Realism vs Idealism

Mar 262009

Yesterday I wrote about tax warfare. The comments got off track a bit, mainly regarding voting for Barr over McCain (by two people who both wanted Obama to lose). But it mostly came down to realism versus idealism.

I’m no expert. I’m only 29 years old, but I can tell you I’m far more realistic now than I was in years past. I think experience slowly moves young idealists towards realism.

On one hand, my gut tells me to side with JakeGint. He says he is older and more of a realist. To me, being an idealist is easy–there are no consequences, only theoretical gains or losses. Experience has taught him to be realistic and I put a lot of stock in experience.

On the other hand, I want to side with Tarigal, a college student with little life experience but strong ideals. Why? Because while experience and realism will always be a smart safe choice, its always the young, idealistic and foolishly overenthusiastic idealists that make real and lasting change for the better.

I feel like realism is the safe play and will likely benefit most people, but without those idealists rushing in to the fight, we’d rarely advance as a whole.

Is it better to accept life for what it is and try to maximize your life inside those boundaries or is it better to spend your life trying to break the boundaries down? I think you can see why a 20yr old might have a different opinion than a 60yr old, and vica versa.

Thoughts?

landonswan

You forgot Hitler. All good points. In the same boat however are the many people who are responsible for Women suffrage, black rights, and our country's independence. I guess it works both ways. I def agree that not all new bold ideas are good ones--Obama policies serve as good evidence.
JakeGint

Interestingly, those were mostly old people! Alexander Hamilton and Tommy Jeff aside, most of the "revolutionaries" were learned older men with "cooler heads" (contrast the bloody French Revolution's Jacobins with our Republicans) who synthesized the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Adam Smith and Burke to synthesize a rights based natural law oriented constitutional republic. They did not take from a singular ideology like most utopians and fascistic movements tended to.

The Abolitionists were guided by the Bible -- they were for the most part evangelical Christians with a relatively well tested philosophy to guide their actions. Woman's suffrage was a multi-generational transformation, not a sudden change, and it used persuasion (like the non-violent civil rights movement) over coercian. Maybe patience is the key to peace?
JakeGint

As for this:

"Because while experience and realism will always be a smart safe choice, its always the young, idealistic and foolishly overenthusiastic idealists that make real and lasting change for the better."

I can't help but think of the youthful Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel, Che, Hugo, etc, etc.

Maybe if we can keep these youthful idealists in private enterprise, we can accomodate an agreement somewhere....?
JakeGint

I don't want to advance quickly. I want to move along incrementally using all the accumulated knowledge of past generations to make (and keep) human life increasingly better.

The problem with advancing too quickly is it leaves your flank exposed to a counter maneuver.

Hence, Pelosi, Reid, and the Obama Slammah.

___________

blog comments powered by Disqus

Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha

Realism vs Idealism

Follow Me

Recent Posts

Sites I read