Idealistic Reformers

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Every idealistic reformer is flawed by his lack of complete vision. He sees in part so he sees in error. The magnitude of his error is only realized in the magnitude of his creation. The incompleteness of his vision obscures important information. Yet he believes that he sees all. In fact, it goes beyond that. He believes that he sees much more than others. He believes that he sees important details and information that others miss. So he highlights what he has seen so that others will give it the attention that he thinks it deserves. He tries to change the world to see as he sees. He wants to replace the values of others with his own values. What is important to him, he wants the entire world to regard as important.

“I am correct, everyone else is wrong. I just have to convince them of this truth.”

The more influence he has the more force he can bring to bear. When he employs force then he usually justifies his actions with the thought that his noble ends justify his terrible means.

2

Hey zander,

And just who are you talking about? Are you talking about Jesus? Maybe just the ones who talk to him? The people who listen to crystals? Who is the idealistic reformer?

This isn’t a political message is it?

JT

3

“When the world slides into a fit of mass hysteria some normally decent folks around you will begin to loose their moral equilibrium. In such times one can become a beacon of stability for them. Most often, all they need is to hear are a few quiet, reassuring, rational words by which they might recalibrate their compass. These folks aren’t stupid, they’re only disoriented.”

“I am correct, everyone else is wrong. I just have to convince them of this truth.”

"most of the folks are capable of reason, and yes, they ‘lose their heads’ once in awhile. The key is to help them find their footing again. It can’t be done by presenting them with the ‘facts’. That’s just a game of one-upsmanship. The calm question that lead’s them to confront their own irrationality is the only beneficial method I can come up with. I can’t change their way of thinking. They must do it for themselves. I cannot approach them with answers and conclusions regardless how logical or reasonable they may be. "

“I am correct, everyone else is wrong. I just have to convince them of this truth.”

"The only valid method is to lead them toward their own understanding. Hopefully, they will arrive at conclusions that are beneficial for all.

Again, this works for only those capable of thinking. The ‘true believer fundamentalist’ can’t be reached. It is sad, these people are just as afraid of living and loving life as they are afraid of death."

“I am correct, everyone else is wrong. I just have to convince them of this truth.”

obviously

-Imp

4

Impenitent wrote:

“I am correct, everyone else is wrong. I just have to convince them of this truth.”

“I am correct, everyone else is wrong. I just have to convince them of this truth.”

“I am correct, everyone else is wrong. I just have to convince them of this truth.”

“I am correct, everyone else is wrong. I just have to convince them of this truth.”

Do you see how easy and pointless it is to do that?

More to the point, if you believe all that, then why do you come to a philosophy discussion forum instead of a gun website? Why do you even read our posts when your overriding insight is that a single bullet, judiciously placed, could render each one of us mute? Here, we enjoy discussing our own views about life and the world. Doubtless, you could mow us all down with you AR-15 cum snail clip, thus impressing upon any survivor left standing that our love of philosophy must have amounted to nothing. Kant’s works amount to a whole-lot-o-nothing, so you say. Oh, but you could have made that little Prussian dance with your weapon on full-auto.

Then, perhaps, you could go to a chess club and shoot-up the players, thus impressing upon any one left without a hole in them that the game of chess also amounts to nothing. :astonished:

You pop up in a discussion typically posting less than a sentence, often ending in ellipses. I had to look through a third of your posts to find anything resembling a paragraph. Basically, Impenitent, you’re a sniper. You pop up to take a shot and then you dissapear. Obviously, the simplest way to defend against a critique is to make no expansive claims of your own. You’ve been taking with your one-liners, but in the dozens of posts that I sorted through you haven’t quite gotten around to putting anything back. Given such a dearth of content, I’ve scarcely noticed you until this morning. You’re very welcome here, but you need to understand that this isn’t a chat site. For starters, perhaps you could try to post a single paragraph? If you have some ideas that you’d like to share, then I’m asking you to please try to expand them into something more than a staccato.

Thanks,
Michael

5

no, that is the point… and through this rebuttal in kind you are exersizing your own power and it emphasizes my point… does it make either position ultimately correct? no! one can argue different positions until they are blue in the face… the skeptic can reduce them to meaninglessness… how does one impliment their philosophic system? marx’s philosophy is bastardized at the point of a gun in cuba, korea and china et al… smith’s philosophy is bastardized at the point of a gun in america et al… jesus’ philosophy is bastardized at the point of a gun all over the world… mohammed’s philosophy is bastardized at the point of a gun all over the world…

if you want to argue about how wonderful things could be if only the human animal wasn’t human or if only humans could bend to fit this theory or if only humans would follow this ethic or this set of morals you still have to convince them… when they remain unconvinced one uses other means…

it is precicely those means which I find the most important… cultures and philosophies thrive for years driving societies all the time… how do they do it? reason? argument? enlightenment? not at all…

because I understand the philosophies in question and I enjoy the arguments eventhough they can be proven ultimately meaningless…
there is no “Truth” besides that…

yes, this is true but it isn’t my point at all…

yes, kant’s works amount to nothing but idealistic sophistry as berkeley before him, despite kant’s protestations to the contrary… and I am not the only one who says…

if a single shot is all it takes to dismantle an argument, what does that say about the argument?

likewise

when it requires more than a one liner to dismantle an argument, it is given… and I trust you noticed that it wasn’t my gun that shot descartes’ original mathematical philosophy… but a “gun” was used.

-Imp

6

Imp,

It would seem that you’ve painted yourself into a corner… either that, or perhaps some pathological obsession? How does one ‘enjoy’ participating in something they see as ‘meaningless’?

Most of the folks who participate here have two important qualities. They exhibit hope, and out of that, they search for the right questions, the right metaphors, the right something that spark’s understanding.

Only a few stand around saying BS to everything. Nihilism doesn’t get it.

JT

7

I am talking about Idealistic Reformers as a class, not just any one single example of that group. Jesus may fit in this group. Paul, the ultimate Jesus fanatic, certainly does. He almost perfectly exemplifies the pattern addressed here. Most people who “listen to crystals” seem to be more interested in reforming themselves than in reforming the world.

It could be applied to anyone who wants to reshape the world into his or her own vision of it. Many politicians would fit the bill quite nicely.

8

nice ad hominem

I see all momentary events as ultimately meaningless… in the moment, emotions can run the gauntlet… I choose the most pleasurable ones as most do…

good for them… and when they find the “right” whatever they can be happy… but it will only be “right” for them.

no, nihilism is the start… what you choose to spell out in the moment is your choice…

-Imp

9

Hi zander,

I guess that I see reformers as two groups: The change the whole world people, which I think is the group you have described, and those who would see the individual reform themselves. Ultimately, each groups seek’s a ‘better world’, but their intent and methods differ greatly. There is a difference between telling you what to think and simply asking you to think. As you have pointed out, the reformers who ‘know’ what is best for me can be extremely violent and dangerous to my health. The latter group are probably more dangerous because they ask me to change myself.

I think it comes down to changing the world externally, or changing the world from within. It would seem that neither approach is particularly effective. It also may have something to do with patience. The reformer who “has seen the light” and has to ‘reform’ me seem’s to have a very short time period to accomplish his goal. They tend to resort to violence rather quickly. Those who seek change from within tend to take the long view, recognizing that ‘reform’ may take many generations, if it happens at all.

Both types of reformer have to struggle with inertia, my willingness to remain as I am, rather that expend energy to ‘reform’. Seem’s to me that being a reformer is a frustrating lose-lose enterprise

JT

10

Imp,

You live in a cold and empty room. Not many of us would choose to join you, but you’re entitled.

JT

11

tentative,

I think most people who want to change the world want to persuade you want to think.

Inertia does inhibit the reformer at the initiation of a new movement. Then once there is enough force applied for inertia to be overcome, we enter into political momentum. Hitler was an idealistic reformer who wanted to reshape the world. His early success won him public acclaim. Only later did the world see the magnitude of his error in the magnitude of his creation.

I suspect that I have met too many people with a blueprint of how people ought to live. I have seen their self-righteousness soar in proportion to their feeling of support. Those who felt they had strong backing were the most certain of their claims.

I guess that I have met enough people from your second group of idealistic reformers.

I agree with you the desperation influences people to turn to violent actions to achieve their aims. It is interesting to note that Paul believed that Jesus’ return, and the subsequent end of this world, would take place in his life time. The same sort of message is all around today in evangelical Christianity. There is a popular sentiment that these are the ends times, the end is near. This time crunch justifies a more extreme attitude and more extreme practices.

Its like a basic advertising technigue, “Limited time offer!” “Supplies are running low.” “While supplies last.” Tapping into the fact that nobody wants to be left out.