In defense of Idealism...

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

IDEALISM: The practice of forming or pursuing ideals,
especially unrealistically: the idealism of youth…
compared to realism.
(In art and literature) the representation of things in ideal or
idealized form. Often contrasted with realism.

I have been thinking about this a bit…much of life and philosophy
is an engagement with contrasting and comparing ideas and objects
and people…this thread is the contrast and comparison between
two such idea’s… Idealism and realism… so let us work out the
definition of realism…

REALISM: The attitude or practice of accepting a situation as it is and
being prepared to deal with it accordingly: the summit was marked by a
new mood of realism…

the view that the subject matter of politics is political power, not matters of principles…
political realism is the oldest approach to global politics.

  1. the quality or fact of representing a person, thing, situation, accurately or in
    a way that is true to life…

part of the animosity between the conservative and the liberal, the right vs the left,
begins here… in the way they approach a problem or understand a problem…

the right believes that they are realists, that they accept what is real in any given
particular situation… whereas the conservative holds that the liberal is an
idealist, someone who does not see or accept the situation as it is…

but the real difference lies in something far more important…
that the conservative believes that a situation cannot be change or
easily changed… whereas the liberal does see the situation as it is,
but it can be changed… a good example of this is the Machiavellian
believe that a person cannot change their spots or become anything
other than what they already are… that a person born “evil” cannot
ever change that, and a person born “good” cannot change that…
Dickens a “Christmas Carol” is an example carried out in a novel…
Scrooge was “evil” until changed by forces and he became “Good”…

and upon this ability to change lies much of political philosophy…
for example, prison… is prison meant to punish as the conservative believes
or is prison meant to rehabilitate as the liberal believes?
This question of change maybe the way one can understand if they
are liberal or conservative…

the fact is people change… as we age, we do change… I am not the person
I was at age 3 or 13 or 23 or 33 or even 53… today, I turn 63 and I have changed
dramatically over the years… as events and environment has changed, I must
be able to change to adapt to the new situation, new environments…

and therein lies the biggest difference between the left and the right,
this understanding of change…

let us carry onto another aspect of the left/right problem…

the right/conservative is driven by fear… they are afraid of everything,
I have listed several times the many diverse fears of the right/conservative…
From Obama to gays to government to liberals to science to love…
conservatives fear all that and more…

So when you read a conservative/ right wing person around here, recall
that they are driven by fear and post from fear and hate from fear…
this fear is what drives their need for security/safety… this is their highest
need… to have safety/security… every action and belief they hold comes
from their fear which drive their need for safety/security…

and in this grip of fear prevents the right/conservative to see the
possibilities and changes that can happen…from any situation…

read UR latest conspiracy driven junk, first of all, it is driven by fear,
read him and you can see the fear leap off the page with every word he writes…
read Gloom and you can see the fear in every word he writes…as with Pedro
and gib…and Observe… once you can see what drives them, you can understand
why they write what they write… but that fear also prevents them from seeing
any solutions or possibilities that lies within their fear… so as an example,
one of the bedrock fears of a conservative is government… read UR
and Gloom, and you can see that fear with every word they write about
the government… put the government isn’t the demon they hold it to be…
in fact, without government, we cannot have a civilization… for the
government creates the conditions that make a civilization possible…
think of the most powerful countries in the world in history,
from Greece to Rome to England to France and China and India…
in every case, they had a strong, powerful government that
made the civilization possible… in fact, without the government,
civilization isn’t possible… Rome doesn’t become one of the Greatest
Empires the world has ever seen without the power of the state/government
behind it…please feel free to suggest a world power, a great empire without
a strong central government behind it… you can’t find one…
every single great civilization had a strong government behind it…
including the American civilization… and as the government becomes
weaker because of the negative impact of big business, that is what
is driving us to a weaker position… without a strong, powerful government
we are becoming a weaker nation…in other words, the attempt by the conservative
to limit government has created a weaker nation, a weaker America…
follow the timeline… at our greatest strength, in 1980, we had a new
president come and begin the weaking of the government,
Raygun said this as part of the right-wing program to weaken the
American civilization: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”
with those words, he began the fall of America…

now that I have laid out the outline of where we stand, I shall begin
my defense of idealism…

Kropotkin

2

the liberal believes that not only is change possible,
but it is necessary… we must be able to change to adapt to
the new conditions of an ever changing environment…

the idea behind idealism is that change is not only possible but
necessary… there is no situation that cannot be changed…
so even in its height of the American civilization, change
that could have made America even better was possible…
and therein lies the liberal mantra…

“it can be made better”

in every person, event and situation, it can be made better…
and it can be…the conservative locked into their one mode
and one mode only understanding of the universe, that of fear,
cannot see the possibility of change and the necessity of change…

I see an America that is good, but it can be changed or improved to be better…
and that is the difference between UR and myself… I see the possibility of
change and change for the better… UR can only see conspiracies and fear…

(belief in conspiracies is fear driven… one who is positive and hopeful, they
don’t hold to conspiracy theories)

I don’t see immigrants as something to fear, as UR and Gloom and all conservatives
see them… I see the possibilities that exists as the immigrants are seeking
the better lives for themselves… and in that seeking to make a better life
for themselves, they are also making my life better… Immigrants aren’t
something to fear, but they are a sign of better times to come…
and I welcome their incentive, their drive, their energy to create
a better world for themselves…

which leads us to another side point, the conservative holds that
it is a sum-zero world and for the liberal it is a non-sum-zero world…
we can have a world without someone winning and someone losing…
we can have a world in which everyone gains… for example, take a pie…
in America, the wealthy take as their share of the economic pie,
9/10 of the pie… the rest fight over the final 1/10 of the pie…
but we can work that more equitably if we have everyone take
a fair share of their pie… not as the wealthy take most of the pie,
but share equally with everyone else… vast accumulation of wealth
is antithetical, contrary to the basic principles of the primary
fact of existence…

“That all men/people are created equal”

and within that understanding that all men/people are created equal,
we have a political system called democracy…
and I believe that capitalism could, could be a system that
engages in the principle of equality but capitalism has
been overthrown into being a system whereas one engagement with
society is not improving it, but in the gaining of trinkets that are unimportant,
the seeking of wealth, titles, fame, material goods… are far less important
then the improvement of who we are and what it means to be human…

think about it… you don’t read about how UR or Gloom or Gib or Observe
attempt to improve who they are or have any type of engagement with
making their lives and our lives better… they make no attempt to
make themselves or their world any better or any more hopeful…
they are trapped into a hell of their own making and in their eyes,
there is no escape from that hell… that is conservative thinking…
we are trapped in hell and there is no escape…

the liberal believes differently… and thus we hold to idealism,
which is to say, we believe that not only change is possible,
but change is necessary…

think about it… it is the conservative who tends to believe in heaven
and hell… the liberal/progressive not as much… and why? Because
the conservative holds there is no possibility of change and that
we must wait until heaven to reach an equitable and fair society,
but the liberal believes that we can change, and we can create
the change we want, today… it is within our reach if we just make
an effort and try… but the conservative believes that change is not
possible and is not even worth the effort…
they are being “realistic” and the liberal is being “idealistic”

but the possibility for change is there, if, if we are brave enough, strong enough to
engage with it… the conservative looks at life with fear and thus holds that
change isn’t possible, the liberal looks at life as possible, and thus change
is possible…

think of those who have changed the world, and every single one of them
has been an “Idealist” for example… a short list of people who have changed
the world and every single one of them is an “idealist”

Jesus, Gandhi, Mohammed, MLK, Theodore Roosevelt, Rosa Parks…
and every single creative person who has created, ART, painting,
literature has been an “Idealists”… as in Goethe, Shakespeare,
Hugo, Tolstoy, Arthur Miller and even the writers of the Bible…
Literature begins as an understanding that change is possible and
the writer lays out what is and then what is possible…
the writer writes to change the world in one fashion or another…
and that has been why most of the literature of the Modern era,
has been not very good… it has been “realistic” but not very hopeful
or has any type of engagement with the possibility of change…
how to become a “better” human being or how to create a better society…

Read “Faust” by Goethe, and the very nature of the novel is about change…
“Faust” is trying to change from being a knower of knowledge, one who
knows theology, philosophy, law, medicine, an intellectual,
who was dissatisfied with his life… the story of Faust is of one man
who is sacrificing spiritual values for power, knowledge or material gains…
Faust is searching for what is important in our lives…

This type of seeking is beyond the pale for a conservative, because they
cannot envision the possibility of change, either individually or collectively…

but to those who engage with life, as idealist, can and do engage with
change… for an idealist, it is the possibility of change that makes life worth living…

I would rather be an idealist then a realist… any day of the week…
because then the possibility of change exists for me…

Kropotkin

3

the conservative says that “life is hard” difficult and cannot be
made any easier… I, as an idealist, disagree… life is hard because
made it so… we can agree to change and make life much easier,
not just for us individually but for us collectively…
the thought is to “toughen” our children to make them fit enough
to withstand life, but how about changing life itself so we don’t have to
damage our children with “tough” love…

what is at stake here is the understanding of the challenges that life brings
about… what challenges should we be preparing our children for?
to enter the world of “Darwinism,” where the strong eat the weak?

We make the choice that allows the strong to “eat” the weak…
we can choose to create a different world…
but the “realist” doesn’t see that different world, they see
a “dog eat dog” world…the challenge of being human isn’t surviving
this world, the challenge is to overcome our indoctrinations
and childhood ‘‘training’’ and become human…

the childhood training is to overcome other people and ‘‘beat’’
them at some game or another…and that is animal thinking,
I can only eat if I take the food away from someone else…
the ‘‘Zero sum game’’ there are only winners and losers in the game of life…

but the fact is, that isn’t true…that is a choice we make and we can make
other choices…

the conservative attacks the liberal idea of giving
children ‘’‘participation’’ medals and not promote the idea of
only one person win’s and all the rest are losers…

to “Prepare” them for life… if we give all children medals for participation,
then we somehow, it isn’t really explained how, but we somehow make
children weaker and less able to compete in the game of life…

but is life really a “competition?” I don’t think so… it is where we
improve ourselves, going from what we were to what we could be…
and that is only a game/competition within ourselves…
we are really only fighting ourselves in the game of life…

the meaning of life isn’t to seek the trinkets of existence,
wealth, power, titles, fame, material goods… if life were that,
then we would see animals seeking those things, but they don’t…

animals are unable to see beyond what is… just like the conservative…
we can see what is possible, that is being human… that is being liberal…
I can be the greatest philosopher ever, but I don’t need to “beat” others
in seeking that goal… the battle lies within me to become what is possible for me…
I am seeking to overcome what is and become something else… I am seeking change
and how I overcome that which is…

I don’t need to “defeat” anyone else to become the world’s greatest philosopher,
I just need to overcome me and what I am today…to become the greatest isn’t about
defeating others, but in overcoming what we already are…

and that is the essence of Idealism… in overcoming that which we are…
the is and become what is possible…“I am” and “I can become something else”
that is what an idealist does… they see what is and try to become
something else, something better and something that can change and adapt
in our ever-changing world/universe/environment…the conservative holds
that what is, is forever and cannot be changed, I say differently…
we can change and we can create positive change that helps us in
the short run and the long run…

Kropotkin

4

an challenge… name me someone who, as a realist,
changed the world… whereas I can name, as I did,
dozens who changed the world as “idealists”

now one will say for example, Napoleon… but think about it…
he was a dreamer… and that is clear by the vast liberal policies
that he instituted in Europe… for example within France itself…
he sought reforms in higher education, the tax code, the sewer system,
the civil code he established… called the “Napoleon code” which has dominated
the legal systems of most of the world since then…

that there be a code for all of France, not the wide ranging and diverse
set of laws that existed within France before Napoleon…one set of laws
that applied to everyone equally…it made laws clearer and more accessible,
available to everyone, not just the wealthy or rich… and we see this attempt
to create equal and just laws for all concerned… or said another way,

“that all men/people are created equal”

the Napoleonic laws didn’t mention blasphemy, heresy, sacrilege,
witchcraft, incest or homosexuality which allows these former
offences to be, to a degree, swiftly decriminalized…
the battle to make homosexuality a crime, still exists in America…
and it was the “idealistic” laws of Napoleon to begin the path to
decriminalizing such things… the true or real legacy of Napoleon was
not in the wars he fought, but in the codes that changed the laws
and functions of the state…

let us look at someone else who we put us statues to,
Gandhi…the use of non-violence is the liberal/idealistic method,
for a conservative only believes in violence and fear/hate…see how often
that UR has threatened to punish the liberals and left…and for the crime
of holding thoughts and believes different then UR…

Gandhi primary beliefs were involved in a word he called “Satyagraha”
which means “insistence or holding to the truth” or “truth force”
in other words, he held to a principle, and that holding to a principle
is another means of “Idealist” use to overcome base or biased actions…
holding to principles is an “idealist” concept… for the conservatives
will happily break the law if it achieves their goal…see Jan 6, 2021 for
an example of this…the conservatives believe in “realpolitik’s”
which is power politics or said another way, ‘‘might makes right’’…
the conservative states their faith in faith in power politics in
every claim that “America is the strongest country on earth”
the liberal will ask, “Is America doing the right thing, is it being
the most moral country it can be?” and for the conservative,
it doesn’t matter if we are being “moral” as long as we are strong…

So my challenge is simple, name me someone who believed, as the conservative
does, in “realpolitik’s” and who achieved something great?
(and of course, I speak of “great” in terms of achieving something
positive and worth achieving for all people")

I will give you “idealists” who changed the world for the better by being
“Idealist’s”… Jesus, Gandhi, Goethe, Tolstoy, Kant, Ben Franklin,
Napoleon, FDR, MLK… ok, your turn… name me someone who is
a “realist” who changed the world for the better…

Kropotkin

5

the question of change or transformation is a “idealist” one,
held by “idealist’s”… thus another idealist was Marx… anyone who advocates
change or transformation is a “idealists”…

Thus virtually all philosophers including Socrates, especially Socrates
advocated for change, a transformation…

As Marx once wrote,

“it isn’t enough to understand the world, one must change it”

and thus came Nietzsche who also tried to change people,
as with Heidegger and Wittgenstein and Sartre and Camus…
the history of 20th century philosophy is one of philosophers
advocating change and transformations…

Philosophy itself is another form of “idealism”… attempting to
create change in the form of principles that people can follow…
this is Kant and Hegel and Schopenhauer too…

the path of philosophy for a couple of centuries was to understand
the nature of knowledge… the study of philosophy was the study of
Epistemology…from Descartes to Kant…it wasn’t to change people,
but to understand how we know people and the world and the breath and scope of
that knowledge…

but to change people, that is the “Modern” approach of philosophy…
we are this, and we need to become this… the search for the 20th century
philosophy has been a search for the ground and basis of “ethical” philosophy…
as I have point out before, from Nietzsche to Camus, philosophy engaged in
ethical/moral philosophy… Wittgenstein himself said that his philosophy
was a “Moral” philosophy… an engagement with ethical/moral philosophy
as did Heidegger… we must take them at their word that their philosophy
was an attempt at moral/ethical philosophy…

Kropotkin