Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-19-2004, 08:13 AM   #1 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
non-debate - discussion thread 02: realism/idealism

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...
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 11:58 AM   #2 (permalink)
Paq
Junkie
 
Paq's Avatar
 
Location: South Carolina
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.
__________________
Live.

Chris
Paq is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 12:21 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
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.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Last edited by onetime2; 03-19-2004 at 12:30 PM..
onetime2 is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 12:23 PM   #4 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
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.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 12:33 PM   #5 (permalink)
Addict
 
hiredgun's Avatar
 
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.
hiredgun is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 12:44 PM   #6 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
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.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 12:46 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Right here
Quote:
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.
smooth is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 09:56 PM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
HarmlessRabbit's Avatar
 
Location: San Jose, CA
Quote:
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.
HarmlessRabbit is offline  
Old 03-19-2004, 10:04 PM   #9 (permalink)
Mencken
 
Scipio's Avatar
 
Location: College
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
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

Last edited by Scipio; 06-14-2004 at 05:43 PM..
Scipio is offline  
Old 06-14-2004, 05:36 PM   #10 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Kicking this one back up for your consideration.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 06-14-2004, 05:49 PM   #11 (permalink)
Mencken
 
Scipio's Avatar
 
Location: College
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.
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."
Scipio is offline  
Old 06-14-2004, 06:30 PM   #12 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
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.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 06-14-2004, 06:40 PM   #13 (permalink)
Mencken
 
Scipio's Avatar
 
Location: College
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

Last edited by Scipio; 06-14-2004 at 06:43 PM..
Scipio is offline  
Old 06-14-2004, 06:56 PM   #14 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
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.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 06-14-2004, 06:57 PM   #15 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
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.

Quote:
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
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-14-2004, 06:59 PM   #16 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Yep. I respect that. It's best when it is stated in front, I think.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 06-15-2004, 06:45 AM   #17 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: NC
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.
__________________
The sad thing is... as you get older you come to realize that you don't so much pilot your life, as you just try to hold on, in a screaming, defiant ball of white-knuckle anxious fury
mr sticky is offline  
Old 06-15-2004, 06:47 AM   #18 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
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.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 06-15-2004 at 07:21 AM..
roachboy is offline  
 

Tags
discussion, nondebate, realism or idealism, thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:59 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360