non-debate - discussion thread 02: realism/idealism

[ARTelevision]

It appears that many of our differences are the result of strong idealistic thinking versus strongly realistic approaches to solutions.

The terms may be loaded some but I do see them at the root of many conflicts. I'm using them not because I want to endlessly parse them or debate their loaded meanings but because they can illuminate the discussion. If we could gingerly approach the notion that we are all somewhat idealistic and realistic - albeit with different proportions of each - perhaps we could see ourselves on a continuum of common thought rather than at polarized ends of some spectrum.

Many times I would willingly say "I share your ideals" but I would differ regarding how to realistically achieve them. In other words, I see many notions as the result of wishful thinking that simply refuses to "get real."

Are you willing to put your notions of political thinking to the idealistic/realistic test? I do believe in the realm of political action only what is doable and achievable is sensible to consider...

[Paq]

i was thinking about that the other day.

a lot of what i believe is my optomistic, idealistic side that would never work in society.

i'm more than willing to admit that and i work around it and try to acheive that goal anyway.

I just feel that some people don't have an idealistic view to work towards, so they get trapped in the "We can't do that" mentality instead of the, "we need to work towards this idealistic state of being"

more like my idealistic side is a goal and my realistic side tries to find a workable path to that goal.

[onetime2]

I think the vast majority of my beliefs are fundamentally based in reality and what is doable. I would gladly put them to an idealistic/realistic test.

I certainly have idealistic goals (like politicians being honest and being held to the same universal standards) but see them as more of a direction to move in rather than a realistic end point.

For example, I believe the government should be forced to spend tax revenue efficiently. Programs need to have honest and measurable criteria set to gauge whether they are succeeding or failing. Further they need to be prioritized so that, rather than increasing taxes or deficit spending for a new program, they can be compared to existing programs and the least valuable one (or several) are eliminated or reduced.

This certainly doesn't mean I believe we will ever be completely efficient or that political manipulation/bias won't come into play. It simply means that the status quo is not acceptable and there is absolutely a better way to do things. The sooner we move in this direction the less it will cost us and our descendants.

[ARTelevision]

Yes, thanks for straightforwardly addressing this.
I think it lies behind many of our political labels.
We all struggle with the polarities of idealism and realism within ourtselves on a daily basis. Perhaps if our ideological differences were more informed by an acceptance of this, we'd begin working better together.

[hiredgun]

I'm not sure that anyone really believes that their political stance is idealistic, in the sense of being unrealistic. It's more that we differ on what is doable, what behavior is realistic to expect from others, etc.

[ARTelevision]

Yes, perhaps.
The thing is, I'm very aware of my idealism as separate from what is doable, practical, and realistic. I'd propose recognizing the distinction is a good way to begin dialogs - both inner and outer.

[smooth]

Originally posted by hiredgun
I'm not sure that anyone really believes that their political stance is idealistic, in the sense of being unrealistic. It's more that we differ on what is doable, what behavior is realistic to expect from others, etc.

I agree. I suspect that what people believe is doable depends on their ideology. Rarely do I meet people who believe something is undoable but strive to do it anyway, because they just want it to happen.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Are you willing to put your notions of political thinking to the idealistic/realistic test? I do believe in the realm of political action only what is doable and achievable is sensible to consider...

Well, if we're going to put our notions to this standard, then we should also only be talking about what we, personally, can do or achieve. I think this is a very fruitful way to re-position political thinking.

Let's face it, 99% of what we talk about here is just armchair quarterbacking. I personally can have very little effect on the war in iraq, gun control laws, abortion laws, or the overall political percentages in the USA.

Ask yourself "what have I personally done to make the things that I feel passionately about better?" I know, when it comes to politics, I'm much more idle now than I was a few years ago. I used to be involved in local political action, demonstrations, and other activities, and I used to regularly donate to political groups that I strongly believe in. I haven't done that recently. Now, I have a "good" excuse, and she's about two feet high, but that's really not a good reason to put my beliefs on hold.

I know it wasn't exactly what Art was getting at, but I do think a big part of the idealistic/realistic frame of mind is also thinking about what *you* can realistically do.

In fact, I think I'll put out a politics board challenge. New thread coming up.

[Scipio]

I'm defining realism and idealism as two different approaches to debate or conversation. An idealist prefers consideration of the best outcome, and spends less time on process or implementation, while a realist does the opposite, favoring what is "doable," (or discussion of what is possible or perhaps likely to happen) in order to achieve a satisfactory outcome.

An idealist talks about what "should" happen, while a realist talks about what "can" or "might actually" happen.

We get into problems when consideration of the "should happen" gets mingled with the consderation of the "realistically can happen." For example, I might say "it would be better for just about everyone if we got rid of fast food restaurants." Someone might reply: "you can't do that; what would happen to the people and businesses? It simply isn't feasible." Though we SEEM to be talking about the same thing, two quite different points are being debated.

The solution isn't some kind of self identification. I don't think a continuum of views across issues would tell us anything, and I think it would do nothing to limit the problems differing approaches cause. Individuals have varying takes on varying issues, and can't be accurately called "realists" or "idealists," generally.

Why not then have a continuum on each issue? One, it would be rather hard to put together, and two, people might self identify one way and debate another way, based on context. As you say, we have some of each view.

I would like to more clearly state one point, that might contradict some of what I said above, though I assure you my mind is not in conflict on the issue. That is, that individuals can't be idealistic or realistic, and moreover, tend to have each attribute in roughly equal parts. Everyone has ideals, and everyone has, to some extent, thoughts about how those ideas might work in the real world. They don't need to be good ideas, but they do exist. The implemention need not be well thought out, but it exists.

The difference then, is in how we talk about things. One person may wish to discuss carefully reasoned ideals, while another might want to share knowledge about the real world that has bearing on the plausibility of those ideals (perhaps in support of different ideals). People like to talk about what they know about.

The solution is for threads to have clearly stated purposes. If people wish to avoid this problem, they might disclose from the beginning that they don't want to talk about what's practical, only what's ideal, or vice versa. Of course, many others might want to mingle the two views, as they are sometimes inseperable in the real world.

*minor edits for clarity

[ARTelevision]

Kicking this one back up for your consideration.

[Scipio]

I was the last to post on this before it fell of the radar screen. Apparently I killed the discussion.

The thrust of my long post above is simple. Idealism and realism are not merely two analogous approaches to problems, but are two different stages of analysis. Idealism is concerned primarily with what would be best, regardless of practicality. Realism immediately puts aside considerations of the ideal in favor of doing something that will work.

When it comes to debates, we tend to debate realism if we have good factual knowledge of the issues. If we lack knowledge of the facts, we tend to take a more idealist approach. It is implied here that facts defeat idealism. This is not necessarily true. There are many barriers to the implementation of ideas that are quite real. Realist ideas work within those constraints. Idealist ideas attempt to destroy them, which is more difficult.

I feel as though I'm lapsing into some kind of rambling, e/n post, so I'll leave it at that.

[ARTelevision]

That's the sort of definitions that make sense to me - notwithstanding the voluminous philosophical traditions labeled as idealist and realist. I appreciate your retatement of the terms in comprehensible language.

As to, "When it comes to debates, we tend to debate realism if we have good factual knowledge of the issues. If we lack knowledge of the facts, we tend to take a more idealist approach," that's not quite how I see it.

I see these approaches as far better defined as "Idealism is concerned primarily with what would be best, regardless of practicality. Realism immediately puts aside considerations of the ideal in favor of doing something that will work".

This is what I mean when I say I am a realist.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
That's the sort of definitions that make sense to me - notwithstanding the voluminous philosophical traditions labeled as idealist and realist. I appreciate your retatement of the terms in comprehensible language.

As to, "When it comes to debates, we tend to debate realism if we have good factual knowledge of the issues. If we lack knowledge of the facts, we tend to take a more idealist approach," that's not quite how I see it.

I see these approaches as far better defined as "Idealism is concerned primarily with what would be best, regardless of practicality. Realism immediately puts aside considerations of the ideal in favor of doing something that will work".

This is what I mean when I say I am a realist.

I don't have any gripe with your definition in the third paragraph. My statement that you quote before it wasn't meant as a definition, but as a description of how people tend to debate things. Realism by necessity has to be grounded in reality and in some kind of factual knowledge; idealism isn't as constrained in this way.

Let me give a quick example:

Thread starter: "I don't really know much about X, but wouldn't it be great if we could do Y? Wouldn't that take care of X?"

(The poster isn't well educated about the issue, but wants to share and idea or insight. His approach is idealistic)

Reply: "Well, if you consider fact A and fact B, it's easy to see that Y won't really work. However, Z might be a much better real world solution, as it gets around A and B."

(The better informed replier (?) brings in facts, because he can, and changes the debate a bit.)

It's no longer about the merits of Y. The original poster must now not only show that Y has merit, but also show that it's feasible, which he is not well prepared to do. The question of what's a good way to deal with X, and how about Y? has become entangled in a question of what's realistic.

I think that a debate of ideals is a good thing to have before real world considerations are brought in. It's certainly better than trying to do both simultaneously.

[ARTelevision]

That sort of thing doesn't seem to happen much. Are you proposing as an ideal form of discussion?

I also like these comments by HarmlessRabbit:

"Well, if we're going to put our notions to this standard, then we should also only be talking about what we, personally, can do or achieve. I think this is a very fruitful way to re-position political thinking.

Let's face it, 99% of what we talk about here is just armchair quarterbacking. I personally can have very little effect on the war in iraq, gun control laws, abortion laws, or the overall political percentages in the USA.

Ask yourself "what have I personally done to make the things that I feel passionately about better?" I know, when it comes to politics, I'm much more idle now than I was a few years ago. I used to be involved in local political action, demonstrations, and other activities, and I used to regularly donate to political groups that I strongly believe in. I haven't done that recently. Now, I have a "good" excuse, and she's about two feet high, but that's really not a good reason to put my beliefs on hold.

I know it wasn't exactly what Art was getting at, but I do think a big part of the idealistic/realistic frame of mind is also thinking about what *you* can realistically do."
....

I agree with that wholeheartedly. I like the sense of pragmatism it's grounded in.

[cthulu23]

It's worth noting that throughout history much has been accomplished by the idealist who would not take no for an answer. I prefer to think of myself as a realist, as most people do, but I can't shake the idea that the only guaranteed way not to accomplish something is not to try. People said that man would never fly and that women weren't rational enough to vote. It was the idealists that proved them wrong.

As long as nature is a means to the attainment of beauty, so-called realism is necessary and permissable [sic], but it must be realism enhanced by idealism and uplifted by the spirit of an inner life or purpose. - Julia Marlowe

[ARTelevision]

Yep. I respect that. It's best when it is stated in front, I think.

[mr sticky]

In political matters, I see idealism and realism, as two pieces of the same puzzle.

Idealism: It holds the inspiration for the act- that is, it is the progenitor of the act.

Realism: This is the compromises and the techniques to get ideas done.

On our boards, it's easy to be idealistic. We can hold unflinchingly to our ideals because we're not actually going to put these in place. I can stick to my guns, spout a lot of rhetoric and never be expected to produce.
Others play the issues in real world context and and are sometimes lambasted for their seemingly mixed beliefs. It's here that we find a blurred line of thought and action.

That's why there tends to be an overabundance of frustration on the political boards. Someone raises an issue, others look at it logically, decide on its ability to be implemented, and post. Others jump on the idealist bandwagon and nail you for having the idea in the first place.

That's why technical issues and not ideals make for better discussion.

[roachboy]

this is a false opposition----smooth's comment above is, i think, correct. same circle--there is no way to avoid subsantive debate about ideology.

addendum, after taking a shower: there is no reason that we have to trade debate about matters of ideology away for civility. i understand the impetus behind trying to address political questions in a non-political way as one of trying to effect this trade-off. there are very few forums in which one can actually try to think about politics, about the terms that structure it and still be in a more-or-less public sphere. trying to think about politics/the political (in the academic parlance of our time) does not mean simply rehearsing what you already think you know and adding a degree of snippiness into the mix to legitimate positions that may or may not be defensible on other grounds--it means more being able to undertake the often difficult task of thinking, trying to define terms, trying to work out a common thread for thinking. for the most part, american political discourse is antithetical to this kind of thing--but i do not find the idea of it impossible in principle.