I will be discussing a fallacy happening even in the lower cellars of society. This is the misconception of what is ideal and what is real. Ask anyone and surely you would get an equation of idealism to impossible, and worse, realism to brutal. Trivial as it may seem, this keeps us from achieving the greatest form of happiness in any endeavor. This prevents us from going for the gold, instead we satisfy ourselves with silver under the brutal reference of the fake 'truth'. This chains us from achieving our dreams. In this post, I will expose my theory why is this and how this should be addressed.
Perhaps the best way of approaching this is by looking into how the words or concepts 'idealism' and 'realism' were formed as opposed to how they are being used now. Originally, idealism pertains to a philosophy that the ultimate nature of the world exists in ideas. Kant goes to saying that ideas only are what we can know for certain. Thus, this can be extended as to how the world should be because this is what we can comprehend clearly for these are our creations. Ideals in short originally meant what the world should be.
Realism on the other hand originally meant what we immediately see by our senses. This is external, contrary to the internal idealism. This is what is.
Well, then, if those are the original meanings of the concepts, why is impossible now attached to idealism and brutal to realism?
Let us, this time, start with realism. How did it achieve its brutal nature? I propose we look at the early philosophers understanding then. They base upon what they observe. And observation in nature will lead us to an understanding of the wretched way realism was perceived. It is just brutal to see animals devour each other in the jungle but this is of course due to lack of understanding of the balance of life. Thus, theories like the social-contract theory emerged which is founded on the assumption that the state of nature is a wretched state with members experiencing short life and insecurity. The real thus becomes brutal. Anything otherwise is surreal. Anywhere applied, be it on poetry, literature, art, philosophy, and politics, the real is necessarily brutal. Such a conception of real provides man no comfort giving him only reasons to appreciate his wretchedness and to wallow in hopelessness.
Idealism on the other hand, became stringed with impossible and not practical when it was used by Thomas More in Utopia. Utopia defined from its roots roughly means 'not place'. Therefore, Utopia, which in the book is a city of ideal socio-political-cultural structure, does not exist. As a result, idealism is now used pejoratively. When one is described as idealistic, he is talked about with a degree of contempt and sometimes humor for he thinks of how things should go, he dreams of dreams not yet seen by the world, thus not realistic. Often, this type of behavior to those idealistics lead to the depreciation of their ideals. A friend of mine wrote, "Ideals should not be lowered, people should be elevated." Needless to say, I agree. That is how it should be. Of course, some will reckon that that in itself is too idealistic.
What I now want to point to therefore to address the dilemma is the use of not practical and impossible. Also, take note of the polarization of the ideal from what is real.
On the first distinction we have to make, an impractical thing is not necessarily impossible. It is just that impractical to do. It is doable but doing so will cost more than the gain. As opposed to impossible where the only gain is that we tried. This is one of my major contentions, people should know how to separate impractical from impossible especially in describing an ideal. An impossible idea or plan cannot be an ideal. This is because by the very fact that it is impossible. It will no longer be the ideal because in pursuit of it you would lose things and gain nothing. The same goes of course with the impractical only that we have to look at it on a case-to-case basis.
Now, let us address the polarization of realism and idealism. First of all, realism is grounded on fallacies resulting from poor understanding, discussed earlier. Nevertheless, even if realism is indeed true, idealism can and should hold ground. If we see the world as brutal, nothing can be more tragic than doing nothing about it for we are gifted with ideas. These ideas we could and should use to create our ideals. Realism then is on our assessment stage, remaing in this stage is a reactive stance. Idealism is our solution-finding stage, the proactive stage. Of course, these are just foundations. We have to follow up with actions and virtues.
The message I want to forward is that resigning to the real, especially if brutally understood, is not an act worthy of human dignity and potential. Ideals should be revitalized as our starting point, only then can we achieve a harmonious society where everyone is going for the good.
Perhaps the best way of approaching this is by looking into how the words or concepts 'idealism' and 'realism' were formed as opposed to how they are being used now. Originally, idealism pertains to a philosophy that the ultimate nature of the world exists in ideas. Kant goes to saying that ideas only are what we can know for certain. Thus, this can be extended as to how the world should be because this is what we can comprehend clearly for these are our creations. Ideals in short originally meant what the world should be.
Realism on the other hand originally meant what we immediately see by our senses. This is external, contrary to the internal idealism. This is what is.
Well, then, if those are the original meanings of the concepts, why is impossible now attached to idealism and brutal to realism?
Let us, this time, start with realism. How did it achieve its brutal nature? I propose we look at the early philosophers understanding then. They base upon what they observe. And observation in nature will lead us to an understanding of the wretched way realism was perceived. It is just brutal to see animals devour each other in the jungle but this is of course due to lack of understanding of the balance of life. Thus, theories like the social-contract theory emerged which is founded on the assumption that the state of nature is a wretched state with members experiencing short life and insecurity. The real thus becomes brutal. Anything otherwise is surreal. Anywhere applied, be it on poetry, literature, art, philosophy, and politics, the real is necessarily brutal. Such a conception of real provides man no comfort giving him only reasons to appreciate his wretchedness and to wallow in hopelessness.
Idealism on the other hand, became stringed with impossible and not practical when it was used by Thomas More in Utopia. Utopia defined from its roots roughly means 'not place'. Therefore, Utopia, which in the book is a city of ideal socio-political-cultural structure, does not exist. As a result, idealism is now used pejoratively. When one is described as idealistic, he is talked about with a degree of contempt and sometimes humor for he thinks of how things should go, he dreams of dreams not yet seen by the world, thus not realistic. Often, this type of behavior to those idealistics lead to the depreciation of their ideals. A friend of mine wrote, "Ideals should not be lowered, people should be elevated." Needless to say, I agree. That is how it should be. Of course, some will reckon that that in itself is too idealistic.
What I now want to point to therefore to address the dilemma is the use of not practical and impossible. Also, take note of the polarization of the ideal from what is real.
On the first distinction we have to make, an impractical thing is not necessarily impossible. It is just that impractical to do. It is doable but doing so will cost more than the gain. As opposed to impossible where the only gain is that we tried. This is one of my major contentions, people should know how to separate impractical from impossible especially in describing an ideal. An impossible idea or plan cannot be an ideal. This is because by the very fact that it is impossible. It will no longer be the ideal because in pursuit of it you would lose things and gain nothing. The same goes of course with the impractical only that we have to look at it on a case-to-case basis.
Now, let us address the polarization of realism and idealism. First of all, realism is grounded on fallacies resulting from poor understanding, discussed earlier. Nevertheless, even if realism is indeed true, idealism can and should hold ground. If we see the world as brutal, nothing can be more tragic than doing nothing about it for we are gifted with ideas. These ideas we could and should use to create our ideals. Realism then is on our assessment stage, remaing in this stage is a reactive stance. Idealism is our solution-finding stage, the proactive stage. Of course, these are just foundations. We have to follow up with actions and virtues.
The message I want to forward is that resigning to the real, especially if brutally understood, is not an act worthy of human dignity and potential. Ideals should be revitalized as our starting point, only then can we achieve a harmonious society where everyone is going for the good.
4 comments:
i definitely agree.:Dwhat is ideal can be real and what is real can be ideal.
thank you mark for sharing! hehe :p
Hi anonymous,
Thank you very much. Indeed, what is ideal should be transformed into what is real. Thanks for leaving a comment!:)
hmm, but how can we practically distinguish the "impractical" and the "impossible" you have to remember that those are relative terms.
the real reason people refer to ideals as "impossible" is that they are just that- ideas. Ideas which rely on basic assumptions, most of which turn out to be false. also, ideals tend to be absolutist and inflexible.
take for example the marxist-leninist ideal of the workers' state.
it relies on the basic assumption that people would work essentially pro bono, which is not impossible, but highly improbable. add that to its inflexibility to accept that some people would not agree to work for free, and you see why people think ideals are impossible.
take note that i am merely explaining WHY people see ideals as impossibilities.
Hi anonymous2,
That is a question we should tackle. how can we practically determine what is "impractical" and "impossible?"
I am afraid I find it hard too. My essay only suggests that we be cautious when labeling a proposal as the "ideal." I suggest then that there must be a thorough evaluation before branding something as the ideal proposal.
In your example, I agree it is impractical but it is possible. If we can prove that it will benefit us largely, then we should overcome the hindrance you pointed out, no one really wants to work pro bono.
We should do that if we have proven that the gain would overcome the effort and time we will spend in achieving the goal. If not then it is not the ideal.
My proposal now, in light of your arguments, would be that for something to be the ideal, it has to be practical and possible.
Post a Comment