Idealism

[pau17]

How much can we trust ideals and personal convictions towards an imagined better life as legitimate?

It seems that any ideology can co-opt the same themes in creating justifications for itself, i.e. propaganda--a certain emotional, idealistic, natural, organicist, etc. conception of higher human flourishing.

For a humorous example, look at the transformation in the following song:

Original happy-go-lucky version about singing and being happy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGikhmjTSZI&feature=related

Fascist parody version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbB1s7TZUQk

The second version is a parody, but why is it so hilariously awesome? Leonard Berstein once made a similar comment that music can be interpreted any way one wants to interpret it. You can fit music to any story you wish, because it is form of emotional language prior to specific linguistic claims.

What place does idealism have in our conceptions of a better world, and what function does it play? Is it a dangerous primordial soup that everyone can dip into to obfuscate rational analysis? A dressing-up of mundane concerns to block out disinterested observation? Are we saying anything new with idealism other than simply shouting our same viewpoint louder? Or can we put forth idealistic appeals with enough clarity to justify a unique purpose for them outside of pure tribalism?

I tend to think that idealistic or emotive appeals need to be viewed with caution, not as attributive of unique value in and of themselves. We shun objective analysis and the mundane at our own peril. We all know that happy movie endings are not real...you always see the happy final scene right before the credits roll, and none of the boring, tedious tension of everyday life that comes after. Thoughts...

 

[Millman]

Man-made with no definate answer. At least not right now. If I had all the answers I'd be a god or click off and die.

 

[Smellincoffee]

The value of ideals lies in the uses to which they are put. There are some ideals that I maintain for myself because they give me motivations to keep striving to become who I "want" to be. At the same time, I realize that my ideals are just ideals, and thus they have no real power over me: I use them to help myself when necessary. I think ideals are useful for a progressive society.

Ideals are useful, but volatile: in the minds of people who don't realize that their ideals are just that, ideals, they can be quite dangerous. Religious and political ideologies are a prime example of that.

 

[JerichoHill]

Ideals motivate change
Pragmatics enact change.

Simple. One really doesnt function without the other, but both annoy each other.

 

[Brighteye]

2. The practice of idealizing or tendency to idealize; the habit of representing things in an ideal form, or as they might be; imaginative treatment of a subject in art or literature; ideal style or character: opp. to realism. Also, aspiration after or pursuit of an ideal.

I can't find anything wrong with idealism, and nor do I understand why you're trying to link it to emotion. Idealism can be very rational.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

We must always strive for an ideal world.

 

[pau17]

2. The practice of idealizing or tendency to idealize; the habit of representing things in an ideal form, or as they might be; imaginative treatment of a subject in art or literature; ideal style or character: opp. to realism. Also, aspiration after or pursuit of an ideal.

I can't find anything wrong with idealism, and nor do I understand why you're trying to link it to emotion. Idealism can be very rational.

I guess the issue is how far ahead of ourselves we place our idealistic notions, and how much that permits us to sneak in or gloss over certain leaps in logic or false assumptions that could later prove dangerous. You can make any political ideology look pretty by showing a bunch of people looking at a rising sun holding up a flag, and having powerful music. This image of the "perfect" society in which all problems will be resolved can be invoked for any point of view, so it does not seem to add any new content. Yet it seems all too necessary to mobilize support...

In my sense of the word, idealism means more than just the desire to improve; it means the desire to actually reach a certain point that one paints with the imagination, far removed from current circumstances. Of course then everything is idealistic to some degree, but in common parlance there is more or less of a clear line between a "pragmatic" and an "idealistic" viewpoint.

The point with emotions is that idealistic notions are often used to make certain emotions emblematic of their vision. The notion is that if we achieve this ideal, you will feel like you are feeling right now as you look at this poster or listen to this song, all the time, when the reality may be that life will still be just as mundane. You can't catch emotions forever, only chase them.

So there is a bit of a grey area, and I am interested in the line beyond which things start to become overly "romantic."

 

[Gary Childress]

How much can we trust ideals and personal convictions towards an imagined better life as legitimate?

It seems that any ideology can co-opt the same themes in creating justifications for itself, i.e. propaganda--a certain emotional, idealistic, natural, organicist, etc. conception of higher human flourishing.

For a humorous example, look at the transformation in the following song:

Original happy-go-lucky version about singing and being happy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGikhmjTSZI&feature=related

Fascist parody version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbB1s7TZUQk

The second version is a parody, but why is it so hilariously awesome? Leonard Berstein once made a similar comment that music can be interpreted any way one wants to interpret it. You can fit music to any story you wish, because it is form of emotional language prior to specific linguistic claims.

What place does idealism have in our conceptions of a better world, and what function does it play? Is it a dangerous primordial soup that everyone can dip into to obfuscate rational analysis? A dressing-up of mundane concerns to block out disinterested observation? Are we saying anything new with idealism other than simply shouting our same viewpoint louder? Or can we put forth idealistic appeals with enough clarity to justify a unique purpose for them outside of pure tribalism?

I tend to think that idealistic or emotive appeals need to be viewed with caution, not as attributive of unique value in and of themselves. We shun objective analysis and the mundane at our own peril. We all know that happy movie endings are not real...you always see the happy final scene right before the credits roll, and none of the boring, tedious tension of everyday life that comes after. Thoughts...

Well theres the chaotic primordial soup of the world and then there is the human conception of how the world should be. Scientists, politicians, architects, inventors and such are all acting on ideals of some sort. All "idealism" is not Nazism. Being racially paranoid, having a secret police to hunt down dissenters and starting world wars is one thing. Truly believing in Democracy or Freedom or Human Rights and stuff like that shouldn't be lumped in with Nazism. Humanity will always have ideals that it wishes to impose upon the chaos of nature to make the world more habitable for us. The trick is to spot which ideals are the good ones and which are the bad.

 

[Gustave5436]

Everyone has ideals. "Idealism" is just an accusation made by pessimists against those willing to act upon their ideals, without concern for how realistic or not the "idealists" are.

 

[Ayatollah So]

What place does idealism have in our conceptions of a better world, and what function does it play? Is it a dangerous primordial soup that everyone can dip into to obfuscate rational analysis? A dressing-up of mundane concerns to block out disinterested observation? Are we saying anything new with idealism other than simply shouting our same viewpoint louder? Or can we put forth idealistic appeals with enough clarity to justify a unique purpose for them outside of pure tribalism?

Huge, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes (respectively).

The other thing to bear in mind is that "pragmatism" is always carrying water for ideals too, just like "ideology" or "idealism". The main difference is whether the goals and ideals are out in the open, or smuggled in through the back door and/or absorbed from your society by osmosis. Especially from the more powerful members of your society.

 

[Brighteye]

You can make any political ideology look pretty by showing a bunch of people looking at a rising sun holding up a flag, and having powerful music...it seems all too necessary to mobilize support...

It's sad but true. I don't think that this has anything to do with idealism. In fact, I think that this is necessary because so few people are idealists. People are lazy and apathetic, and they won't care about a just cause enough to help unless one appeals to their emotions.
As we learn from Napoleon, via the Civ tech tree: 'A man does not have himself killed for a half-penny a day or a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul...'
If there were more idealism in the world, then no-one would have to resort to appeals to emotion. But the appeal is a method; ideals the goal. The two, for me, are very distinct.

In my sense of the word, idealism means more than just the desire to improve; it means the desire to actually reach a certain point that one paints with the imagination, far removed from current circumstances. Of course then everything is idealistic to some degree, but in common parlance there is more or less of a clear line between a "pragmatic" and an "idealistic" viewpoint.

In my mind idealist on its own simply describes someone who is not lazy and apathetic, but has definite opinions about how society should be organised. It is only when deliberately contrasted with pragmatist that it takes on the meaning of wanting something that cannot be done. It's a bit like asking what the word 'runner' means to someone, and then asking how it's different from the word 'winner'. If they're separate categories, then runners aren't winners, but one doesn't automatically think of runners as losers. Of course, not every runner can be a winner, in the same way that a great many ideals cannot be realised.

So there is a bit of a grey area, and I am interested in the line beyond which things start to become overly "romantic."

I think that the line is not between types of idealism, but depends on the methods people use to communicate ideas, be they idealistic ones or not.

 

[GoodGame]

Thoughts...

Sounds like an Objectivist rant.

Better written than Rand?

Ideals motivate change
Pragmatics enact change.

Simple. One really doesnt function without the other, but both annoy each other.

Thread winner!!!!

 

[pau17]

Sounds like an Objectivist rant.

Not at all. You can be a very idealistic objectivist. I am not backing any particular ideology, just making the observation that you can romanticize the heck out of anything.

 

[GoodGame]

Not at all. You can be a very idealistic objectivist. I am not backing any particular ideology, just making the observation that you can romanticize the heck out of anything.

Rand was pretty much a romanticist and an idealist in my book.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/romanticism.html