do you have a positive or negative view of idealism and idealists?

[welshTerrier2]

are idealists unrealistic and naive or are they people with a "big picture vision" of how the world could one day be ???

[adwon]

1. Idealists inspire, realists deliver

As a realist, I think we tend to be too focused on how to do things than just what should be done. Idealists tend to focus too much on what should be done as opposed to how to do it. I think it's more of a symbiotic relationship.

[welshTerrier2]

3. a human experiment in excessive specialization

i once read about an experiment was done (myers-briggs related?) where to teams were formed ... each team had to design something and then build it according to certain specifications ...

one team was comprised of the "do'ers" ... the other team was comprised of the "planners" ...

the "do'ers" had their project up and running in virtually no time at all ... the project totally collapsed ...

the "planners" ran out of time and never agreed on a design ...

this was supposed to teach us the exact point you made: the greatest efforts are made with a diversity of skills and demeanors that are woven into a symbiotic relationship ...

[VelvetMonkeyWrench]

2. Idealists usually ignore three basic human traits...

1) Greed. It been with us since the first cave man bashed another's skull in.

2) Stupidity. Another universal that's been around since the dawn of time.

3) Laziness. Few want to do anything to help themselves when they can get someone else to pay or do it.

If any "idealistic" system (ex. communism, in the case of 1&2, pure socialism in the case 3) doesn't account for these fundamental human traits, it is doomed to failure.

[Mairead]

20. They're 'basic', maybe, but they are also rare

Greed is a pathological condition. When someone eats twice as much as anyone else, that's probably hunger, not greed. Greed is when no matter how much you have, it's not enough and you want more. That's greed. Very few people have it. What passes for 'greed' in most people is really fear: the truly greedy maintain artificial scarcities, so ordinary people are forced to exist permanently on the edge of a socioeconomic pit and they naturally grab anything they can to try to feel less vulnerable. Give them freedom from that fear, and they stop grabbing. People might jostle one another and act 'greedy' as they stock up at the supermarket before a blizzard, but they don't do it usually. The difference: fear.

Stupidity is also rare--more rare than high intelligence, because real stupidity is socially lethal: truly stupid people are institutionalised. Now, you might be overgeneralising 'stupidity' as you did 'greed', and call anyone 'stupid' who zigs when they should zag. But in most cases 'stupidity' is really only ignorance, and in most of the remaining cases we wouldn't have a lot of trouble finding the origin of the 'stupid' behavior in some early-life message. (Many people at DU have written about their personal experience recognising and overcoming one of those messages).

What passes for laziness is very often really learned helplessness. When we don't think there's anything we can do, we preemptively give up. It's understandable on some level: it's not possible to remain 100% engaged and striving in the face of repeated frustration; we blow a fuse and burn out. But preemptively giving up guarantees that we never succeed, which is quite serviceable to the people who want us to engage only with our jobs and television. We can easily detect whether the person is lazy: do they ever put energy into anything? If they do, they're not lazy, just usually unmotivated, which is quite a different container of swimming things.

Give people more credit.

[A Simple Game]

39. Nice post. N/T

[Mairead]

45. Thank you! (nt)

[OneBlueSky]

4. absolute necessities in a civilized society . . . we need ideals . . .

to shoot for if we want to make any progress . . . whether we ever reach the ideal (we won't) is irrelevant . . .

[welshTerrier2]

7. totally agree

without a map, we're just a bunch of guys driving around in circles ...

at times, i sense some on DU criticize idealism ... the focus of this criticism seems to be that idealists have their head in the clouds and contribute nothing but unachievable vagueries ... "stop dreaming of nonsense and get to work !!" ...

frankly, i find such views incredible ... without "visioning", without a dream, without a sense of the greatest "could be's", just where is it these people think we're going?

there was a great Firesign Theatre line that said "we've sent your bags on ahead sir. We're is it you're going?"

Would mankind have ever soared through the heavens if someone didn't first have the dream of flight?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. There's a difference

Between "being an idealist" and "having ideals".

I wholeheartedly agree that without ideals there is no point whatsoever in entering politics - if you want to make things better, you need to have a clear idea of what "better" is.

In general, though, idealists are actually less good at achieving their ideals than realists.

If you opt for "all or nothing" you almost invariably get nothing. If you're willing to compromise on some parts of your dream you can usually achieve other parts, and while you'll never reach Utopia you can move closer to it.

If you want to improve the world, you *have* to start out with a clear, unromanticised picture of what it is like. Idealism distorts that picture, and only ever makes it harder.

[omega minimo]

5. Yes and No

:evilgrin:


Western medicine looks at parts. Rips and separates to dissect into bits. Pragmatic, dense physicality.

Eastern medicine observes, relates and enhances function. Observant, realistic subtlety.

The "New Physics" crashed into ancient metaphysics.

There you are. Dissecting or functioning? Physical and/or subtle?

Our view of how the world works changes in order to change the world.

Tell me I had you at "yes and no."

[welshTerrier2]

8. question ??

Our view of how the world works changes in order to change the world.


does our view of how the world works change the world or does our view of how the world COULD BE change the world?

i would think idealists would choose the latter ... yes? no?

[omega minimo]

12. Clever or wise?

Is there room here for ambiguity? For the suggestion that each of us must balance positive and negative, idealism and pragmatism, not only in groups, but within ourselves? That "symbiotic relationship" within is a challenge for each of us-- and may be why it sometimes seems like either/or. It takes guts (NOT namby pamby, by the way) to recognize and accept our own power, because it implies responsibility.

Q. "does our view of how the world works change the world or does our view of how the world COULD BE change the world?"
A. Yes.

I've seen threads run up the DU flagpole about this that get hit with cliches about "cheerleading" or "Pollyanna." How realistic or effective is black and white thinking? It's a fine line between pragmatism and pessimism. The idealist will take a chance and head into the unknown, whie the realist sits safely in their cubicle.

Democracy embodies (literally) the meeting ground of idealism and pragmatism. Within each one of us with the courage to honor our own power, along with the great minds you quoted...and the lessons history teaches about them.


:smoke:


DON'T LET THE BASTARDS HIJACK YOUR IMAGINATION OF THE FUTURE.

[lostinacause]

14. Although this may sound critical I mean it in a constructive way

So long as your goals are conversation and communication, perhaps you should elaborate and expand you ideas. They currently serve as words that could have one meaning or another. Your ideas are lost on most who do not already have the knowledge that you have. There are two things that make a great philosopher; the ability to think and the ability to communicate ideas. You will likely notice that almost every great philosopher communicates in a thorough way to aid others in their understanding. Any philosopher who does not communicate in such a way is in spite of their writing style not because of it.

There is no question you mind is gifted by the way you write. I, and probably many others, would like to know what you mean by what you say.

[omega minimo]

18. Thanks for the idealistic, yet pragmatic, disclaimer

Since, as you say "Your ideas are lost on most who do not already have the knowledge that you have," I left it open and available to "serve as words that could have one meaning or another. " That's the point. The initial thread question poses a dichotomy that exists in words and attitudes, not necessarily reality. I was gonna stay with "yes and no" and got caught up in elaborating. B-)

If one DU'er posts about "postive thinking" and someone responds with "Pollyanna" or "cheerleader"-- and the conversation ends, what then? Everyone goes on thinking that its either/or?

My suggestion is that the symbiotic relationship recognized in the thread as occuring in groups of people, also occurs within individuals. Maybe some foks think they are a realist or an idealist. Is it really a choice of one or the other? There are excellent quotes posted here. I believe Dr. King got out of the armchair long enough to lead a march or two.

A concrete example of the idealism/pragmatic symbiosis is the religious extremism that has siezed control of our government and national media attention. The ideal ("Life") and pragmatism (styrofoam cup of water) are married in apparently irrestible mind control by the circle reading the talking points memo. Not only is their base "excited," they are fixated on the plight of one braindead woman, while genocide continues in Darfour and Bush's war continues in Iraq.

Powerful stuff.

[welshTerrier2]

6. some great quotes on idealism

"If I were to wish for anything, I should not wish for wealth and power, but for the passionate sense of the potential, for the eye which, ever young and ardent, sees the possible. Pleasure disappoints, possibility never."
Kierkegaard

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Albert Einstein

"You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions."
Naguib Mahfouz (Nobel Prize Winner)

"If you want to build a ship, then don't drum up men to gather wood, give orders, and divide the work. Rather, teach them to yearn for the far and endless sea."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery


"Martin Luther King did not say, "I have a strategic plan." Instead, he shouted, "I have a DREAM!," and, he created a crusade."
Unknown source

[lostinacause]

21. You could add a few quotes by others who did not change the world

in such a good way. As far as idealists go Hitler and Osama Bin Laden would definitly fit into the catagory too. Karl Marx, though he had nobel beliefs, did not understand the full extent of the theory he proposed and millions of innocent lives were taken the name communism.

[blondeatlast]

9. What we need is a way to make both work together better.

You can see it right here at DU. Often there is vitriol between the two; there shouldn't be, but neither side seems to want to acknowledge the gifts of the other.

[welshTerrier2]

10. that's a very idealistic vision ...

the problem i see is that some have come to see idealists as "armchair philosophers" who don't DO anything ...

i think idealists, by trying to envision "perfection", are inspiring themselves and filling themselves with motivation prior to acting ... if we can see the possibilities, we are more inspired to work towards them ... to see idealists as dreamers who don't act fails to understand them ... the MLK quote i posted really captures that idea ... "I have a DREAM" and he moved mountains ...

my view of idealists, and i consider myself one, is that we start with a dream, we envision change, we explore "the possible" ... and then we do all we can, or many of us do, to implement that vision ... the vision as someone above in this thread said, can never really be achieved ... it's a direction not an end point ... the idea is to "reach the unreachable star" ...

as activists, we believe it's important to "envision the building" before we "hammer the nails" ... and i suppose we hold to the idea that those who are so eager to hammer may, in the end, build a structure that is ultimately uninhabitable ...

of course, to seek cooperation and understanding, as you called for in your post, is always a good idea ...

[lostinacause]

23. Idealists generally don't "explore the possible".

It is the realist that typically explores the possibilities. They often do it so critically that they lack the ability to accomplish what is necessary without help and guidance of others. When you have someone with a good balance of idealism and realism then you get what you likely speaking of; someone who has the ability to dream but is grounded enough to realize the limitations of different methods of pursuing the dream and figure out the best possible way to get close to the desired outcome.

[lostinacause]

16. I agree with you.

I have seen two groups working to undermine each other when it is in their best interest to cooperate. This is not so much a matter of idealists versus realists but a problem with people who have different views and strengths working against one another when it is in both parties best interest to work together. The struggle between idealists and realists is one example of a struggle that occurs much too often. I see that being a problem that will compromise America’s future if the polarization and division continues as it has lately.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. Without idealists to imagine a better future, nothing would happen

The idealists who come up with the ideas are always laughed at by the pragmatists, who say, "But the world has always had slavery/oppression of women/child labor/absolute monarchs/whatever."

Perhaps the first task of the idealists is to win over a few pragmatists who can help them implement their goals.

[cestpaspossible]

13. No.

[jmcon007]

15. positive....as far as it goes

I believe a wise President, regardless whether he or she is an idealist or realist, would choose a good mixture to advise them.
The problem with Bush is that if there WERE any realists around him, they've long since been purged and what you're left with are people more than willing to circumvent laws and ethics to achieve their goals.

[lostinacause]

17. I don't believe the problem with the Republicans is a problem of

being to idealistic. It is a problem of having too many likeminded people that are too far to from the center.

[welshTerrier2]

19. not all "ideals" are good ideals

by ideals, at least according to my own definition, i mean envisioning something that is currently out of reach ... but ideals are subjective, not objective ...

what one person defines as an ideal might be unappealing to someone else ... the neo-cons may indeed be driven by idealism ... their ideal world might include a survival-of-the-fittest "free" market and to hell with everyone else ... they might even believe in the idea of trickle down and "a rising tide lifts all boats" ...

the problem with the right-wing agenda in my subjective view is that it is founded on pure greed and a lack of genuine concern for others ... so, i value idealism ... i think without a belief in a system that could be worked toward, change cannot happen ... but not all systems are to be valued ...

ideals are a vision of how things could be without regard to practical considerations ... it asks "if all these things weren't in the way, what would you want to achieve" ... and once the direction of change is established, we can set about the business of overcoming the obstacles ...

in team building, like the Democratic Party for example, i agree that a blend of visionaries and realists is needed ... the dynamic i see is one where the visionaries define the "perfect" world (as best they can), the realists highlight the obstacles and then both work together to make as much progress as possible ...

[omega minimo]

24. WelshTerrier2, upon revisiting your thoughtful thread

I notice a difference in perception of what an idealist or idealism IS. Its repeated that the ideal is something to envision and strive for, maybe never to reach. The idealists dream and the pragmatists "hammer the nails." Idealists say how things "should be" and realists deal with how they are. Ideal = (possibly unattainable) goal. Idealism = vision or naivete. Idealistic = inspired or deluded.

I realize I think of idealism as more an active process. Idealism grounded in action in the present holds the power of intention and affirmation. This is what I meant by my cryptic:

"Our view of how the world works changes in order to change the world."

And this is why my answer is Yes when welshTerrier2 wants to pin it down:
"does our view of how the world works change the world or does our view of how the world COULD BE change the world?"

If our view of how the world works includes the power of intention, we change the world. Voila, faith-based pragmatism! We each experience this in our own way, and we use it ALL the time. Unless we're in a persistent vegetative state.

The alternative, as Mairead points out:
"But preemptively giving up guarantees that we never succeed, which is quite serviceable to the people who want us to engage only with our jobs and television."

[welshTerrier2]

27. try this example ...

when you say, "we each experience this in our own way", are you suggesting that we are all idealists and that we all employ faith-based pragmatism?

here's a specific example to work with ... my objective is NOT to discuss the merits of my position but rather to view it through the lens of idealists and pragmatists ...

i frequently raise the following issue on DU ... our government has been totally corrupted by big money ... corporations and their super-wealthy stockholders have bought our government and control all of our democratic institutions ... the government serves only the wealthiest citizens resulting in bad policy for everyone else ... we must not continue to allow the super-wealthy to petition the government with greater success ...

my solution to this? first, to offer an olive branch to the moderates and liberals (for want of better labels), i support their calls for remedies like campaign finance reform and perhaps more restrictions on lobbyists ... i'm willing to "try it their way" AS A FIRST STEP ... i'm skeptical that, while we allow massive disparities in economic bargaining power, we will ever solve the problem but i'm willing to support the efforts proposed by some until their failure is realized and their solutions become exhausted ...

the ideal still remains, however ... the ideal is a system of governance that shares power equally regardless of economic might ...

and then we arrive at the crux of the issue at hand ... in my negotiations with those who are proposing "pragmatic" solutions, so called "realistic" solutions or "practical" solutions, i ask them to sign on to my idea as a "future" because the ideal must be realized ... i ask them to agree to my step #2 as i have agreed to their step #1 ... and therein lies the rub ...

now i am seen as not quite so reasonable ... "just a minute ... what you're talking about is socialism (or communism or "insert your favorite label here")" ... "you'll never achieve "perfection"" ... they bring our all their "pragmatic" wet blankets ... "that would kill incentive ... that would kill the middle class ... businesses would move overseas" ... the laundry list of "pragmatic" arguments they present is almost limitless ...

but, and here's where i see the "rift" arise, they seem unwilling to continue working toward solving the problem or working towards the ideal ... i get things back like "we would just have to get more Democrats elected" ... they see this as a solution but refuse to deal with the hypothetical ... "yes, let's say you elected more Democrats but big money still found a way to control the levers of power ... what would you do then?" ... "oh, that wouldn't happen" or "we'd have to modify the campaign finance laws to make them tougher" ...

they just won't cross the street even in a hypothetical environment ... i assume they believe they are working towards the ideal i proposed ... but the reality is that they refuse to take the necessary steps to bring it to life ...

idealists end up labeled as "extremists" because the solutions required to achieve the ideals are seen as "going too far" ... my view of those i don't see as idealists is that they don't go far enough ... it is the ideal that should guide our actions ... those who are not idealists, or if you prefer less idealistic, will, at some point, abandon the ideal for what they see as pragmatic considerations ...

so, if your point was that we are all idealists, this example sheds some light on the idea that some will abandon their fight for an ideal much sooner than others ...

[omega minimo]

32. Which came first: the Easter Bunny or the Egg?

So, WT2, here we are in a grey area. I have not seen enough of your posts to be familiar with your "Step 2." I agree there are different ways to view what is "pragmatic" in order to move forward, especially in regard to elections. That is one of the main reasons I finally arrived at DU.

The ideal of USA democracy is embodied in the Constitution. Actions taken against the government of the American people in defiance of the Constitution are crimes. In the past two presidential elections, crimes have been committed, violating American laws. In order to proceed the first question is: What crimes were committed? Then :If evidence of these crimes does exist, why won't the Congress stand for American people? Third: If crimes have been committed, evidence is documented and Congress is hogtied, what recourse do the American people have? If none, why the hell not? Constitutionally speaking, that is.

In an ideal world.

It may be reassuring to some folks to charge ahead to work on "next time;" it may be pragmatic. It may even work. I have thanked these people before on DU for doing this on my behalf.

I agree with you that there are some potential blind spots in focusing solely on that. We are dealing with a crisis of consciousness. Americans are in a persistent vegetative state. Unless and until we address that, improvements in voting mechanisms may not achieve the idealistic/pragmatic goal intended.

There is such a thing as self-fulfilling prophecy. If Americans believe they are disenfranchised and powerless, they are right. If some DUers think they can look down the barrel of the loaded gun Bushco. has pointed at them and bemoan the black future and believe it will happen no matter what they do and they do nothing, they are right. If changing voting mechanisms and processes can also help to snap Americans out of their stupor, they might work.

If Americans want to believe that Democracy is a failsafe that will always be there and someone else caretakes it for them, they are wrong. And that is why we are where we are, since the writing has been on the wall for at least 25 years now.

"People got the power." --Patti Smith

"Perception is reality." --some old hippie or physicist or guru

"Democracy embodies (literally) the meeting ground of idealism and pragmatism. Within each one of us with the courage to honor our own power, along with the great minds you quoted...and the lessons history teaches about them." --OM

:evilgrin:

[welshTerrier2]

33. sorry ... my "pre-coffee" omission !!

sorry ... i didn't mean to create a situation where you would be familiar with my position on the issue of "fixing the wealth problem" ... it was a totally inadvertant omission on my part ...

my "step 2" calls for the capping of wealth if we are unable to find a mechanism to resolve the abuses of our democratic institutions that great wealth enables ... again, i expect it would be more widely acceptable to most Democrats to try to remedy the problem with more campaign finance reforms and perhaps with additional restrictions on lobbyists (e.g. more disclosure requirements or even banning paid lobbyists completely) ... my draconian call for capping wealth has not been well received by many on DU ...

i address the anticipated objections to my extreme remedy by yielding power to those who offer more moderate solutions ... from my perspective, this makes me eminently reasonable and a simply wonderful fellow ... but in return, i seek an agreement that, if the initial methods proposed cannot be made to work, the necessity of democracy to seek truly shared power among its citizenry must be honored ... that's the ideal ... unfortunately, these more pragmatic moderates don't seem to share the same commitment to the stated ideal ... "oh no, we couldn't do anything like that !!" ... "you're seeking a perfection that can never be realized !!"

that's the point i'm trying to highlight ... it's not that anyone should necessarily agree with my proposed remedy (i.e. capping wealth) ... that's NOT the point ... it's that, if we accept the ideal as a given (and some will not), then those whose first solutions fail are still obligated to propose other solutions ... to abandon the effort to achieve an equitable distribution of power is NOT OK ... and that's where their labels or "perfectionist" or "idealist" seem misguided to me ... i demand no precise remedy (although i propose a remedy) ... the obligation is not to the remedy; it's to the ideal ...

[manic expression]

22. To be idealist

in both thought AND action is one excellent path to change and success.

Idealists look upon the sunset, although they may trip over their feet from time to time. Pragmatists look at only their feet, and even though they do not loose their footing, they loose sight of the sunset.

Personally, I would gladly trip over myself from time to time in exchange for mindfulness (and oneness) with such a sublime entity.

Also, humans are not naturally greedy or anything like this. Everyone has the unmistakable potential to be good, but people ignore this and/or choose not to do the right thing.

[lostinacause]

25. I disagree

An idealist fails more times then she succeeds. While we hear many stories about the success of "idealists" there are others that we never hear about who have failed. Most of the people who have succeeded have also managed to have "realist" thought patterns as well. Like most things balance is the key to success.

I question you belief that humans are not naturally greedy. Look at how little children behave. They are generally very possessive by nature.

[manic expression]

26. I don't think so...

To categorize all idealists as having little to do with reality is a generalization and most of the time, it is a wrong one. The truest idealist is capable of having the most accurate view of the world, but there is no doubt a sense of what the world could be. This vision drives an idealist to bring their ideals to the outer world. It is more than possible to have different views of the world on different levels.

In the end, idealists can and do have a good view of reality, and realists must have a good view of what should happen.

Children can be greedy, but perhaps this is nurture and not nature. Their environment encourages such behavior. This still does not prove that greed is natural, as mostly children who have had exposure to society show this. Even animals can show some type of greed (they just try to get what they need and nothing more), but it is never superfluous, always necessary, and contributes to the balance of nature. There is no doubt humans can do this and actually, we should do better.

[lostinacause]

35. In contrasting idealism and realism perhaps it is best to consider

what constitutes the difference between the two. First I am going to make say that education and ambition not factors in how idealistic a person is. Is conceivable that an individual with or without ambition can be either an idealist or a realist. In comparing the idealist to the realist education must be held constant even if idealism is a factor in whether people get educated to keep things constant so the effect is truly a matter of idealism vs. realism.

Now let establish the idealism. I am first going to say that idealism is not discrete. There are two different points; one where people are idealists and another where people are realists. To contrast the two extremes let us consider idealists to take nothing from what the see in the world into consideration and realists only take into account what they see.

Now let’s take an event into consideration that happens with a probability of p randomly. They both have the possibility to bet for or against the event. They are able to observe 1 trial of this event. The person who is the realist is better able to predict the outcome of the next event because they can base their action on what has previously happened. While there are more complex games that do not take into account random outcomes they prove useless in establishing anything about the strength either set as their complexity is lost on the extremes. When considering whether more or less idealism is good it really depends on being able to articulate a reference point as in a simple test the idealists do poorly. At the very least I have established that more idealism does not lead to a good view of reality.

[Tsiyu]

57. Funny, every toddler I have ever raised ( six?)andknown would offer food

to an adult nearby while they were in their little high chairs or on someone's lap.

[kodi]

28. define for me idealists and their idealism, and i will answer the question

.

[welshTerrier2]

29. definitions can be found throughout this thread

or, there's always the dictionary or even your own view of what the terms mean ...

you want my idea? i would say idealism starts by defining values before it calls for actions ... so, for example, we might say that every citizen should ideally have equal power in our country ... and then we seek candidates who espouse a belief in these values ... and then we work our asses off to help these candidates ...

those who are not idealists might call these people "unrealistic perfectionists" ... they might say "we just have to get Democrats elected" ... they frequently state that "winning" is more important than anything else ...

but that's just my subjective definition ... how you see the issue and whether you care to comment is obviously your own call ...

[kodi]

30. the definitions found throughout this thread are meaningless

there are many types of idealism; the subjective idealism of say berkeley, objective realism of plato and hegel, and even forms of personal idealism that are contrary to the other forms.

none of these are results oriented, they are a way of looking at the world is it is, not as it should be according to certain value system.

and nowhere is it shown on the thread what idealism is generally considered to be as a form of philosophy; a way of interpreting human experience that places an emphasis on the mind as a priori to matter.

as to your remark "idealism starts by defining values before it calls for actions"

can you put forth any philosophic system that does not "define values before it calls for actions?"

it should be pointed out that "idealism" is determined more by the meaning of the term "idea" than "ideal." "ideal-ism" simply rolls off the lips better than "idea-ism."

idealism, as a world view has nothing to do with perfectionism nor simply as a form of thought of one who accepts and lives by lofty moral or religious standards.

but if you want to use quaint colloquialisms, try this one:

"the greatest enemy of the good is the perfect."

then again, those who seek perfectionism never seem to find it, do they?

[omega minimo]

31. Huh?

"and nowhere is it shown on the thread what idealism is generally considered to be as a form of philosophy; a way of interpreting human experience that places an emphasis on the mind as a priori to matter."

Your comments seem to come from an abstract and super-educated space. Perhaps you do not see here the lingo you expect will indicate an understanding of philosophical concepts you recognize.

My comments suggest the relationships between mind and matter, idea and process. Will you tell us how you experience what we are discussing? Especially as your sig line makes the point:

“There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home.” John Stuart Mill

a priori (from the Latin-- "from something prior"
1. from cause to effect; from a generalization to particular instances: deductive or deductively
2: based on theory instead of experience or experiment


Interestingly, as a noun, it is "a priority"! Thanks fer the lesson, perfesser!

[kodi]

37. your comments did NOT suggest mind/matter relationships, idea/process

this is what you said was your working definition of idealism and idealists... from post #24.

I notice a difference in perception of what an idealist or idealism IS. Its repeated that the ideal is something to envision and strive for, maybe never to reach. The idealists dream and the pragmatists "hammer the nails." Idealists say how things "should be" and realists deal with how they are. Ideal = (possibly unattainable) goal. Idealism = vision or naivete. Idealistic = inspired or deluded.

I realize I think of idealism as more an active process. Idealism grounded in action in the present holds the power of intention and affirmation.

you will have to explain how a philosophy that is based upon the ideas of the mind over matter is, as you write grounded in action in the present holds the power of intention and affirmation. especially when idealism asserts that reality is akin to ideas, thought, mind, or self, rather than to materials.

[omega minimo]

38. idea (mind) x act (matter) = reality

It's a process. Mindandmatter. Are your firm constructs real or are they words that reinforce dualistic thinking?

I think the original post was regarding the context of "idealisitc" as it arises on DU.

"you will have to explain how a philosophy that is based upon the ideas of the mind over matter is, as you write grounded in action in the present holds the power of intention and affirmation. especially when idealism asserts that reality is akin to ideas, thought, mind, or self, rather than to materials."

Where's the conflict? "especially when idealism asserts that reality is akin to ideas, thought, mind, or self, rather than to materials." How does one observe reality as akin to ideas, if not expressed through material? In the science lab, they're proven to be the same thing. Reality springs from mind-- there's no argument here.

[omega minimo]

40. Everything All The Time

"We think the world apart. What would it be like to think the world together?"
      Parker Palmer


David Bohm

The Two Kinds of Order

Einstein once spoke of the physicist David Bohm as his successor. Bohm introduced concepts of Implicate Order and Explicate Order. Others had constructed related models of two orders, including Henri Bergson and William Yeats in the early 1900’s. Bohm meant his concepts to replace order and disorder although he was not able to convince other scientists of this necessity. Bohm struggled with despair and depression at not being able to convince the scientific community of the scientific value of his discoveries. In describing Implicate Order Bohm writes:


This order is not to be understood solely in terms of a regular arrangement of objects (e.g., in rows) or as a regular arrangement of events (e.g. in a series). Rather, a total order is contained in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. Now the word 'implicit' is based on the verb 'to implicate'. This means 'to fold inward' (as multiplication means 'folding many times'). So we may be led to explore the notion that in some sense each region contains a total structure 'enfolded' within it.


Most everyone else, including modern scientists, believe order is properly defined with a single concept.  In most dictionaries order is defined as “a condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group.” If we translate our sense of order into an image, we would draw an axis, with greater order in one direction and disorder in the opposite direction.  Thus if the order of a pattern increases its disorder must decrease.

In science there is a law, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the universe begins ordered and evolves toward disorder.  Science claims the universe is more ordered in the past, and as time passes everything is becoming ever more disordered as we evolve into the future.  This second law is one of the most fiercely defended laws in science.

Although the following is more developed than our existing vague definition of order, the basics of what I am about to explain aren't very complex or difficult to envision.  We all know a great deal more about this subject than we realize because of our immersion in nature and because of our participation in the ordered flow of time. 

http://everythingforever.com/bohm.htm
or google: bohm implicate explicate

[kodi]

41. Note that Bohm’s remarks contradict yours of post 38#

Thus, you state in post 38:

“ How does one observe reality as akin to ideas, if not expressed through material? In the science lab, they're proven to be the same thing. Reality springs from mind-- there's no argument here.”

Bohm disagrees in that he does not demand that order be reflected by the materialism of scientific method, nor that the idea of order need be proven by objective fact. In fact, he denies such a requirement.

That is the meaning of his remark

“This order is not to be understood solely in terms of a regular arrangement of objects (e.g., in rows) or as a regular arrangement of events (e.g. in a series).”

He is not demanding that the reality of an idea be expressed by external matter, (read material empiricism) and is in agreement with Berkeley or Mill on what they considered what an idealist professes, reality begins with the mind.

btw: i like bohm and his writings, epecially the short essays/talks with krishnamurti called the "ending of time."

[omega minimo]

42. Please note that I provided a link

that would be easy for you to debunk, if you chose to, and a suggestion for google: "bohm implicate explicate", if anyone is interested in the New Physics meets metaphysics, which you are apparently familiar with. Throwing Krishnamurti into the google is a great suggestion.

The concept of the implicate order ("Ground of Being") in relationship with the explicate order ("Reality") is of interest and relevance here.

"We think the world apart. What would it be like to think the world together?" ---Parker Palmer

Are you thinking the world apart or thinking the world together?

You may have much to share regarding these concepts. If you see some relevance to the questions on DU about how to face the "overwhelming" situation we are in and how to proceed, in terms of being motivated, positive, whatever you want to call it, please fill us in.

Your ability to joust with terminology may prevent others from benefitting from your awareness.

[kodi]

43. i agree, the "ground of being" expressed in time/space is us

But I see and consider its limitations and your position is well thought out, and well taken. For to know also implies a "knower" and a "known" and these are by our constructs, different. This is the precedence of any entity that perceives a different-ness. And by process perceives and identifies another.

You imply the act of perception is the actuality of the knower as part of the known. This translates to the transcendent perceiving in time and space the a singularity. But one precedes the other in our perceptions, and seem to indicate that the creator is the creation and I would agree, but you used a lot of words to get there...


I would, if I could sing the grateful dead song to you. "We are the eyes of the world" and arrive at the same point, and have more fun getting there too.

[omega minimo]

44. Down on the ground and on DU, regarding politics

we need to understand the relationship between our thoughts and actions, our assumptions and the outcome--

WT2 posted this in the politics board. Relevant to DU, we see threads containing confusion and despair, hopelessness and CAPITULATION to the evils being perpetrated on the people and the planet. Different attitudes about what is "realistic" or "idealistic" as WelshTerrier2 has pointed out that CONTROL the discussion and occasionally limit what is discussed. Some threads skip to actions based on assumptions that may deserve more reflection...or different threads for different WAYS to address the challenges we face.

Can you translate your concepts to aid in that regard?

"You imply the act of perception is the actuality of the knower as part of the known. This translates to the transcendent perceiving in time and space the a singularity. But one precedes the other in our perceptions, and seem to indicate that the creator is the creation and I would agree, but you used a lot of words to get there..."

I may have "used a lot of words to get there" but I didn't mean to imply anything like this-- I don't think in the terms you are focused on. It sounds very academic and abstracted to me. Not personal.

Great concepts can be simplified and we need it here at DU. We are creating the future we want to live in. Or not.

Like the man said,

"If you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."


p.s. I liked "Mars Hotel"

[Solon]

34. One can be both despite the seemingly contradiction in that...

One can look at the "Big Picture" as to how the world is supposed to be, and work on practical "baby steps" towards that goal.

[Nevernose]

36. One can be idealistic and pragmatic at the same time

The two aren't mutually exclusive, as some would like to believe. For instance, I believe that the world can be, and will a nearly perfect place for Man to live, unmarred by pollution, war, greed, starvation, or the thousands of other evils we inflict upon ourselves every day.

I'm also pragmatic enough to realize that it's not going to happen any time soon -- not in my lifetime, or my grandchildren's lifetime, or even their grandchildren's lifetime.

My pragmatism, however, isn't going to stop me from trying to leave the world a better place than when I got here.

There's also idealism w/o pragmatism. Bush, for instance, has a great deal of idealism regarding the Middle East -- and not one shred of pragmatism regarding the enormous complexity of the situation (this is assuming that he's only a dumbass, and not just greedy for oil). I have some hippie friends who fall into a more left-wing version of the idealism trap; they sit around smoking pot and meditating, trying to "heal the world" through meditatively send their psychic thoughts across the globe. They are, of course, too busy to attend a Sierra Club clean-ip event, or make some phone calls before election day, or even read a frigging newspaper to keep up with modern events.

[amjucsc]

46. Idealism's good, but it needs to be mixed with pragmatism

I think people should have ideas, and fight like hell to see that they come true, but in furthering that fight one needs to have a realistic view of the situation at hand. If you don't, you'll never be effective at getting what you want done done.

[Psst_Im_Not_Here]

47. Idealists

dream it

Realists make it happen

and the Cynics sit around and complain that it can't be done and then about how it was done.

To me, it's the cynics we can do without.

[omega minimo]

48. Yes and No

Hey WT2, after all this and you're still getting comments as if Idealistic and Realistic are mutually exclusive or seperate from each other? Is this how people experience it or is it the overuse of cliches?

Does the mutual exclusivity infer a choice-- each of us must be one or the other? Veering off into philosophy and the New Physics didn't help much.

How many DU'ers does it take to change a light bulb?
Seventy two. One idealist to suggest it, one realist to get the ladder, and seventy sitting in the dark to post about it.

:evilgrin:

Is it idealistic to vote? When you know it (possibly) doesn't matter?

Is it realistic to vote? When you know it (possibly) doesn't matter?

To both, I say yes. And I may continue to vote, we'll see.........

[welshTerrier2]

49. "we have to win; then we'll see"

to use all the cliches at my disposal, i have always heard people talking about the great idealism of the 60's that JFK inspired ... we believed we could change the world and put an end to hatred and greed and exploitation ... and as i grew older, i had always hoped that those who thought themselves idealistic would persevere and that younger people would join our ranks as they grew up ...

but lately, especially here on DU, i've heard a constant drumbeat of win, win, win ... never why, why, why ... just win ...

i've been told many, many times to "put my stuff on the back burner" ... "we have no time to quarrel with each other right now; we just have to back all our candidate so we can win" ... as to all the high-brow philosophy tossed about, what can i say ... as you correctly pointed out, this is a political forum ... i have no problem with philosophical insights if they bring something to the table ... most seemed to be little more than self-indulgent and pedantic ...

anyway, the point of this thread was to "open a new front" or at least stake out a little turf ... we should not accept the meme that we are "armchair philosophers" or theoretical do-nothings ... it's nonsense ... my very deep frustrations with the Democratic Party, and some on DU, is that we cannot seem to find a way to allow a truly participatory democratic process to flourish ... people need to understand that they will not be able to sell me their little campaign banners until we sit down to discuss the great issues of the day ... i'm not going to just hop on your train until i know where it's going ... and i expect to have a say where it's going ... and i expect ALL Democrats to have a say where it's going ...

idealism dies when we are all ordered to march in lockstep to secure the great victory ... idealism is not about perfection ... idealism is not about theory without action ... this is about democracy itself ... let each citizen speak to the issues and build a movement from the collective values, the collective ideals, the collective vision ... the battle is rapidly becoming a fight between those who will "captain" from the top down versus those who want a voice for each citizen ... there is no room for idealism when the system of government, even within the internal operations of the Democratic Party itself, trickles down upon us ... and that system is what must be changed before we can proceed ... it's what democracy is all about and it's good politics too ...

[omega minimo]

50. You are getting to the core of something there.

Reading recent threads on "why they shot JFK," I thought-- because they kill hope.

"we believed we could change the world and put an end to hatred and greed and exploitation ... and as i grew older, i had always hoped that those who thought themselves idealistic would persevere and that younger people would join our ranks as they grew up"
--It is as a reaction to the golden age of activism that the past few decades have been spent building the crushing wave of Wrong Wing brainwashing that is crashing right now. Young people post-Reagan grew up as the clock was being turned back.

"... people need to understand that they will not be able to sell me their little campaign banners until we sit down to discuss the great issues of the day ..."

Such as:
Why have we no recourse for two stolen elections except "next time"?
Why is that not open for open discussion?
What is everyone afraid of?
Do these questions all have the same answer?
So where does that leave us? How does that reality check affect our idealistic views of a "pragmatic" way to proceed?
And if we don't have that reality check?
Is the answer, from Left or Right, "get over it"?

"... this is about democracy itself ... let each citizen speak to the issues and build a movement from the collective values, the collective ideals, the collective vision ... "

You are reflecting the core meaning of democracy, which I suggested is the embodiment of idealism and pragmatism. Right now, on the web and in person, the people talking about democracy in principle are not necessarily inclined to embody it in action.

Focusing on what is at hand or seems fixable can be reassuring and realistic.

[Tsiyu]

51. Blah Blah Blah

Here's the way I see it:

By all rights, I shouldn't even BE here. And yet, here I am, this miniscule speck on a very big earth, breathing and making methane and using up a few more of the world's resources.

I could sit back and care only about the pragmatic issues of life, be safe and secure, make all of my choices based on sound, logical rational thought and still get kicked in the ass.

Or I can look at problems and do what I can to call attention to them, work individually with others to enhance our life experience, connect with others in ways that help my community, protest when I feel compelled, post on DU when I am moved to do so.

It's much more boring to live the first way.

So it's not a matter of "naive/worldly" or "ineffective/calculating"
but of personal preference.


Are you a better person if you like strawberry shortcake, or if you like hot fudge sundaes?

[omega minimo]

52. Don't take your Self for granted

:evilgrin:

[welshTerrier2]

54. what a sad, cynical view

if i understand your post correctly, everything comes down to you ... it's all about whether one path or another is "not boring" ... your personal preference has nothing to do with making the world better, even if you take an active role ... it's all about your preference to avoid boredom ...

advocating to make the world a better place, fighting for democracy and doing what you can to relieve the suffering of others should not be taken on as some sort of "everyone needs a hobby and it's nice to get out of the house every now and then" activity ...

why do you reduce the following understanding of the need to act:

I can look at problems and do what I can to call attention to them, work individually with others to enhance our life experience, connect with others in ways that help my community, protest when I feel compelled to a trite choice between strawberry shortcake and hot fudge sundaes ???

[Tsiyu]

Sorry I got that reaction from you

The OP asked if idealists were naive ( as compared to? Realists? Sure, later on in the thread.) Isn't that what you were asking? Whether one had a negative or positive view of "idealists."

Wasn't that the question?

Okay, so IN MY HUMBLE AND * cynical* opinion, I do not place a judgement on others based on their status as "idealists" or "Realists."

I believe human beings are drawn to make choices based on their desires and experiences. I certainly didn't name all of my opinions, only one.

And to say that by stating my opinion I am somehow self-centered, or to say that because I find it immensely more interesting to care about others - and to be involved than to give a damn only about myself and my own needs - makes me not quite as altruistic as you would have humans be seems cynical to ME.

That's how opinions work.
Sorry i rubbed you the wrong way with mine.

I'm not Mother Teresa, baby, but I'm also not Imelda Marcos. Sorry.

[welshTerrier2]

58. have I misunderstood what you wrote ??

if so, i sincerely apologize ...

let me show you what i based my interpretation on ...

you wrote:

Or I can look at problems and do what I can to call attention to them, work individually with others to enhance our life experience, connect with others in ways that help my community, protest when I feel compelled, post on DU when I am moved to do so.

It's much more boring to live the first way.


what should the standard be? is there a right and wrong at all? is it important for people to, as you put it, "care about others"?

i think each of us has an obligation to try to make the world at least a little better ... i see it as an "obligation" ... am i misreading you when you say that, at least for you, doing nothing would be "boring" so your preference is to take a more active role ... i commend you for the choice you made; my criticism was based on my perception (a wrong perception?) that your motivation for making the positive choice you made was to avoid the more boring alternative ...

have i misunderstood your meaning? if so, i apologize ...

[Tsiyu]

61. The way, personally, that I look at life

is that I have been given a few chances I maybe should not have had, based on the circumstances. I am still, by Glory HERE. Why?

I have done all the "right" things, the safe things, the "don't make waves" things. I still got my ass kicked. So? Should I work harder to only take care of ME? The pragmatist would say "yes" because I can only be my sterling self when I am a "fully functioning adult human" with all of my personal bases covered.

But how realistic is that view, truly? Isn't it more realistic say that life is going to throw you a heap of shit and you will have to wade through it and you will lose things and relationships will sour and jobs and pensions will disappear? Don't we see that every day? Rare is the person in my circle who feels completely in control financially or socially.

So my point is that the pessimist will call the Pollyanna all sorts of condescending names, and claim the Pollyanna doesn't come up with feasable solutions, but the realist can't control everything either.

If you have to pick whether to be bitter about life and refuse to add your threads to the long stout rope life be, I think that's boring - but your choice.

[Tsiyu]

Dupe times 2

:hi:

[Tsiyu]

55. Delete- self-centered fingers?

Dupie

[cestpaspossible]

56. Well, that's certainly not how I interpret the post.

Of course, I am a sad, cynical person, so maybe it has something to do with where I am standing.

[Tsiyu]

59. Thanks c'est

( as I take Frenchie liberties)

Some people will never be idealists. They aren't made for fantasy or suffering or long-term, universal impact. That doesn't mean they don't work for change. I can't judge them, even if they annoy me. They like vanilla.

Some people will never be realists. They march to a different drummer . That doesn't mean they can't be effective. They just have challenges "realists" don't face. They prefer vanilla with a heap of flavor on top.

Other idealists I know are making things happen. The ones who aren't going anywhere sometimes have health issues, addiction issues, emotional and mental issues that delay progress.

But presonally, I'd rather be stuck on an island with a dreamer than someone who has resigned himself or herself to the cold cubicle only in order to have a mortgage and a lease on the Lexus and some other nice crap.

[sharonking21]

60. Think of biodiversity

This is a thoughtful thread which I honor.

And I realize that the original question was posed as an either-or situation in order to stimulate conversation.

You need a great deal of variation in any entity to survive and prosper. (But not necessarily unlimited variation).

I tend to think in terms of a continuum of diversity on those espousing idealism and realism. Either one can be devoted to the promulgation of good or bad.

Also, because we are such complex creatures, we shift from our usual mode of thinking and action at times. I'm generally a realist, but if you get down to poking at my own idiosyncratic political ideals, I respond as if I were an idealist.