. And as you pointed out, more animals die from accidents than they can save. There's no real point to such low-level animal activism, and it becomes downright harmful when you consider eco-terrorism. Do you want to save the spotted Brazilian squirrel? Save the whole rainforest, not just the spotted Brazilian squirrel.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| how about tree huggers or animal rights activists? Realistically, probably more trees get destroyed and more animals die from natural disasters than those the tree huggers/animal rights activists are able to save. So should people stop hugging trees and saving animals from cruelty? |
Most of them are idealists, yes. Not all. Most, though. And as you pointed out, more animals die from accidents than they can save. There's no real point to such low-level animal activism, and it becomes downright harmful when you consider eco-terrorism. Do you want to save the spotted Brazilian squirrel? Save the whole rainforest, not just the spotted Brazilian squirrel.
So what is idealism?
As I said before, the specific form of idealism I have a problem with is those who think they have "The Answers." People who think that human life is less important than animal life fit in there, too. Gene Roddenberry was an idealist of the type I despise, but fortunately for him, he was a wonderfully imaginative storyteller, to the extent that that trait made up for his idealism, to a great degree. Timothy Leary was an idealist. "Make love, not war" hippies are idealists.
Anyone who thinks they know how to end worldwide problems if they can just get enough people to listen to them, basically.
QUOTE
Is it idealistic for a man to serve his country by joining the military?
Only in the broader sense of the word. I did that, but you must keep in mind: Few people join the military JUST for the opportunity to serve their country. Some enlist to avoid being drafted, some to avoid jail time, some for the money, some because they have something to prove, some for the real-world experience, some for the opportunity to kill people legally... I didn't just join because my principles told me it would be a good and honorable thing to do, I did it for money and to prove something, as well.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is it idealistic for a man to serve his country by joining the military? |
Only in the broader sense of the word. I did that, but you must keep in mind: Few people join the military JUST for the opportunity to serve their country. Some enlist to avoid being drafted, some to avoid jail time, some for the money, some because they have something to prove, some for the real-world experience, some for the opportunity to kill people legally... I didn't just join because my principles told me it would be a good and honorable thing to do, I did it for money and to prove something, as well.
Recently in Berkley California, the liberal or idealistic city council told Army recruiters that they are not welcome in that city and preferred that they left. Seems highly unrealistic action to me.
It seems that way to me, too. Of course, the army recruiters are among the most determined, ruthless salesmen in the world, but regulation could have fixed that. This idealistic city council never stopped to think about that, they just decided to ban them, the hallmark of harmful idealism.
QUOTE
It seems impossible to be completely realistic. There has to be a balance.
Of course, I'm not advocating the abandoning of all emotion and turning ourselves completely over to the rule of logic, that in itself would be idealistic to the extreme. I'm saying the same thing you just did: You can try to change the world all you want. Good luck to you. But you MUST understand the way the world is, the way the world works, and the fact that there is no higher power guiding us (even the bible doesn't claim that God controls or even directly influences our lives.) and putting right the wrongs in the word before you'll be able to know how to accomplish that change.
Hi BDW,
Seriously - I asked you for lists of what you wanted to see changed and what you wanted not to change - I have read and re-read both responses carefully and the two lists are not contradictory - they compliment each other. I think you came close to cracking the issue in your last post. Think of , for example, the objective of eliminating hunger. By our agreed definitions this is an ideal - but it does not fall outside the domain of what is realistic - there is more than enough food to feed the entire world population - it is merely not likely to be achieved in the immediate future - for a variety of reasons of which we are all aware. So , we should make every effort to address the problem by incremental steps - that is realism. But we should not lose sight of the ultimate goal , albeit, for now, an idealistic one.
Perhaps what you define as Realism - and I agree with all of your objectives - is merely a more practical approach towards an Ideal, based on manageable, incremental steps.
If, on the other hand your target is the "tree- huggers" approach to solving, for example, climate problems, then I sympathise fully with you. Climate problems are physical changes to our environment , natural or man-made, which can best be addressed by way of scientific analysis and the development of scientific solutions - not through chasing some type of mystical union with nature. At the end of the day, science is the study of nature but maybe that is a message scientists need to send out a bit more clearly.
All the best
edward
Seriously - I asked you for lists of what you wanted to see changed and what you wanted not to change - I have read and re-read both responses carefully and the two lists are not contradictory - they compliment each other. I think you came close to cracking the issue in your last post. Think of , for example, the objective of eliminating hunger. By our agreed definitions this is an ideal - but it does not fall outside the domain of what is realistic - there is more than enough food to feed the entire world population - it is merely not likely to be achieved in the immediate future - for a variety of reasons of which we are all aware. So , we should make every effort to address the problem by incremental steps - that is realism. But we should not lose sight of the ultimate goal , albeit, for now, an idealistic one.
Perhaps what you define as Realism - and I agree with all of your objectives - is merely a more practical approach towards an Ideal, based on manageable, incremental steps.
If, on the other hand your target is the "tree- huggers" approach to solving, for example, climate problems, then I sympathise fully with you. Climate problems are physical changes to our environment , natural or man-made, which can best be addressed by way of scientific analysis and the development of scientific solutions - not through chasing some type of mystical union with nature. At the end of the day, science is the study of nature but maybe that is a message scientists need to send out a bit more clearly.
All the best
edward
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 20 2008, 05:23 PM)
Hi BDW,
Seriously - I asked you for lists of what you wanted to see changed and what you wanted not to change - I have read and re-read both responses carefully and the two lists are not contradictory - they compliment each other. I think you came close to cracking the issue in your last post. But we should not lose sight of the ultimate goal , albeit, for now, an idealistic one.
Then I don't understand your initial claim that the second list is a list of things I would want to see changed... I admit, some of them produce changes in and of themselves (the growth of technology changes the world immensely) but my intent was to convey my desire to see technology continue to grow at an exponential rate.
With the US being a defender of civil liberties and human rights: While we may be becoming less and less of that, we have not abandoned it altogether, and I do not wish to see us do so.
Nothing we do will ensure that everyone in the world always has enough to eat. Perhaps in a thousand years or more, but nothing in the forseeable future. It just won't happen. It's not a matter of simple food production, we have enough already as you pointed out, it's logistics. We can grow extra food till the cows come home here in america, but getting that food to sub-saharan africa is no easy feat, even in this day and age. Hell, getting it to mexico wouldn't be easy.
Nothing we do will ensure that everyone in the world always has enough to eat. Perhaps in a thousand years or more, but nothing in the forseeable future. It just won't happen. It's not a matter of simple food production, we have enough already as you pointed out, it's logistics. We can grow extra food till the cows come home here in america, but getting that food to sub-saharan africa is no easy feat, even in this day and age. Hell, getting it to mexico wouldn't be easy.
So , we should make every effort to address the problem by incremental steps - that is realism.
Right. That's the difference between idealism and realism. Realists work to make such changes in this world, idealist pretend this is a different world, where easier methods are possible.
Yes.
Yes.
If, on the other hand your target is the "tree- huggers" approach to solving, for example, climate problems, then I sympathise fully with you. Climate problems are physical changes to our environment , natural or man-made, which can best be addressed by way of scientific analysis and the development of scientific solutions - not through chasing some type of mystical union with nature.
Exactly.
Seriously - I asked you for lists of what you wanted to see changed and what you wanted not to change - I have read and re-read both responses carefully and the two lists are not contradictory - they compliment each other. I think you came close to cracking the issue in your last post. But we should not lose sight of the ultimate goal , albeit, for now, an idealistic one.
Then I don't understand your initial claim that the second list is a list of things I would want to see changed... I admit, some of them produce changes in and of themselves (the growth of technology changes the world immensely) but my intent was to convey my desire to see technology continue to grow at an exponential rate.
With the US being a defender of civil liberties and human rights: While we may be becoming less and less of that, we have not abandoned it altogether, and I do not wish to see us do so.
QUOTE
Think of , for example, the objective of eliminating hunger. By our agreed definitions this is an ideal - but it does not fall outside the domain of what is realistic - there is more than enough food to feed the entire world population - it is merely not likely to be achieved in the immediate future - for a variety of reasons of which we are all aware.
Nothing we do will ensure that everyone in the world always has enough to eat. Perhaps in a thousand years or more, but nothing in the forseeable future. It just won't happen. It's not a matter of simple food production, we have enough already as you pointed out, it's logistics. We can grow extra food till the cows come home here in america, but getting that food to sub-saharan africa is no easy feat, even in this day and age. Hell, getting it to mexico wouldn't be easy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Think of , for example, the objective of eliminating hunger. By our agreed definitions this is an ideal - but it does not fall outside the domain of what is realistic - there is more than enough food to feed the entire world population - it is merely not likely to be achieved in the immediate future - for a variety of reasons of which we are all aware. |
Nothing we do will ensure that everyone in the world always has enough to eat. Perhaps in a thousand years or more, but nothing in the forseeable future. It just won't happen. It's not a matter of simple food production, we have enough already as you pointed out, it's logistics. We can grow extra food till the cows come home here in america, but getting that food to sub-saharan africa is no easy feat, even in this day and age. Hell, getting it to mexico wouldn't be easy.
So , we should make every effort to address the problem by incremental steps - that is realism.
Right. That's the difference between idealism and realism. Realists work to make such changes in this world, idealist pretend this is a different world, where easier methods are possible.
QUOTE
Perhaps what you define as Realism - and I agree with all of your objectives - is merely a more practical approach towards an Ideal, based on manageable, incremental steps.
Yes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps what you define as Realism - and I agree with all of your objectives - is merely a more practical approach towards an Ideal, based on manageable, incremental steps. |
Yes.
If, on the other hand your target is the "tree- huggers" approach to solving, for example, climate problems, then I sympathise fully with you. Climate problems are physical changes to our environment , natural or man-made, which can best be addressed by way of scientific analysis and the development of scientific solutions - not through chasing some type of mystical union with nature.
Exactly.
Edit.
Well I believe in a utopian dream, I just believe it will take hundreds and hundreds of years to reach a level of maturity and inter-dependance that will see the world much changed. There is nothing wrong with having faith in your fellows. Of course there is nothing wrong with being a realist, it is good to be realistic...but to think the horrors that occur daily across the globe, will continue ad infinitum without change is to have no faith in evolution, nor even in science to better mankind.
I'm not so sure that Realism and Idealism aren't necessarily intertwined. Is it obvious to say that without realism we cannot achieve any sort of idealism?
To me realism can suggest pragmatism and that philosophy has all sorts of problems in my mind in terms of helping humanity reach its potential. Pragmatically viewing the world means to me that we will always put ourselves into a position where we conclude with a compromise. To me compromise is a mostly vile concept. Sure sometimes it is necessary for the sake of sanity to find a balance between two competing ideas but the fact that you do so doesn't advance anything. It stagnates it.
Idealism on the other hand I relate to Hume's advocacy for Reasoning. In which the prevalence of perception determines the better argument in two competing ideas. That method alone leads us to absolute rejection of ideas that are simply "wrong" instead of the Jamesian wimp methodology that has permeated American consciousness for the last 70 years.
We determine what is "right" and what is "wrong". David Hume taught us to abide those things that our experiences and perceptions taught us when our reasoning showed them to be true. Rational thought rules .... then 150 years later this wimp William James comes along and appeals to Victorian attitudes with his view that Pragmatism should rule the day? *** that.
I may be perhaps a bit harsh on "realists" with those definitions and that isn't my intent. There may be things that we cannot change but I really can't think of any. There are HUGE problems in getting the job of change done especially with large ingrained and/or traditional concepts. But those challenges don't presuppose that it can't be done. In that sense, I'm an Idealist. For example ... democracy in this country is a complete joke.
The indirect nature of it's current structure is a total failure. My views on virtually anything have NEVER been represented by a single person that I've voted for at any level of government. I'd love to see a more direct implementation by technology or barring that I'd rather see it done more like the ancient Greeks did by requiring or assigning citizens to various public servant positions by lottery is necessary. This ridiculous horse race/popularity contest is a nightmare that only results in whomever wins having a certain amount of hubris. So that is a system that definitely needs changing and I can't help but believe that Idealistically it can be changed. Because the likelihood of it changing isn't large doesn't mean it can't be changed. A realist looks at the situation and decides they really can't do anything about it.
*** that and *** them. I think if you know something is "right" then you should fight for it and do so with a reasoned approached that can be denied. It is only through that method that we can approach some Ideal.
If I could go back in time and change one thing without killing anyone ... I'd spend my time there with a young William James convincing him to reject the religious upbringing foisted on him and thereby ensuring that he never popularized the wimpy philosophy of pragmatism. It will likely be the ultimate ruination of American society; unless Idealist's like me can change it.
To me realism can suggest pragmatism and that philosophy has all sorts of problems in my mind in terms of helping humanity reach its potential. Pragmatically viewing the world means to me that we will always put ourselves into a position where we conclude with a compromise. To me compromise is a mostly vile concept. Sure sometimes it is necessary for the sake of sanity to find a balance between two competing ideas but the fact that you do so doesn't advance anything. It stagnates it.
Idealism on the other hand I relate to Hume's advocacy for Reasoning. In which the prevalence of perception determines the better argument in two competing ideas. That method alone leads us to absolute rejection of ideas that are simply "wrong" instead of the Jamesian wimp methodology that has permeated American consciousness for the last 70 years.
We determine what is "right" and what is "wrong". David Hume taught us to abide those things that our experiences and perceptions taught us when our reasoning showed them to be true. Rational thought rules .... then 150 years later this wimp William James comes along and appeals to Victorian attitudes with his view that Pragmatism should rule the day? *** that.
I may be perhaps a bit harsh on "realists" with those definitions and that isn't my intent. There may be things that we cannot change but I really can't think of any. There are HUGE problems in getting the job of change done especially with large ingrained and/or traditional concepts. But those challenges don't presuppose that it can't be done. In that sense, I'm an Idealist. For example ... democracy in this country is a complete joke.
The indirect nature of it's current structure is a total failure. My views on virtually anything have NEVER been represented by a single person that I've voted for at any level of government. I'd love to see a more direct implementation by technology or barring that I'd rather see it done more like the ancient Greeks did by requiring or assigning citizens to various public servant positions by lottery is necessary. This ridiculous horse race/popularity contest is a nightmare that only results in whomever wins having a certain amount of hubris. So that is a system that definitely needs changing and I can't help but believe that Idealistically it can be changed. Because the likelihood of it changing isn't large doesn't mean it can't be changed. A realist looks at the situation and decides they really can't do anything about it.
*** that and *** them. I think if you know something is "right" then you should fight for it and do so with a reasoned approached that can be denied. It is only through that method that we can approach some Ideal.
If I could go back in time and change one thing without killing anyone ... I'd spend my time there with a young William James convincing him to reject the religious upbringing foisted on him and thereby ensuring that he never popularized the wimpy philosophy of pragmatism. It will likely be the ultimate ruination of American society; unless Idealist's like me can change it.
Idealism and reality do not necessarily conflict. Reality is an absolute. That some may misinterpret and misunderstand reality does not change it. On the other hand idealism is view of what reality could or should be. One could view the current reality as ideal.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Mar 24 2008, 08:12 AM)
Is it obvious to say that without realism we cannot achieve any sort of idealism?
To the realist, it is. Not to the idealists I described in the OP. That's the crux of the issue.
How? I fail to see how understanding and accepting the true nature of the world causes ANY problems whatsoever in instituting changes. If anything, it makes the process easier than if one makes incorrect assumptions about the world, and uses them as a base upon which to come up with new ideas for societal changes.
How? I fail to see how understanding and accepting the true nature of the world causes ANY problems whatsoever in instituting changes. If anything, it makes the process easier than if one makes incorrect assumptions about the world, and uses them as a base upon which to come up with new ideas for societal changes.
Pragmatically viewing the world means to me that we will always put ourselves into a position where we conclude with a compromise.
Pragmatically, is it ok for the US and Europe to compromise with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists? No, it isn't. There are no compromises we could conscientiously make that would appease them. There's one perfect example of how pragmatism negates the idea of compromise. The idealists, however, will have one believe that the western world should make peace with the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, which would necessarily involve compromise.
Most compromises work to the advantage of both parties. I fail to see how the whole concept is vile. After all, isn't it better to forget the way your boss used to treat you, in exchange for a raise and continued employment than to file a lengthy suit against a former employer that you may or may not win, that would result in nothing but a few months or possibly a year's wages after you quit because your boss mistreated you? I don't see how that example could be considered "vile," unless you are more concerned with your boss "learning a lesson" that he probably wouldn't learn anyways.
Most compromises work to the advantage of both parties. I fail to see how the whole concept is vile. After all, isn't it better to forget the way your boss used to treat you, in exchange for a raise and continued employment than to file a lengthy suit against a former employer that you may or may not win, that would result in nothing but a few months or possibly a year's wages after you quit because your boss mistreated you? I don't see how that example could be considered "vile," unless you are more concerned with your boss "learning a lesson" that he probably wouldn't learn anyways.
Sure sometimes it is necessary for the sake of sanity to find a balance between two competing ideas but the fact that you do so doesn't advance anything. It stagnates it.
That's the sort of blanket statement that will inevitably be proven wrong, and in fact, has already been. It only takes one exception to disprove a rule.
Umm.... David Hume? I think you need to check out the definitions of idealism... One was provided earlier in this thread.
Umm.... David Hume? I think you need to check out the definitions of idealism... One was provided earlier in this thread.
the Jamesian wimp methodology that has permeated American consciousness for the last 70 years.
Wimp? How is it wimpy to accept hard truths, instead of denying them? Not to mention, James was more of an idealist than Hume.
How does that possibly equate to Idealism?
How does that possibly equate to Idealism?
Rational thought rules .... then 150 years later this wimp William James comes along and appeals to Victorian attitudes with his view that Pragmatism should rule the day? *** that.
Would you care to re-phrase without the tautological point?
To be honest, it seems you're swapping the definitions of realism and idealism...
To be honest, it seems you're swapping the definitions of realism and idealism...
There may be things that we cannot change but I really can't think of any.
So you know of a way to permanently eliminate crime? I would love to hear it, if not, then you must logically conclude that -at least for the foreseeable future- there is no way of permanently eliminating crime.
That's another tautology... How would you know what a realist thinks, if you yourself are not a realist? A realist would look at the situation you described and think "Can I come up with a feasible and better way of doing things that can realistically be implemented?"
That's another tautology... How would you know what a realist thinks, if you yourself are not a realist? A realist would look at the situation you described and think "Can I come up with a feasible and better way of doing things that can realistically be implemented?"
*** that and *** them.
So *** me because I publicly claim to be a realist? That's not a good way to debate a point. It looks to me as if something I wrote struck a nerve with you, and this post is a bit of venting over that. Which implies that I've said something you know to be true, but refuse to accept. Is that the way it is? If not, then you would be quite well served to avoid such exclamations of distaste.
That's realism.
That's realism.
the wimpy philosophy of pragmatism.
That's yet another tautology implying an angry venting, instead of a reasoned rebuttal.
Perhaps you and I define "acceptance" differently. I'll give my definition. Acceptance of reality is a state of mind where a person comes to terms with the situation. Such as unexpected trauma ... there are the standard states ... Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Acceptance. This can't be happening, OMG this sucks, If I get through this I'll go back to church, oh hell ... the plane really is going to crash. In terms closer to the generalities we're discussing I still ascribe the same sort of outlook about acceptance. It is the final state; the one where we've essentially "given up".
Perhaps you and I define "acceptance" differently. I'll give my definition. Acceptance of reality is a state of mind where a person comes to terms with the situation. Such as unexpected trauma ... there are the standard states ... Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Acceptance. This can't be happening, OMG this sucks, If I get through this I'll go back to church, oh hell ... the plane really is going to crash. In terms closer to the generalities we're discussing I still ascribe the same sort of outlook about acceptance. It is the final state; the one where we've essentially "given up".
Pragmatically, is it ok for the US and Europe to compromise with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists? No, it isn't. There are no compromises we could conscientiously make that would appease them. There's one perfect example of how pragmatism negates the idea of compromise. The idealists, however, will have one believe that the western world should make peace with the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, which would necessarily involve compromise.
I disagree. An idealist would recognize the complexities of the that particular situation and fix it by demanding the western world gets it's nose out of a place where it's nose isn't wanted. But rather than discuss that inflammatory example I'd just say that pragmatism absolutely dictates that you must compromise the idealistic ideas that led to the situation. Islamic Fundamentalism at its core is wholly Idealistic. The idea that we can "export democracy" is at its core an Idealistic philosophy.
I didn't mean to imply that compromise didn't work to the advantage of both parties. It clearly does. My stagnation comment was perhaps ill-advised but was intended to mean that a negation of the striving to an Ideal. As to your example I'd say no it isn't better. It is "better" to tell the bugger to piss off and forget about it moving onto some state of existence that doesn't include working for assholes. Compromising in that situation (even in our own self-interest) is a diminishment of character in my view. I believe we lessen ourselves when we allow such things to happen. That isn't to say that I don't recognize that such things are an everyday situation for many many people in the world. So yeah ... Idealism in that case could lead to personal suffering from one perspective but on the other hand it could lead to the freedom from that sort of harassment.
I didn't mean to imply that compromise didn't work to the advantage of both parties. It clearly does. My stagnation comment was perhaps ill-advised but was intended to mean that a negation of the striving to an Ideal. As to your example I'd say no it isn't better. It is "better" to tell the bugger to piss off and forget about it moving onto some state of existence that doesn't include working for assholes. Compromising in that situation (even in our own self-interest) is a diminishment of character in my view. I believe we lessen ourselves when we allow such things to happen. That isn't to say that I don't recognize that such things are an everyday situation for many many people in the world. So yeah ... Idealism in that case could lead to personal suffering from one perspective but on the other hand it could lead to the freedom from that sort of harassment.
Umm.... David Hume? I think you need to check out the definitions of idealism... One was provided earlier in this thread.
Wimp? How is it wimpy to accept hard truths, instead of denying them? Not to mention, James was more of an idealist than Hume.
How does that possibly equate to Idealism?
To be honest, it seems you're swapping the definitions of realism and idealism...
I don't believe so. Perhaps you should read Hume again.
Idealistically there is a way to eliminate crime. In it's simplest form it would be to correct all the various societal conditions that lead to the individual necessity to commit a crime. It's obviously incredibly complex to do so. But Ideally it can be certainly achieved.
Idealistically there is a way to eliminate crime. In it's simplest form it would be to correct all the various societal conditions that lead to the individual necessity to commit a crime. It's obviously incredibly complex to do so. But Ideally it can be certainly achieved.
That's another tautology... How would you know what a realist thinks, if you yourself are not a realist? A realist would look at the situation you described and think "Can I come up with a feasible and better way of doing things that can realistically be implemented?"
I'm not sure that I made some definitive statement that I was some sort of strict Idealist. But this goes back to what is perhaps our differing views of what "acceptance" is/means. I do hope that personally I "strive" for the ideal. But I accept my limited ability to overcome reality as it is.
Such a declarative general statement is intended to express (as you say) a certain distaste when used in the context I used it. However, to take such a thing personally as you've done here is a bigger hinderance to the free flow of the discussion than making such a statement. If I'd said, "*** BDW for thinking the way he does" then you'd certainly have the right to be insulted and correct in decrying my usage. But I didn't.
Your interpretation that something you said "struck a nerve" is correct in a limited way insofar as the subject and your comments encouraged me to share mine. However that is the limit of the effect I assure you. I'm definitely not sitting over here flailing my arms and screaming at my LCD display, or champing at the bit or venting. I'll leave that sort of thing to others.
So yeah ... James' "pragmatism" is to realism as Hume's "reasoning" is to idealism.
Oversimplified definitions:
Idealist: The world is not a perfect place but it could be.
Realist: This is as good as it gets.
To the realist, it is. Not to the idealists I described in the OP. That's the crux of the issue.
QUOTE
To me realism can suggest pragmatism and that philosophy has all sorts of problems in my mind in terms of helping humanity reach its potential.
How? I fail to see how understanding and accepting the true nature of the world causes ANY problems whatsoever in instituting changes. If anything, it makes the process easier than if one makes incorrect assumptions about the world, and uses them as a base upon which to come up with new ideas for societal changes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To me realism can suggest pragmatism and that philosophy has all sorts of problems in my mind in terms of helping humanity reach its potential. |
How? I fail to see how understanding and accepting the true nature of the world causes ANY problems whatsoever in instituting changes. If anything, it makes the process easier than if one makes incorrect assumptions about the world, and uses them as a base upon which to come up with new ideas for societal changes.
Pragmatically viewing the world means to me that we will always put ourselves into a position where we conclude with a compromise.
Pragmatically, is it ok for the US and Europe to compromise with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists? No, it isn't. There are no compromises we could conscientiously make that would appease them. There's one perfect example of how pragmatism negates the idea of compromise. The idealists, however, will have one believe that the western world should make peace with the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, which would necessarily involve compromise.
QUOTE
To me compromise is a mostly vile concept.
Most compromises work to the advantage of both parties. I fail to see how the whole concept is vile. After all, isn't it better to forget the way your boss used to treat you, in exchange for a raise and continued employment than to file a lengthy suit against a former employer that you may or may not win, that would result in nothing but a few months or possibly a year's wages after you quit because your boss mistreated you? I don't see how that example could be considered "vile," unless you are more concerned with your boss "learning a lesson" that he probably wouldn't learn anyways.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To me compromise is a mostly vile concept. |
Most compromises work to the advantage of both parties. I fail to see how the whole concept is vile. After all, isn't it better to forget the way your boss used to treat you, in exchange for a raise and continued employment than to file a lengthy suit against a former employer that you may or may not win, that would result in nothing but a few months or possibly a year's wages after you quit because your boss mistreated you? I don't see how that example could be considered "vile," unless you are more concerned with your boss "learning a lesson" that he probably wouldn't learn anyways.
Sure sometimes it is necessary for the sake of sanity to find a balance between two competing ideas but the fact that you do so doesn't advance anything. It stagnates it.
That's the sort of blanket statement that will inevitably be proven wrong, and in fact, has already been. It only takes one exception to disprove a rule.
QUOTE
Idealism on the other hand I relate to Hume's advocacy for Reasoning.
Umm.... David Hume? I think you need to check out the definitions of idealism... One was provided earlier in this thread.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Idealism on the other hand I relate to Hume's advocacy for Reasoning. |
Umm.... David Hume? I think you need to check out the definitions of idealism... One was provided earlier in this thread.
the Jamesian wimp methodology that has permeated American consciousness for the last 70 years.
Wimp? How is it wimpy to accept hard truths, instead of denying them? Not to mention, James was more of an idealist than Hume.
QUOTE
We determine what is "right" and what is "wrong". David Hume taught us to abide those things that our experiences and perceptions taught us when our reasoning showed them to be true.
How does that possibly equate to Idealism?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We determine what is "right" and what is "wrong". David Hume taught us to abide those things that our experiences and perceptions taught us when our reasoning showed them to be true. |
How does that possibly equate to Idealism?
Rational thought rules .... then 150 years later this wimp William James comes along and appeals to Victorian attitudes with his view that Pragmatism should rule the day? *** that.
Would you care to re-phrase without the tautological point?
QUOTE
I may be perhaps a bit harsh on "realists" with those definitions and that isn't my intent.
To be honest, it seems you're swapping the definitions of realism and idealism...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I may be perhaps a bit harsh on "realists" with those definitions and that isn't my intent. |
To be honest, it seems you're swapping the definitions of realism and idealism...
There may be things that we cannot change but I really can't think of any.
So you know of a way to permanently eliminate crime? I would love to hear it, if not, then you must logically conclude that -at least for the foreseeable future- there is no way of permanently eliminating crime.
QUOTE
A realist looks at the situation and decides they really can't do anything about it.
That's another tautology... How would you know what a realist thinks, if you yourself are not a realist? A realist would look at the situation you described and think "Can I come up with a feasible and better way of doing things that can realistically be implemented?"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A realist looks at the situation and decides they really can't do anything about it. |
That's another tautology... How would you know what a realist thinks, if you yourself are not a realist? A realist would look at the situation you described and think "Can I come up with a feasible and better way of doing things that can realistically be implemented?"
*** that and *** them.
So *** me because I publicly claim to be a realist? That's not a good way to debate a point. It looks to me as if something I wrote struck a nerve with you, and this post is a bit of venting over that. Which implies that I've said something you know to be true, but refuse to accept. Is that the way it is? If not, then you would be quite well served to avoid such exclamations of distaste.
QUOTE
I think if you know something is "right" then you should fight for it and do so with a reasoned approached that can be denied. It is only through that method that we can approach some Ideal.
That's realism.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think if you know something is "right" then you should fight for it and do so with a reasoned approached that can be denied. It is only through that method that we can approach some Ideal. |
That's realism.
the wimpy philosophy of pragmatism.
That's yet another tautology implying an angry venting, instead of a reasoned rebuttal.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
On the other hand idealism is view of what reality can or should be.
The specific form of idealism I am referring to in the OP is not just a view of what reality should or can be, but a view of what reality should be, based on an incorrect view of what reality already is.
For all intents and purposes, I more-or-less do.
The specific form of idealism I am referring to in the OP is not just a view of what reality should or can be, but a view of what reality should be, based on an incorrect view of what reality already is.
QUOTE
One could view the current reality as ideal.
For all intents and purposes, I more-or-less do.
QUOTE (yor_on+Mar 19 2008, 10:38 PM)
I do not find humanity to be ideal in any way.
And i definitely would like it to change.
Change...The altering of reality towards the ideal.
Conflict happens when ones version of ideal is different from anothers.
Should my striving for ideal not interfere with yours then harmony happens.
Hitler was striving for his ideal, but it denied MANY others of their path to the ideal.
In fact it required that many sacrifice any progress they made towards their ideal.
And everyone may have a selfish motive for their idealism!
Some may sacrifice for a larger ideal...thus soldiers, armies and nations are formed as enclaves of a specific ideal.
Even then, the members of these groups quarrel about what is ideal.
Then we form groups within groups to help us change to the ideal.
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, Yankee, Rebel, male, female,
Black, White, vegetarian, animal rights, business owners, welfare recipients, illegal aliens, gun owners, Islamic, Catholic, Agnostic, urban, rural, rich or poor.....all divisions that may have different versions of ideal!!
Even at work we have these struggles!
My ideal may include more money for less work....my Boss has an opposite ideal!
Seems the best we can do is to find what is CURRENTLY tolerable.
Then we strive to step it up a notch as we get used to the currently tolerable.
Have you ever got impatient waiting for the microwave?
Got upset at a 2 hour delay when flying across the country?
Lost your temper at losing a cell phone signal?
Upset at taxes going to support someone elses ideal?
Are your ideals being supported by restricting others ideals.
We mainly cannot agree on what ideal IS!!
When we do agree, even in small groups, we always take steps to achieve and expand our version of Idealism......sometime when it is not realistic.
Bruce
And i definitely would like it to change.
Change...The altering of reality towards the ideal.
Conflict happens when ones version of ideal is different from anothers.
Should my striving for ideal not interfere with yours then harmony happens.
Hitler was striving for his ideal, but it denied MANY others of their path to the ideal.
In fact it required that many sacrifice any progress they made towards their ideal.
And everyone may have a selfish motive for their idealism!
Some may sacrifice for a larger ideal...thus soldiers, armies and nations are formed as enclaves of a specific ideal.
Even then, the members of these groups quarrel about what is ideal.
Then we form groups within groups to help us change to the ideal.
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, Yankee, Rebel, male, female,
Black, White, vegetarian, animal rights, business owners, welfare recipients, illegal aliens, gun owners, Islamic, Catholic, Agnostic, urban, rural, rich or poor.....all divisions that may have different versions of ideal!!
Even at work we have these struggles!
My ideal may include more money for less work....my Boss has an opposite ideal!
Seems the best we can do is to find what is CURRENTLY tolerable.
Then we strive to step it up a notch as we get used to the currently tolerable.
Have you ever got impatient waiting for the microwave?
Got upset at a 2 hour delay when flying across the country?
Lost your temper at losing a cell phone signal?
Upset at taxes going to support someone elses ideal?
Are your ideals being supported by restricting others ideals.
We mainly cannot agree on what ideal IS!!
When we do agree, even in small groups, we always take steps to achieve and expand our version of Idealism......sometime when it is not realistic.
Bruce
QUOTE (egnorant+Mar 24 2008, 11:54 AM)
Change...The altering of reality towards the ideal.
Conflict happens when ones version of ideal is different from anothers.
Should my striving for ideal not interfere with yours then harmony happens.
Hitler was striving for his ideal, but it denied MANY others of their path to the ideal.
In fact it required that many sacrifice any progress they made towards their ideal.
And everyone may have a selfish motive for their idealism!
Some may sacrifice for a larger ideal...thus soldiers, armies and nations are formed as enclaves of a specific ideal.
Even then, the members of these groups quarrel about what is ideal.
Then we form groups within groups to help us change to the ideal.
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, Yankee, Rebel, male, female,
Black, White, vegetarian, animal rights, business owners, welfare recipients, illegal aliens, gun owners, Islamic, Catholic, Agnostic, urban, rural, rich or poor.....all divisions that may have different versions of ideal!!
Even at work we have these struggles!
My ideal may include more money for less work....my Boss has an opposite ideal!
Seems the best we can do is to find what is CURRENTLY tolerable.
Then we strive to step it up a notch as we get used to the currently tolerable.
Have you ever got impatient waiting for the microwave?
Got upset at a 2 hour delay when flying across the country?
Lost your temper at losing a cell phone signal?
Upset at taxes going to support someone elses ideal?
Are your ideals being supported by restricting others ideals.
We mainly cannot agree on what ideal IS!!
When we do agree, even in small groups, we always take steps to achieve and expand our version of Idealism......sometime when it is not realistic.
Bruce
Wonderful, wonderful points, sir.
Conflict happens when ones version of ideal is different from anothers.
Should my striving for ideal not interfere with yours then harmony happens.
Hitler was striving for his ideal, but it denied MANY others of their path to the ideal.
In fact it required that many sacrifice any progress they made towards their ideal.
And everyone may have a selfish motive for their idealism!
Some may sacrifice for a larger ideal...thus soldiers, armies and nations are formed as enclaves of a specific ideal.
Even then, the members of these groups quarrel about what is ideal.
Then we form groups within groups to help us change to the ideal.
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, Yankee, Rebel, male, female,
Black, White, vegetarian, animal rights, business owners, welfare recipients, illegal aliens, gun owners, Islamic, Catholic, Agnostic, urban, rural, rich or poor.....all divisions that may have different versions of ideal!!
Even at work we have these struggles!
My ideal may include more money for less work....my Boss has an opposite ideal!
Seems the best we can do is to find what is CURRENTLY tolerable.
Then we strive to step it up a notch as we get used to the currently tolerable.
Have you ever got impatient waiting for the microwave?
Got upset at a 2 hour delay when flying across the country?
Lost your temper at losing a cell phone signal?
Upset at taxes going to support someone elses ideal?
Are your ideals being supported by restricting others ideals.
We mainly cannot agree on what ideal IS!!
When we do agree, even in small groups, we always take steps to achieve and expand our version of Idealism......sometime when it is not realistic.
Bruce
Wonderful, wonderful points, sir.
QUOTE
How? I fail to see how understanding and accepting the true nature of the world causes ANY problems whatsoever in instituting changes. If anything, it makes the process easier than if one makes incorrect assumptions about the world, and uses them as a base upon which to come up with new ideas for societal changes.
Perhaps you and I define "acceptance" differently. I'll give my definition. Acceptance of reality is a state of mind where a person comes to terms with the situation. Such as unexpected trauma ... there are the standard states ... Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Acceptance. This can't be happening, OMG this sucks, If I get through this I'll go back to church, oh hell ... the plane really is going to crash. In terms closer to the generalities we're discussing I still ascribe the same sort of outlook about acceptance. It is the final state; the one where we've essentially "given up".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How? I fail to see how understanding and accepting the true nature of the world causes ANY problems whatsoever in instituting changes. If anything, it makes the process easier than if one makes incorrect assumptions about the world, and uses them as a base upon which to come up with new ideas for societal changes. |
Perhaps you and I define "acceptance" differently. I'll give my definition. Acceptance of reality is a state of mind where a person comes to terms with the situation. Such as unexpected trauma ... there are the standard states ... Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Acceptance. This can't be happening, OMG this sucks, If I get through this I'll go back to church, oh hell ... the plane really is going to crash. In terms closer to the generalities we're discussing I still ascribe the same sort of outlook about acceptance. It is the final state; the one where we've essentially "given up".
Pragmatically, is it ok for the US and Europe to compromise with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists? No, it isn't. There are no compromises we could conscientiously make that would appease them. There's one perfect example of how pragmatism negates the idea of compromise. The idealists, however, will have one believe that the western world should make peace with the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, which would necessarily involve compromise.
I disagree. An idealist would recognize the complexities of the that particular situation and fix it by demanding the western world gets it's nose out of a place where it's nose isn't wanted. But rather than discuss that inflammatory example I'd just say that pragmatism absolutely dictates that you must compromise the idealistic ideas that led to the situation. Islamic Fundamentalism at its core is wholly Idealistic. The idea that we can "export democracy" is at its core an Idealistic philosophy.
QUOTE
Most compromises work to the advantage of both parties. I fail to see how the whole concept is vile. After all, isn't it better to forget the way your boss used to treat you, in exchange for a raise and continued employment than to file a lengthy suit against a former employer that you may or may not win, that would result in nothing but a few months or possibly a year's wages after you quit because your boss mistreated you? I don't see how that example could be considered "vile," unless you are more concerned with your boss "learning a lesson" that he probably wouldn't learn anyways.
I didn't mean to imply that compromise didn't work to the advantage of both parties. It clearly does. My stagnation comment was perhaps ill-advised but was intended to mean that a negation of the striving to an Ideal. As to your example I'd say no it isn't better. It is "better" to tell the bugger to piss off and forget about it moving onto some state of existence that doesn't include working for assholes. Compromising in that situation (even in our own self-interest) is a diminishment of character in my view. I believe we lessen ourselves when we allow such things to happen. That isn't to say that I don't recognize that such things are an everyday situation for many many people in the world. So yeah ... Idealism in that case could lead to personal suffering from one perspective but on the other hand it could lead to the freedom from that sort of harassment.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Most compromises work to the advantage of both parties. I fail to see how the whole concept is vile. After all, isn't it better to forget the way your boss used to treat you, in exchange for a raise and continued employment than to file a lengthy suit against a former employer that you may or may not win, that would result in nothing but a few months or possibly a year's wages after you quit because your boss mistreated you? I don't see how that example could be considered "vile," unless you are more concerned with your boss "learning a lesson" that he probably wouldn't learn anyways. |
I didn't mean to imply that compromise didn't work to the advantage of both parties. It clearly does. My stagnation comment was perhaps ill-advised but was intended to mean that a negation of the striving to an Ideal. As to your example I'd say no it isn't better. It is "better" to tell the bugger to piss off and forget about it moving onto some state of existence that doesn't include working for assholes. Compromising in that situation (even in our own self-interest) is a diminishment of character in my view. I believe we lessen ourselves when we allow such things to happen. That isn't to say that I don't recognize that such things are an everyday situation for many many people in the world. So yeah ... Idealism in that case could lead to personal suffering from one perspective but on the other hand it could lead to the freedom from that sort of harassment.
Umm.... David Hume? I think you need to check out the definitions of idealism... One was provided earlier in this thread.
Wimp? How is it wimpy to accept hard truths, instead of denying them? Not to mention, James was more of an idealist than Hume.
How does that possibly equate to Idealism?
To be honest, it seems you're swapping the definitions of realism and idealism...
I don't believe so. Perhaps you should read Hume again.
QUOTE
So you know of a way to permanently eliminate crime? I would love to hear it, if not, then you must logically conclude that -at least for the foreseeable future- there is no way of permanently eliminating crime.
Idealistically there is a way to eliminate crime. In it's simplest form it would be to correct all the various societal conditions that lead to the individual necessity to commit a crime. It's obviously incredibly complex to do so. But Ideally it can be certainly achieved.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So you know of a way to permanently eliminate crime? I would love to hear it, if not, then you must logically conclude that -at least for the foreseeable future- there is no way of permanently eliminating crime. |
Idealistically there is a way to eliminate crime. In it's simplest form it would be to correct all the various societal conditions that lead to the individual necessity to commit a crime. It's obviously incredibly complex to do so. But Ideally it can be certainly achieved.
That's another tautology... How would you know what a realist thinks, if you yourself are not a realist? A realist would look at the situation you described and think "Can I come up with a feasible and better way of doing things that can realistically be implemented?"
I'm not sure that I made some definitive statement that I was some sort of strict Idealist. But this goes back to what is perhaps our differing views of what "acceptance" is/means. I do hope that personally I "strive" for the ideal. But I accept my limited ability to overcome reality as it is.
QUOTE
So *** me because I publicly claim to be a realist? That's not a good way to debate a point. It looks to me as if something I wrote struck a nerve with you, and this post is a bit of venting over that. Which implies that I've said something you know to be true, but refuse to accept. Is that the way it is? If not, then you would be quite well served to avoid such exclamations of distaste.
Such a declarative general statement is intended to express (as you say) a certain distaste when used in the context I used it. However, to take such a thing personally as you've done here is a bigger hinderance to the free flow of the discussion than making such a statement. If I'd said, "*** BDW for thinking the way he does" then you'd certainly have the right to be insulted and correct in decrying my usage. But I didn't.
Your interpretation that something you said "struck a nerve" is correct in a limited way insofar as the subject and your comments encouraged me to share mine. However that is the limit of the effect I assure you. I'm definitely not sitting over here flailing my arms and screaming at my LCD display, or champing at the bit or venting. I'll leave that sort of thing to others.
So yeah ... James' "pragmatism" is to realism as Hume's "reasoning" is to idealism.
Oversimplified definitions:
Idealist: The world is not a perfect place but it could be.
Realist: This is as good as it gets.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Mar 24 2008, 11:55 PM)
Idealistically there is a way to eliminate crime. In it's simplest form it would be to correct all the various societal conditions that lead to the individual necessity to commit a crime.
Hey,
Give me a break.
Hey,
Give me a break.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Mar 24 2008, 06:55 PM)
Perhaps you and I define "acceptance" differently. I'll give my definition. Acceptance of reality is a state of mind where a person comes to terms with the situation. Such as unexpected trauma ... there are the standard states ... Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Acceptance. This can't be happening, OMG this sucks, If I get through this I'll go back to church, oh hell ... the plane really is going to crash. In terms closer to the generalities we're discussing I still ascribe the same sort of outlook about acceptance. It is the final state; the one where we've essentially "given up".
You're leaving out something which is very important when dealing with problems, as opposed to past trauma.
Resolution.
How bad is that situation you described, if the plane were crashing due to the pilot having a heart attack (while the copilot is having an aneurysm) and you know how to fly a commercial air liner? Not so bad a situation, at all. What about if you know how to fly only a little single-engine Cessna? Still, not so bad. What about if you're just a flight simulator junkie? Troubling, but hope is not lost yet....
Admittedly, not every problem which arises will have a desirable resolution, however. But who then, is better able to cope? The man who refuses to acknowledge his misfortune, or the man who accepts it, and all of it's negative connotations? Acceptance does not necessitate resignation, you know.
Here's another example, Think of two rich men, James and John, investors both, one a self-deceptive idealist and the other a cold-hearted pragmatist, respectively. They both invest in this new biotech startup that looks unbelievably promising. They liquidate assets, take out mortgages and loans, and invest everything they have, both expecting to strike gold.
All goes well for a few months, then it all falls out from beneath them. The biotech company had been faking studies, embezzling funds, and every other dishonest think you can think of. They try to pull out, but it's too late; they've both lost everything.
James goes into denial, unable to believe he's lost everything his family has, takes out a few extra mortgages and starts playing the stock market like crazy, trying to make it back, still buying himself a new Porsche on his birthday, taking his family on Caribbean vacations, and droppings thousands a month on expensive hookers and booze, praying that if he can just skate by for long enough, he'll have made back what he lost and everything will be fine, again. After a few years, he's quadrupled his debt, and given himself an ulcer from worrying.
John, on the other hand, accepts his loss, sells off all he can to pay down his debt to a manageable level and then declares bankruptcy. He takes a job as a stock broker, and puts every spare penny into low-risk, low yield investments, slowly building back up his finances, until he qualifies for a line of credit, then another, then another, all of which he manages carefully -aware of the risks now- until he finds himself right back where he began, only wiser.
Which of them would you rather be?
That's what idealists tell me we should do. But that's a compromise. They get to run their own nations in exchange for the promise not to suicide bomb us anymore. We promise to pull back on support for Israel, they promise not to behead any more Americans. We promise to send international aid money their way, they promise to call off the jihad.
But it doesn't work that way. If we pull out, they declare the first battle of the Holy War to have been a rousing victory, and encourage themselves to push for ultimate victory all the harder. (I know, I have some experience with religious fundamentalists, although admittedly not of the Islamic variety. ANYTHING that can be spun as a victory in the "Us vs. Them" dogma of a religious fundamentalist will be. Anything. Look at those Christians around the US claiming that our soldiers are dying because we allow homosexuality to exist in this country if you don't believe me, do some research on religious revolutions for plenty more examples.)
We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11 happened, were we? Nope. In fact, we were pretty hands-off with respect to those nations, plus Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, the UAE, Syria and Lebanon and pretty much all the rest of the countries where the extremists draw their recruits from. So what's the pragmatic solution? To not stop fighting, no matter the cost. (I'm not advocating a permanent presence in Iraq, mind.) To alter our tactics until we find those which work. To set down roots in the Arab world, and plant the seeds of an apparently idealistic philosophy: That capitalism will solve the problems at hand. And that's the truth, we're not out to spread democracy, or else we'd be invading Britain. We're out to spread capitalism, and we like to call it "democracy," because that makes that particularly bitter medicine a bit easier to swallow. But it IS medicine. Why is THAT bit of idealism better than the rest? Because it's realistically achievable. It's realism, it only looks like idealism. Hand them a step-in-check government, breathe down their neck over every human and civil rights issue, and watch the economy grow, pushing aside the decision of how best to carry on the Holy War in favor of deciding which trendy restaurant to take their hot date to. Let them make movies, and give their kids cellphones, and do drugs and record platinum singles and start fads and they'll stop strapping bombs to their chest and lighting the fuse in a crowded street cafe.
That's what idealists tell me we should do. But that's a compromise. They get to run their own nations in exchange for the promise not to suicide bomb us anymore. We promise to pull back on support for Israel, they promise not to behead any more Americans. We promise to send international aid money their way, they promise to call off the jihad.
But it doesn't work that way. If we pull out, they declare the first battle of the Holy War to have been a rousing victory, and encourage themselves to push for ultimate victory all the harder. (I know, I have some experience with religious fundamentalists, although admittedly not of the Islamic variety. ANYTHING that can be spun as a victory in the "Us vs. Them" dogma of a religious fundamentalist will be. Anything. Look at those Christians around the US claiming that our soldiers are dying because we allow homosexuality to exist in this country if you don't believe me, do some research on religious revolutions for plenty more examples.)
We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11 happened, were we? Nope. In fact, we were pretty hands-off with respect to those nations, plus Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, the UAE, Syria and Lebanon and pretty much all the rest of the countries where the extremists draw their recruits from. So what's the pragmatic solution? To not stop fighting, no matter the cost. (I'm not advocating a permanent presence in Iraq, mind.) To alter our tactics until we find those which work. To set down roots in the Arab world, and plant the seeds of an apparently idealistic philosophy: That capitalism will solve the problems at hand. And that's the truth, we're not out to spread democracy, or else we'd be invading Britain. We're out to spread capitalism, and we like to call it "democracy," because that makes that particularly bitter medicine a bit easier to swallow. But it IS medicine. Why is THAT bit of idealism better than the rest? Because it's realistically achievable. It's realism, it only looks like idealism. Hand them a step-in-check government, breathe down their neck over every human and civil rights issue, and watch the economy grow, pushing aside the decision of how best to carry on the Holy War in favor of deciding which trendy restaurant to take their hot date to. Let them make movies, and give their kids cellphones, and do drugs and record platinum singles and start fads and they'll stop strapping bombs to their chest and lighting the fuse in a crowded street cafe.
Idealist: The world is not a perfect place but it could be.
Realist: This is as good as it gets.
All in all, you seem to think that realism means the total dismissal of all ideals, which isn't true. Realism is the ability to choose the most likely ideal, instead of being chosen by the most appealing one.
Idealist: The world isn't perfect, but only because we don't love each other! When we all start loving, all our problems will go away! We just need to spread the word that love is the answer to all of our questions! Tell the criminals and convicts first, so that the rest of society can see the good it does, then let the word spread further and further, until we've reached a true state of enlightenment!
Realist: The world isn't perfect, but love is not the only answer. It's more complicated than that. Human beings cannot all follow one single philosophy. Invest in robotics, to make wars less deadly, and labor intensive jobs less dangerous. Invest in medical nanotechnology and stem cell research to make disease less costly. Invest in education an
You're leaving out something which is very important when dealing with problems, as opposed to past trauma.
Resolution.
How bad is that situation you described, if the plane were crashing due to the pilot having a heart attack (while the copilot is having an aneurysm) and you know how to fly a commercial air liner? Not so bad a situation, at all. What about if you know how to fly only a little single-engine Cessna? Still, not so bad. What about if you're just a flight simulator junkie? Troubling, but hope is not lost yet....
Admittedly, not every problem which arises will have a desirable resolution, however. But who then, is better able to cope? The man who refuses to acknowledge his misfortune, or the man who accepts it, and all of it's negative connotations? Acceptance does not necessitate resignation, you know.
Here's another example, Think of two rich men, James and John, investors both, one a self-deceptive idealist and the other a cold-hearted pragmatist, respectively. They both invest in this new biotech startup that looks unbelievably promising. They liquidate assets, take out mortgages and loans, and invest everything they have, both expecting to strike gold.
All goes well for a few months, then it all falls out from beneath them. The biotech company had been faking studies, embezzling funds, and every other dishonest think you can think of. They try to pull out, but it's too late; they've both lost everything.
James goes into denial, unable to believe he's lost everything his family has, takes out a few extra mortgages and starts playing the stock market like crazy, trying to make it back, still buying himself a new Porsche on his birthday, taking his family on Caribbean vacations, and droppings thousands a month on expensive hookers and booze, praying that if he can just skate by for long enough, he'll have made back what he lost and everything will be fine, again. After a few years, he's quadrupled his debt, and given himself an ulcer from worrying.
John, on the other hand, accepts his loss, sells off all he can to pay down his debt to a manageable level and then declares bankruptcy. He takes a job as a stock broker, and puts every spare penny into low-risk, low yield investments, slowly building back up his finances, until he qualifies for a line of credit, then another, then another, all of which he manages carefully -aware of the risks now- until he finds himself right back where he began, only wiser.
Which of them would you rather be?
QUOTE
I disagree. An idealist would recognize the complexities of the that particular situation and fix it by demanding the western world gets it's nose out of a place where it's nose isn't wanted. But rather than discuss that inflammatory example I'd just say that pragmatism absolutely dictates that you must compromise the idealistic ideas that led to the situation. Islamic Fundamentalism at its core is wholly Idealistic. The idea that we can "export democracy" is at its core an Idealistic philosophy.
That's what idealists tell me we should do. But that's a compromise. They get to run their own nations in exchange for the promise not to suicide bomb us anymore. We promise to pull back on support for Israel, they promise not to behead any more Americans. We promise to send international aid money their way, they promise to call off the jihad.
But it doesn't work that way. If we pull out, they declare the first battle of the Holy War to have been a rousing victory, and encourage themselves to push for ultimate victory all the harder. (I know, I have some experience with religious fundamentalists, although admittedly not of the Islamic variety. ANYTHING that can be spun as a victory in the "Us vs. Them" dogma of a religious fundamentalist will be. Anything. Look at those Christians around the US claiming that our soldiers are dying because we allow homosexuality to exist in this country if you don't believe me, do some research on religious revolutions for plenty more examples.)
We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11 happened, were we? Nope. In fact, we were pretty hands-off with respect to those nations, plus Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, the UAE, Syria and Lebanon and pretty much all the rest of the countries where the extremists draw their recruits from. So what's the pragmatic solution? To not stop fighting, no matter the cost. (I'm not advocating a permanent presence in Iraq, mind.) To alter our tactics until we find those which work. To set down roots in the Arab world, and plant the seeds of an apparently idealistic philosophy: That capitalism will solve the problems at hand. And that's the truth, we're not out to spread democracy, or else we'd be invading Britain. We're out to spread capitalism, and we like to call it "democracy," because that makes that particularly bitter medicine a bit easier to swallow. But it IS medicine. Why is THAT bit of idealism better than the rest? Because it's realistically achievable. It's realism, it only looks like idealism. Hand them a step-in-check government, breathe down their neck over every human and civil rights issue, and watch the economy grow, pushing aside the decision of how best to carry on the Holy War in favor of deciding which trendy restaurant to take their hot date to. Let them make movies, and give their kids cellphones, and do drugs and record platinum singles and start fads and they'll stop strapping bombs to their chest and lighting the fuse in a crowded street cafe.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I disagree. An idealist would recognize the complexities of the that particular situation and fix it by demanding the western world gets it's nose out of a place where it's nose isn't wanted. But rather than discuss that inflammatory example I'd just say that pragmatism absolutely dictates that you must compromise the idealistic ideas that led to the situation. Islamic Fundamentalism at its core is wholly Idealistic. The idea that we can "export democracy" is at its core an Idealistic philosophy. |
That's what idealists tell me we should do. But that's a compromise. They get to run their own nations in exchange for the promise not to suicide bomb us anymore. We promise to pull back on support for Israel, they promise not to behead any more Americans. We promise to send international aid money their way, they promise to call off the jihad.
But it doesn't work that way. If we pull out, they declare the first battle of the Holy War to have been a rousing victory, and encourage themselves to push for ultimate victory all the harder. (I know, I have some experience with religious fundamentalists, although admittedly not of the Islamic variety. ANYTHING that can be spun as a victory in the "Us vs. Them" dogma of a religious fundamentalist will be. Anything. Look at those Christians around the US claiming that our soldiers are dying because we allow homosexuality to exist in this country if you don't believe me, do some research on religious revolutions for plenty more examples.)
We weren't in Iraq or Afghanistan when 9/11 happened, were we? Nope. In fact, we were pretty hands-off with respect to those nations, plus Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, the UAE, Syria and Lebanon and pretty much all the rest of the countries where the extremists draw their recruits from. So what's the pragmatic solution? To not stop fighting, no matter the cost. (I'm not advocating a permanent presence in Iraq, mind.) To alter our tactics until we find those which work. To set down roots in the Arab world, and plant the seeds of an apparently idealistic philosophy: That capitalism will solve the problems at hand. And that's the truth, we're not out to spread democracy, or else we'd be invading Britain. We're out to spread capitalism, and we like to call it "democracy," because that makes that particularly bitter medicine a bit easier to swallow. But it IS medicine. Why is THAT bit of idealism better than the rest? Because it's realistically achievable. It's realism, it only looks like idealism. Hand them a step-in-check government, breathe down their neck over every human and civil rights issue, and watch the economy grow, pushing aside the decision of how best to carry on the Holy War in favor of deciding which trendy restaurant to take their hot date to. Let them make movies, and give their kids cellphones, and do drugs and record platinum singles and start fads and they'll stop strapping bombs to their chest and lighting the fuse in a crowded street cafe.
Idealist: The world is not a perfect place but it could be.
Realist: This is as good as it gets.
All in all, you seem to think that realism means the total dismissal of all ideals, which isn't true. Realism is the ability to choose the most likely ideal, instead of being chosen by the most appealing one.
Idealist: The world isn't perfect, but only because we don't love each other! When we all start loving, all our problems will go away! We just need to spread the word that love is the answer to all of our questions! Tell the criminals and convicts first, so that the rest of society can see the good it does, then let the word spread further and further, until we've reached a true state of enlightenment!
Realist: The world isn't perfect, but love is not the only answer. It's more complicated than that. Human beings cannot all follow one single philosophy. Invest in robotics, to make wars less deadly, and labor intensive jobs less dangerous. Invest in medical nanotechnology and stem cell research to make disease less costly. Invest in education an