Pragmatic Idealism

[MagnetMan]

We live in a less than ideal world. The degree of how ideal it is depends on our birth. There are some, the very rich and very powerful who get a 90% view of what an ideal world can be like. If we are born into a middle class Western family, a degree of idealism that is at 60% or so allows one to be more or less satisfied to muddle along, reasonably content with the fact that there are more ups than downs in life. If, however, a child is born in a ghetto, it is faced with something far less than a halfway shot at a reasonably ideal life.

So the pertinent question about the degree of idealism in our world is: how many of the new-born of the world have a chance at a 60% slot? The sad fact about our less than ideal world is that more than two thirds of the parents on the planet live hopeless lives that are so far down the feeding trough, there is very little chance of giving their kids a decent birth right. So on a global scale the degree to which we are living in an ideal world is very poor indeed

And that is the reason why we have idealists born into our midst.

A true idealist is one who sees the unequal discrepancy in birth rights and wants, at the very least, to find ways and means for every child born to have the same chance that everyone else has. The problem with the pursuit of that ideal is that it can only be accomplished with the aid of those who have the resources to help. To some extent an appeal can be made to the inherent charitable nature of the human psyche, and get some of those with more than half the pie to donate some of it. But they, who consume a disproportionate amount of global resources, never give anywhere near enough assistance to make any real inroads in the struggle to achieve a more ideal world. If the idealist agitates for more of the pie to give to the poor, he or she is immediately patronized as being too much of an idealist. An army of philosophers have achieved distinction by confirming the right of the rich and powerful to remain stingy. This patronizing attitude towards idealism disguises the inherent moral guilt that every person learns during childhood about the basic family value of meticulous sharing. That guilt is further mollified, when social cynics pan idealists even further by attacking their characters. As a result nothing of any real value gets done about inequality and the life we all live remains fixed in a less than ideal world.

The idealist, meantime, sees that inequality is becoming exponentially worse as the birth rates of the poor double and redouble. The net result, unless ways and means can be found to put an end to the patronizing attitude and realize that idealism is, in fact, pragmatic realism, our less than ideal world will get less and less ideal for all of us as time goes on. When the down-sides in life exceed the up-sides, life becomes not worth living.

If history is the criteria, it may even happen that the poor will revolt, cross coeans, fly jet planes into tall buildings and strap bombs to their children’s chests and blow civilization to pieces.

---

[old6598]

Most poor in the world don’t even know they are poor and don’t even define themselves as poor. Westerners define others as poor, but those others just live the life they have been born in. An ideal world doesn’t exist because every tribe, civilization defines “ideal” differently, has a different “values” scale or maybe none at all. And even if you could imagine an ideal world, someone would always want it differently or it would change by itself, it would change (not necessarily evolve, since even the concept of evolution and progress is completely value based, an almost artistic choice) into any of a trillion other possible ways to organize minds interacing with each other and matter, societies and all their idiosyncracies.

[Mr_Doom]

@MagnetMan

We live in a less than ideal world. The degree of how ideal it is depends on our birth. There are some, the very rich and very powerful who get a 90% view of what an ideal world can be like. If we are born into a middle class Western family, a degree of idealism that is at 60% or so allows one to be more or less satisfied to muddle along, reasonably content with the fact that there are more ups than downs in life. If, however, a child is born in a ghetto, it is faced with something far less than a halfway shot at a reasonably ideal life.

So the pertinent question about the degree of idealism in our world is: how many of the new-born of the world have a chance at a 60% slot? The sad fact about our less than ideal world is that more than two thirds of the parents on the planet live hopeless lives that are so far down the feeding trough, there is very little chance of giving their kids a decent birth right. So on a global scale the degree to which we are living in an ideal world is very poor indeed

And that is the reason why we have idealists born into our midst.

A true idealist is one who sees the unequal discrepancy in birth rights and wants, at the very least, to find ways and means for every child born to have the same chance that everyone else has. The problem with the pursuit of that ideal is that it can only be accomplished with the aid of those who have the resources to help. To some extent an appeal can be made to the inherent charitable nature of the human psyche, and get some of those with more than half the pie to donate some of it. But they, who consume a disproportionate amount of global resources, never give anywhere near enough assistance to make any real inroads in the struggle to achieve a more ideal world. If the idealist agitates for more of the pie to give to the poor, he or she is immediately patronized as being too much of an idealist. An army of philosophers have achieved distinction by confirming the right of the rich and powerful to remain stingy. This patronizing attitude towards idealism disguises the inherent moral guilt that every person learns during childhood about the basic family value of meticulous sharing. That guilt is further mollified, when social cynics pan idealists even further by attacking their characters. As a result nothing of any real value gets done about inequality and the life we all live remains fixed in a less than ideal world.

The idealist, meantime, sees that inequality is becoming exponentially worse as the birth rates of the poor double and redouble. The net result, unless ways and means can be found to put an end to the patronizing attitude and realize that idealism is, in fact, pragmatic realism, our less than ideal world will get less and less ideal for all of us as time goes on. When the down-sides in life exceed the up-sides, life becomes not worth living.

If history is the criteria, it may even happen that the poor will revolt, cross coeans, fly jet planes into tall buildings and strap bombs to their children’s chests and blow civilization to pieces.

---

We live in a less than ideal world.

Obviously.

The degree of how ideal it is depends on our birth.

AKA how it relates in our classist prejudice societies of inequality and conflict.

There are some, the very rich and very powerful who get a 90% view of what an ideal world can be like.

With them under control of such a ideal world throwing bread crumbs to the lowly masses of course.

If we are born into a middle class Western family, a degree of idealism that is at 60% or so allows one to be more or less satisfied to muddle along, reasonably content with the fact that there are more ups than downs in life.

Of course if you exist in nations where there is no middle class or in nations where the middle class is suffocating by the hand of the upper class by slowly dying this post here needs not apply.

If, however, a child is born in a ghetto, it is faced with something far less than a halfway shot at a reasonably ideal life.

Work at burger king or become a crack dealer on the edge of a street corner.

So the pertinent question about the degree of idealism in our world is: how many of the new-born of the world have a chance at a 60% slot?

Not many considering those who live reasonable accomodating lives have always been a low percentage.

The sad fact about our less than ideal world is that more than two thirds of the parents on the planet live hopeless lives that are so far down the feeding trough, there is very little chance of giving their kids a decent birth right.

It’s not sad. It’s just the way the world has always been if you think about it.

So on a global scale the degree to which we are living in an ideal world is very poor indeed

That is obvious.

And that is the reason why we have idealists born into our midst.

Just curious. What is your definition of a idealist?

[Mr_Doom]

@MagnetMan

We live in a less than ideal world. The degree of how ideal it is depends on our birth. There are some, the very rich and very powerful who get a 90% view of what an ideal world can be like. If we are born into a middle class Western family, a degree of idealism that is at 60% or so allows one to be more or less satisfied to muddle along, reasonably content with the fact that there are more ups than downs in life. If, however, a child is born in a ghetto, it is faced with something far less than a halfway shot at a reasonably ideal life.

So the pertinent question about the degree of idealism in our world is: how many of the new-born of the world have a chance at a 60% slot? The sad fact about our less than ideal world is that more than two thirds of the parents on the planet live hopeless lives that are so far down the feeding trough, there is very little chance of giving their kids a decent birth right. So on a global scale the degree to which we are living in an ideal world is very poor indeed

And that is the reason why we have idealists born into our midst.

A true idealist is one who sees the unequal discrepancy in birth rights and wants, at the very least, to find ways and means for every child born to have the same chance that everyone else has. The problem with the pursuit of that ideal is that it can only be accomplished with the aid of those who have the resources to help. To some extent an appeal can be made to the inherent charitable nature of the human psyche, and get some of those with more than half the pie to donate some of it. But they, who consume a disproportionate amount of global resources, never give anywhere near enough assistance to make any real inroads in the struggle to achieve a more ideal world. If the idealist agitates for more of the pie to give to the poor, he or she is immediately patronized as being too much of an idealist. An army of philosophers have achieved distinction by confirming the right of the rich and powerful to remain stingy. This patronizing attitude towards idealism disguises the inherent moral guilt that every person learns during childhood about the basic family value of meticulous sharing. That guilt is further mollified, when social cynics pan idealists even further by attacking their characters. As a result nothing of any real value gets done about inequality and the life we all live remains fixed in a less than ideal world.

The idealist, meantime, sees that inequality is becoming exponentially worse as the birth rates of the poor double and redouble. The net result, unless ways and means can be found to put an end to the patronizing attitude and realize that idealism is, in fact, pragmatic realism, our less than ideal world will get less and less ideal for all of us as time goes on. When the down-sides in life exceed the up-sides, life becomes not worth living.

If history is the criteria, it may even happen that the poor will revolt, cross coeans, fly jet planes into tall buildings and strap bombs to their children’s chests and blow civilization to pieces.

---

A true idealist is one who sees the unequal discrepancy in birth rights and wants, at the very least, to find ways and means for every child born to have the same chance that everyone else has.

Of course in the last couple hundred years they have never been able to succeed and constantly fail. Why is that?

What could it be that interferes with their ardent crusade of saving the world? What could it be?

The problem with the pursuit of that ideal is that it can only be accomplished with the aid of those who have the resources to help.

And usually those people don’t want to help and find it more profitable if they don’t.

To some extent an appeal can be made to the inherent charitable nature of the human psyche, and get some of those with more than half the pie to donate some of it.

Which for 10 minutes on television they will give some money in order to make a good PR stunt but quickly afterwards go back to business as usual in screwing other people in the most profitable of gains.

But they, who consume a disproportionate amount of global resources, never give anywhere near enough assistance to make any real inroads in the struggle to achieve a more ideal world.

Obvious.

If the idealist agitates for more of the pie to give to the poor, he or she is immediately patronized as being too much of an idealist.

Because most of the world is greedy and selfish. The idealist is also greedy and selfish since they wouldn’t put themselves through all the trouble of being a philanthropist if they didn’t get any gain in return such as public prestige for instance.

An army of philosophers have achieved distinction by confirming the right of the rich and powerful to remain stingy.

In every historical generation.

This patronizing attitude towards idealism disguises the inherent moral guilt that every person learns during childhood about the basic family value of meticulous sharing.

Haha, are you really going to have the insane joke of morality in this conversation as the foundation of your arguement?

I mean if you are going to I suppose we can flow with it rather amusingly.

That guilt is further mollified, when social cynics pan idealists even further by attacking their characters.

Or maybe social cynics see the world for what it is and not what they wish it to be.

As a result nothing of any real value gets done about inequality and the life we all live remains fixed in a less than ideal world.

I’m playing the world’s smallest violin right here in tears.

The idealist, meantime, sees that inequality is becoming exponentially worse as the birth rates of the poor double and redouble.

And if he had any remote sense of realism in himself without all the pretensious fictions, dreams and fantasies of saving the world in some crusade he would come to the realization that there is nothing he can do.

The net result, unless ways and means can be found to put an end to the patronizing attitude and realize that idealism is, in fact, pragmatic realism, our less than ideal world will get less and less ideal for all of us as time goes on. When the down-sides in life exceed the up-sides, life becomes not worth living.

And for millions of people all around the world past, present and most likely the same thing in the future a great deal of the time life has become indeed not worth living which would explain why our species has the highest suicide rate.

If history is the criteria, it may even happen that the poor will revolt, cross coeans, fly jet planes into tall buildings and strap bombs to their children’s chests and blow civilization to pieces.

That would be a awsome future as far as I’m concerned. When can we get started?

[MagnetMan]

@old6598

Most poor in the world don’t even know they are poor and don’t even define themselves as poor. Westerners define others as poor, but those others just live the life they have been born in. An ideal world doesn’t exist because every tribe, civilization defines “ideal” differently, has a different “values” scale or maybe none at all. And even if you could imagine an ideal world, someone would always want it differently or it would change by itself, it would change (not necessarily evolve, since even the concept of evolution and progress is completely value based, an almost artistic choice) into any of a trillion other possible ways to organize minds interacing with each other and matter, societies and all their idiosyncracies.

That answer would be perfectly correct on a pre-colonial world. The underlying thrust of colonialism is to spread a unversal value system of conscious evolution, based on scientiific thought and technology. Thus a generation ago, in Pondoland, a Xhosa woman who might never have been to school, but genetically imprinted with the same base of human smarts endowed by 100,000 generations of ancestral evolution, clearly sees the superior value of modern technology, sees how it removes the drudgery of chores out of her life, and wants her children to go to the whitemans school and learn to apply the new value. And now her grandchildren children are in university. Thus, from Timbuctu to Tibet, the same sense of the ideal world has become a universal more. It is for this reason that i believe a shared global consciousness is the next evolutionary step in human development.

The old-fashioned explaination you have given has simply degenerated into yet another handy balm for guilty consciousnesses.
“Oh! The natives don’t know whats good for them”

@Mr Doom

What is yoyur definition of an idealist?

As already stated in my OP.
“A true idealist is one who sees the unequal discrepancy in birth rights and wants, at the very least, to find ways and means for every child born to have the same chance that everyone else has”

[jagermeister330]

So far as I can tell, what the original poster is arguing for is a form of egalitarianism. John Rawls, with his idea of the “veil of ignorance” was one of the most recent to attempt to address the problem of the unfairness of being born into different circumstances. And while it is unfair, it is not unjust, and that is, in my mind, an important distinction.

Now, arguments could certainly be made regarding historical injustices, such as slavery, colonialism, etc. regarding the just distribution of resources, and how oppressed groups deserve compensation for past wrongs. But I have yet to see a coherent argument expressed that would adequately solve the problem. Robert Nozick, a libertarian philosopher, got hung up on this issue in his “Anarchy, State and Utopia”. And it is clearly an issue worth greater investigation. But until a coherent argument is made against individual rights (which includes the right to be stingy) I can’t accept any of these redistributionist alternatives.

[old6598]

@MagnetMan

@old6598

Most poor in the world don’t even know they are poor and don’t even define themselves as poor. Westerners define others as poor, but those others just live the life they have been born in. An ideal world doesn’t exist because every tribe, civilization defines “ideal” differently, has a different “values” scale or maybe none at all. And even if you could imagine an ideal world, someone would always want it differently or it would change by itself, it would change (not necessarily evolve, since even the concept of evolution and progress is completely value based, an almost artistic choice) into any of a trillion other possible ways to organize minds interacing with each other and matter, societies and all their idiosyncracies.

That answer would be perfectly correct on a pre-colonial world. The underlying thrust of colonialism is to spread a unversal value system of conscious evolution, based on scientiific thought and technology. Thus a generation ago, in Pondoland, a Xhosa woman who might never have been to school, but genetically imprinted with the same base of human smarts endowed by 100,000 generations of ancestral evolution, clearly sees the superior value of modern technology, sees how it removes the drudgery of chores out of her life, and wants her children to go to the whitemans school and learn to apply the new value. And now her grandchildren children are in university. Thus, from Timbuctu to Tibet, the same sense of the ideal world has become a universal more. It is for this reason that i believe a shared global consciousness is the next evolutionary step in human development.

The old-fashioned explaination you have given has simply degenerated into yet another handy balm for guilty consciousnesses.
“Oh! The natives don’t know whats good for them”

@Mr Doom

What is yoyur definition of an idealist?

As already stated in my OP.
“A true idealist is one who sees the unequal discrepancy in birth rights and wants, at the very least, to find ways and means for every child born to have the same chance that everyone else has”

Superior value of modern technology is assumed by those that have been born into it and are used to it. Drudgery is such if it is defined as such socially and psychologically. IF any hard labor is taken for granted as a normal state, as what they have always seen and done since being born by their adults, if it is considered normal, and it is not even recognized as hard labor and drudgery, then the drudgery doesn’t exist in their life and minds. It exists in the minds of the white man tribe, and hence the white man brainwashes them that they are leading a “hard” life as compared to his where the goal is to do as little physical activity as possible (but jogging is OK, that is not considered “hard labor”).

The old tribe gets brainwashed, sees the new value system imposed on it, and learns to hate “hard work” just as much as the white man, only now he is hosed, because he can’t get out of the now newly defined life that he always had, now he wants the same things the white man already has, hence he becomes poor the minute his psychology and value system changes. Induced poverty, he is now a slave.

[nameta9]

@old6598

Superior value of modern technology is assumed by those that have been born into it and are used to it. Drudgery is such if it is defined as such socially and psychologically. IF any hard labor is taken for granted as a normal state, as what they have always seen and done since being born by their adults, if it is considered normal, and it is not even recognized as hard labor and drudgery, then the drudgery doesn’t exist in their life and minds. It exists in the minds of the white man tribe, and hence the white man brainwashes them that they are leading a “hard” life as compared to his where the goal is to do as little physical activity as possible (but jogging is OK, that is not considered “hard labor”).

The old tribe gets brainwashed, sees the new value system imposed on it, and learns to hate “hard work” just as much as the white man, only now he is hosed, because he can’t get out of the now newly defined life that he always had, now he wants the same things the white man already has, hence he becomes poor the minute his psychology and value system changes. Induced poverty, he is now a slave.

Right to the point! The american workers for example find it normal to have only a few days of vacation a year (often none at all as opposed to 30 or more days in the EU), often no free health care, often being laid off (or being fired for no reason at all if the boss wants it) , no unions etc. Western europe finds this is a much lower standard of living, as real drudgery (no welfare, no security etc.), yet the US workers are often not even aware of how worse off they are compared to all the other industrialized countries, they are not aware and often even against “those socialistic systems”. A perfect example of one tribe having a different value system, even within the same “Western Civilization”.

If they wanted the european system they would immediately feel hosed, poorer, they would become psychologically poorer, unless of course you are brainwashed of how great and how rich you will become by working in america.

[Mr_Doom]

@MagnetMan

@old6598

Most poor in the world don’t even know they are poor and don’t even define themselves as poor. Westerners define others as poor, but those others just live the life they have been born in. An ideal world doesn’t exist because every tribe, civilization defines “ideal” differently, has a different “values” scale or maybe none at all. And even if you could imagine an ideal world, someone would always want it differently or it would change by itself, it would change (not necessarily evolve, since even the concept of evolution and progress is completely value based, an almost artistic choice) into any of a trillion other possible ways to organize minds interacing with each other and matter, societies and all their idiosyncracies.

That answer would be perfectly correct on a pre-colonial world. The underlying thrust of colonialism is to spread a unversal value system of conscious evolution, based on scientiific thought and technology. Thus a generation ago, in Pondoland, a Xhosa woman who might never have been to school, but genetically imprinted with the same base of human smarts endowed by 100,000 generations of ancestral evolution, clearly sees the superior value of modern technology, sees how it removes the drudgery of chores out of her life, and wants her children to go to the whitemans school and learn to apply the new value. And now her grandchildren children are in university. Thus, from Timbuctu to Tibet, the same sense of the ideal world has become a universal more. It is for this reason that i believe a shared global consciousness is the next evolutionary step in human development.

The old-fashioned explaination you have given has simply degenerated into yet another handy balm for guilty consciousnesses.
“Oh! The natives don’t know whats good for them”

@Mr Doom

What is yoyur definition of an idealist?

As already stated in my OP.
“A true idealist is one who sees the unequal discrepancy in birth rights and wants, at the very least, to find ways and means for every child born to have the same chance that everyone else has”

As already stated in my OP.
“A true idealist is one who sees the unequal discrepancy in birth rights and wants, at the very least, to find ways and means for every child born to have the same chance that everyone else has”

Than such a person is naive and out of touch with reality.

[Mr_Doom]

I’ve noticed Magnet Man or anyone else for that matter hasn’t taken into account my replies made in this thread. Why?

[MagnetMan]

@jagermeister330

So far as I can tell, what the original poster is arguing for is a form of egalitarianism. John Rawls, with his idea of the “veil of ignorance” was one of the most recent to attempt to address the problem of the unfairness of being born into different circumstances. And while it is unfair, it is not unjust, and that is, in my mind, an important distinction.

I would say that the distance between unfair and unjust is too close to call.
The major religions have come the closest to addressing the probelm of ineqaulity. The two most imporant theological arguments that bring acceptance of ones lot in life are presented via the concept of rewards in an after-life - either in Heaven , in Hell or via Reincarnation.

I have yet to see a coherent argument expressed that would adequately solve the problem. Robert Nozick, a libertarian philosopher, got hung up on this issue in his “Anarchy, State and Utopia”. And it is clearly an issue worth greater investigation. But until a coherent argument is made against individual rights (which includes the right to be stingy) I can’t accept any of these redistributionist alternatives.

It is not a question of redistribution, but one of sharing the wealth of human knowledge and achievements as equably as possible. That is an important distinction. Every single culture on the planet has contributed in their own way at some point in human evolution to where we stand at present - whether as slaves or as masters. We all stand on the shoulders of 100,000 generations of ancestral struggle. Now, with the globe shrunk by communicaion that travels at the speed of light, there is no further physical or moral reason for not giving every child the exact same highest level of educational oportunities. As such everyone born today has the birthrite to an equal share of the family pie.

@old6598

Superior value of modern technology is assumed by those that have been born into it and are used to it. Drudgery is such if it is defined as such socially and psychologically. IF any hard labor is taken for granted as a normal state, as what they have always seen and done since being born by their adults, if it is considered normal, and it is not even recognized as hard labor and drudgery, then the drudgery doesn’t exist in their life and minds. It exists in the minds of the white man tribe, and hence the white man brainwashes them that they are leading a “hard” life as compared to his where the goal is to do as little physical activity as possible (but jogging is OK, that is not considered “hard labor”).

If there is a drought in Africa children as young as six years spend all day every day carrying water from the river to keep their plants alive and never learn academics. This was the lot of all cutures during the pre-industrial age. While those 800 generations invested in the agricultural milieu of the Bronze Age was great moral training for instilling a sound chore-based work-ethic in the human psyche, the invention of pressure pumps and all other modern industrial aids that have allow children to spend more time broadening their eduication, changed more than just technological appreciation. The Iron Age, once it reached each culture, altered human consciosness in a similar direction.

If the evoltutionary cycle of human consciousness, which began with the awakening of a reflective ego some two and half million years ago, is not taking us all from that common origin of self-awareness towards a common destiny of collective awareness, and if our specie is to survive the exponential pressures of our expanding populations impacting on the global environment, that cyle had to be designed, from the beginning, in the achievement of an eventual equal level of consciousness. This evolving state of consciousness had to be gleaned from the widest arenas of survival experience, through distinct Ages of character development that everu culture experienced more or less in the same way - technologically as well as socially and spiritually.

We have all experienced a Stone Age as hunter/gatherers, learning basic family social and spiritual values. We have all experienced the agricultural Bronze Age, learning extended-family cooperative values. Most all have been through the industrial Iron Age, learning concientious craftsmanship and national cohesion. The most advanced among us are still largely in the technological Steel Age learning international cooperation. Some of us are aready experiencing a Nulclear Age consciousness and working to bring the global family together in order to steward the endangered home planet as a single family estate.