I figured since we have this nifty forum for philosophy and science we might as well discuss some actual philosophy, as in the formal sense, vs the colloquial sense.

Classification and how we go about it is at the heart of many schools of philosophy. How we classify things is paramount to Epistemology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

I wanted to start with Idealism Vs Realism.

As this seems to be a popular concept here on these forums.

Idealism



Realism


I would enjoy hearing arguments for or against realism, or idealism.

<----Skinnerist

Behaviorism is a form of realism.

______________

Interesting yet offtopic.

ddn122 you joined 11-5-07
I joined 5-11-07. AHHAHA!
Interesting!!

Can both terms work together? I know this wouldn't make much of a debate, but instead of idealism versus realism, how about idealism with realism and realism with idealism.

Just a awkward thought.

I see no reason to make this a Vs battle so much as exploring both ideas, I only started with realism and idealism becuase I know them to be an easy, approachable, and yet deep topic.

I would like to hear you extrapolate on this idea. I think human nature has aspects of both, this does not necessarily mean both are true at a fundamental level, but it does show something about us as people.

Realism, and idealism go WAY beyond just philosophical discourse and into movies, art, tradition, mythology.

At this early in this thread I do not want to limit ANYTHING. Then as we go a long we can start to piece these items back to the philosophical nature of idealism and realism.

off topic???? Numerology!!!!

Interesting indeed. I guess in an ideal world this has relevance!

I see merit in both aspects. At times, I seem to be more of a Idealist thinker, mostly because I do believe that perception is so vital to one's experience, and I believe that most perception is done on a conscious level.

I also have a strong belief of Behaviorism, which as you have stated is grouped in Realism, so that would support a belief of mine in Realism. I also believe that much of Realism is socially constructed before the individual person has the chance to form a perception.

My perception is that both exist, I appreciate them both, and I would state that based on my statement, I am not a purist.

I also find the last statement interesting...

"Realism is contrasted with anti-realism" an either/or choice?

I am not convinced that Idealism and Realism cannot co-exist in a persons thought process...

First I think it would be fair for other readers to understand what the two terms mean philosophically. Oh boy is this a can of worms you opened up Jeremy and I fear it might get nasty in here, which always leads me to sit back and watch how we as humans tear apart idealogies until it is bare naked. I hope it remains somewhat civilized at least.

Many believe that realism and idealism comprise opposing approaches to the definition and pursuit of national objectives abroad. Many threads on different sites, books written about it, and actually situations have shown it. I usually wonder why compromising can never be made on both idealogies?

As far as my understanding realists tend to accept conditions as they are and to define the ends and means of policy by the measures of anticipated gains, costs, necessities, and chances of success, whereas idealists tend to define goals in ideal, often visionary, forms, and presume that the means for their achievement lie less in measured policies, relying on diplomacy or force, than in the attractiveness of the goals themselves.

Now I am sure you have heard of Niccolò Machiavelli (some have mentioned him before on here) who stood in profound opposition to the dominant Christian teachings that favored ethical constraints upon rulers. At the time doctrines of raison d'état challenged enlightenment doctrines and where pounded by philosophers who objected to such practices of monarchical statecraft as mercantilism, balance-of-power politics, and the pursuit of dynastic goals at the expense of peace and human welfare. This was a profound movement in my opinion at the time that changed much for future generations allowing us to express our opinions for the people's benefits.

While the American clash between realism and idealism owes an intellectual debt to European thought, it was in the United States that both doctrines were fully established, in theory and in practice. That is why I feel that both need each other to even have matters of opinions to begin with. Yes it is not easy, but I think it pushes new ideas for better solutions when such debates of intellectuals discuss certain situations in hand.

Now the problem is that realists and idealists disagree over the capacity of human society, and especially international politics, to eliminate the vagaries of existence an state system.

So what do we have left? I would say "exceptionalism".

We the people(each one of us) should be obligated to serve the peace and improve the human conditions. Is it a losing battle or slowly prosperous one with small steps of success is something each individual can decide in the end.

I agree. If there is an objective reality or not is of course the basis of these two ideas that conflict, but the aspects of idealism that relate to thinking are irrefutable, realism and idealism are aspects of soooo many things in our lives . . . that these aspects exist is undeniable even if we accept that reality is ideal, or real.

_____________________

Again its a wide topic and I do not desire to limit anyone, here are some wiki pages if anyone wants to take a few minutes looking at an array of various meanings and usages for these very interesting terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I wish I had that ability to plug a tube in the back of my head like in Matrix and just suck up knowledge from the complete wikipedia websites information in 10 minutes time.

If time wouldn't be an issue right

but thank you for the sites you offer to read up on. Very interesting.

Well first off I personally feel that the labels chosen to categorize these two schools of thought are extremely poor labels because just in these labels themselves there is an implication that one of these shools of thoguht is somehow more 'real' than the other which is merely 'idealistic' or 'wishful thinking'

So I feel that the labels themsleves are already highly biased.

I also agree with others who have suggested that 'reality' may actually be more of a combination of the two.

In fact, if I were to base my philosophy entire on physics I would choose the Copenhagan interpretaion of Quantum Mechanics as a basis to work from.

Of course even this interepretion itslef is open to personal interepretion in the details.

From my own personal perspective I see the Copenhagan interpretion of Quantum mechanics as actually demanding that reality is indeed a combination of a world that is ontologically both physical and non-physical simultaneously.

So from my point of view these two schools of philosophical thought should not be dichotomized as tought they are utterly incompatible.

From my perseptive they are totally compatible.

So my philosophy would lie somewhere in between.

I supposed this give me the right to then label my philosophy as:

Idealistic Realism.

Hey, I like that!

Maybe these labels are useful after all.

Finding the (middle way) is something most admirable in all instances in life. Something I am still working on in my lifetime as I enjoy the philosophy of buddhism and its teachings on the (middle way).

So (idealistic realism = middle way) sounds like a winner James

I just hope it works in each case for you

but as long as we have an open mind to view an opinion first before giving a reply, I think many will have a better chance of debating issues. Some would call that civilized conversation

I like the idea of idealistic realism myself.

A Real world in which we try to shape it into an ideal world hehe.

I have described myself with those words for years...

It brings to my mind, several statements, as well as several questions...

For this to work in society, a large measure of acceptance must be embraced, in fact, I would say 100% acceptance of what the 'ideal' is would have to be accepted by everyone.

The "optimal" or "ideal" for one person, may be 'perceived' much differently by another person. therefore, on the basis of ideal realism or real idealism (are they the same?) conflict would exist with these as well...

If everyone comes to an agreement, or 'melding' of thought, then, all philosophy would vanish?

I agree.

But in truth the very idea makes me so sad that I just want to cry.

Why?

Because the only resources that we currently have available for shaping our world into an ideal world are religion and politics.

From my point of view, the major religions of the world appear to me to be preaching bigotry and division based on belief in a particular deity along with a demand that the writings of ancient very crude and male chuavinistic prejudiced societies be embraced as the bigotry of God.

To try to fight against that, or to even try to work around it peacefully on a social level, seems impossible to me. Perhaps on a private level we can all go off and do our own thing. But how does that fit in with the goal of working toward an idealistic 'world'.

The other mechanism we have in place is politics. But once again, I see that as being a totally unslaying dragon. The things that I feel are most important for humanity in general aren't even on the political tables. Not only aren't they on the tables but they would be totally scoffed at and instantly rejected if anyone were to attempt to place them on the political tables.

If any one has noticed that I never post in the political forums and is wondering why, the answer is quite simple. The topics that I feel are important to humanity aren't even considered to be political topics in today's world. So I can't just jump into a preexisting discussion on those topics because they don't exist. If I were to try to start a thread on the topics I feel are important they would be dismissed as being totally radical, absurd, or possibly just disimssed by saying, "Hey, if you want to live like that be our guest, but there's no way we're going to live like that. Or they would just dismiss the ideas as being totally unrealistic and undoable.

I've actually tried discussing politics in the past so I know how it goes.

Finally it comes down to the serenity poem.

May I find the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.

Well, unfortunately I've recognized that changing the world is not something I can do. So I already possess the wisdom to know what I can't do.

However, I also cannot accept things as they are.

I have the wisdom to recognize that I know that I can't accept things the way they are.

So I'm in a very bad way here.

Serenity's up the creek without a paddle or a boat.

Well, not really true. I have come to grips with the fact that the world sucks and there's nothing I can do about it.

But still, I can't say that I'm thrilled with the situation.

At best all I can do is go off in a little corner with personal friends and just have a good time and pretend to ignore the fact that the rest of the world sucks.

Then I start to feel guilty that I'm having such a great time whilst other people are suffering horrible attrocities.

What good is heaven for a person who actually cares about the people who are in hell?

The serenity prayer is more like a plea to just be selfish isn't it?

Just ignore other people's pain and enjoy your own life.

For me, there's a certain 'guilt trip' associated with that. And I'm not even sure why. I'm not responsible for the fact that the world is full of bozos. I didn't create that situation. Or if I did I'm totally unware of it and I don't know how to go about fixing it.

I have not accepted the idea that I cannot change the world. I continue to see possibility in everything yet to come. I also have the idea that I must take 'cause' in that possibility for it to come...

It is a concept/idea/belief in which I will not know the result...as the "credit" for the change will not be able to be determined...

I love the Serenity Prayer/Poem. I am reminded of it daily.

I also try to remember the words...

Every single choice I make, and every single action I take..matters.
and therefore;
Every single choice I do not make, and every single action I do not take...matters equally.

The "ideal"? is that what the masses want? Who will set the ideal if not the individual...

then the ideal is "labeled and defined" which would then move the entire process into the realism school of thought?

I may be confused...

+1

I do not think you are.

Its like the Platonic thought experiment, what is a tree, my ideal tree is not your ideal tree, and each of our ideal tree's probably do not exist somewhere someone can touch it, not exactly, perhaps closely, but not exactly.



Me either! I just take one step at a time. My next step is becoming a foster dog dad. I am going to be moving soon and as soon as I get settled I am going to fill out the paper work at the humane society.

Well, that certainly makes a lot of sense.

And you're right. Some people have had very positive affects on the world. Martin Luther, Jacque Cousteau, Ghandi, David Attenborough, Henry David Thoreau, Albert Einstein,...

I'm sure the list is endless.

But even though all of these people, and many others, have had a profound affect on many individuals, have they truly been successful in putting much of a dent in the concept of an 'ideal' world?

I would even put Deepak Chopra on the list. He's doing quite a bit to promote a spiritual concept of universal consciousness. And he's doing an excellent job with respect to how he presents this message.

But how many people is he actually touching, and getting through to?

I'm not saying that we can't do anything, but it just appears to me that even the greatest and most successful people have hardly achieved much more than scratching the surface.

We need political leaders that have the conviction and mindset of some of these humanitarians. But how many people would vote for Deepak Chopra for, say, president of the USA? I'm not sure if he would even quality, but that's beside the point.

Is the USA prepared to embrace 'The Way of the Wizard' over Christian bigotry?

Speaking of Christianity, look what happened with Jesus? Assuming that he actually existed.

Here was a man who denounced the ways of an old doctrine to preach brotherly love and forgiveness, and what became of his message?

He ended up being used as a figure of idol worship to support bigotry and brotherly hate.

It's like a complete backfire to what his original intent was.

He started out to try to make a positive change and ended up being used as a patsy to propagate division, bigotry, and judgment. And he's still being used for that to this very day over 2000 years later.

How sad is that?

His example makes me afraid to try. Historically speaking, the people who tried the hardest backfired the in worst possible way.

If there is a will then there is a way....

Will it be easy? No

Is it achievable? You don't know until you try.

Is it risky and dangerous. Probably

Is it worth it? Yes

So what are you waiting for?


Nike slogan - Just do it!

then there is that evergoing comfortability issue.

Well if I do nothing, I might live a good life to a ripe age and I didn't have to worry about many things that could have happened to me. This mentality usually is common to 95% of the people in the world.

The other 5% are trying each and everyday.

Even if a humanitarian effort affects a very small community or just one individual then it is worth it in my opinion.

May you find strength to change small steps to eventually create big steps of change for this world.