Let us have a society where there are idealists and realists. Idealists believe in universal standards that objectively compare situations to ideals. Realists believe in particular standards that are subject to real situations.
At a given moment, an idealist and a realist have a discrepancy. Idealists believe in something, realists believe in something else.
The realist makes an appeal to an ideal, and even though the realist is technically correct, the realist has unreliable character such that after accumulating power, there is no guarantee that the ideal will be adhered to. That is the realist will only apply the ideal when it’s particularly situational.
I also think that it’s important to point this out as a great example of making a post that nobody can understand except you. You use AMAZINGLY, ASTOUNDINGLY vague language, and expect other people to know what you mean.
“The realist makes an appeal to an ideal, and even though the realist is technically correct…” technically correct about what? What in the world are you talking about? When/where/to whom does he make an appeal to an ideal? What in the world are you talking about?
“the realist has unreliable character” are you saying all realists have an unreliable character, or just the one in this particular story?
Basically, your whole scenario is incomprehensible to anybody who isn’t you and doesn’t, by virtue of that fact, have access to your thoughts.
One of the keys to communication is to be able to get other people to understand what you’re thinking. This post is a superb example of not doing that remotely. There’s a certain skill, a quite advanced skill, in being able to take your own thoughts and put them into words that other people would understand. Some people are better at it than others. You, sir, need more practice.
I have to generally agree with FJ. I think it would be better if you came right out, explained the triggering situation - iow gave the concrete example right from the start, and explained how you see the categories as being part of the problem - iow how the world views are leading to differences and why you think category X is good and category Y is bad.
The Idealist-Realist paradox, in a philosophy context, would be some contradictions created related to idealism and realism, which in philosophy do not mean what you are using the terms to mean here. Given the lack of concrete situation, this will only add to confusion.
As far as the last question, the idealist should do what idealists (of the kind you mean) do do: point out the lack of achieved ideals and their importance. Idealists also often go to ward, picket, strap bombs to themselves, write letters…iow any of a huge list of effective, ineffective, moral, immoral actions to try to change the world.
How is that a paradox? People believe different things and behave accordingly [differently]. Lots of people don’t adhere to the same beliefs forever. So what?
Thank you for writing something specifically for me.
Well I’m not really focusing on “what” here. I’m focusing on “how”.
The realist is correct about the application of the ideal in the given discrepancy.
However, because realists have particular standards that are subject to real situations, there is no guarantee that the ideal will be compared objectively as a universal standard. The realist has unreliable character due to this lack of guarantee.
Basically, if the idealist agrees with the realist in the present, the realist could become powerful in the future. In turn, idealism itself will die.
Are you saying realists depend on idealists for identity?
Are you saying that because realists are dependent, they’re entitled to how idealists think?
I appreciate you not trying to submit me.
Why are you judging me as needing more experience?
Also, why are you focusing on the quantity, not quality, of experience?
You need more experience in both quantity and quality. The OP has a vagueness-factor of like 9, and with your new post, the vagueness factor is like 8.8. You’re not saying anything that people who aren’t you can understand. If you’re the only person who can understand what you’re saying, you’re not communicating well.
Please don’t be prejudiced towards him just because of who he is.
Well that’s a realistic perpective, but idealism isn’t concrete. Again, it’s a universal standard which makes it abstract.
The categories come first in order to avoid being particularly situational. That way, there’s no prejudice.
To be clear, yes, I’m talking about theories of perspective.
Idealism means we never acknowledge mind-independent objects. Our schematics are everything.
Realism means our senses directly or indirectly acknowledge mind-independent objects. Our schematics are subject to sensation.
The concern here is what happens when an idealist encounters a realist? If the idealist submits to the realist because of an opportunistic application of ideals, it’s possible that the schematic which generated ideals will die.
I’m not sure how that reconciles the described discrepancy.
Somehow the idealist should tell the realist to be more consistent. The bike is perhaps a symbol of surprise and frustration the idealist with the guy on the bike. Perhaps it would take a miracle to pull something like this off- to be able to convince the realist not to apply idealism on such ad hoc manner. But then, if he does that, he will no longer be a realist. So it depends on the strength of his beliefs.
In most successful marriages one is an idealist the other the realist. They discuss, compromise and support each other in the decision. Opposites attract for a reason, that reason is balance for both.
