The danger of ideals.

[Alazen]

I propose that throughout history, the most deadly conflicts in history when it comes to human on human violence have been driven by ideals as opposed to aims of the strict realist or one pushed by "greed".

Looking at WW2, both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan's internal and foreign policies were pushed beyond realism. Whether to crush Bolshevism or other examples, both of these nations were driven by ideals to defeat. Japan in particular did not surrender and give up its seized territory sooner than it did.

Nationalism, racial supremacy, Communism, what have you. All examples of where ideals can take you. Fortunately, this world has its share of realists to try and keep the idealists in check.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Alazen

[blah the Prussian]

I would say this is true. Then again, I would edit this to evangelical idealism, for example America never tried to spread its republicanism to the rest of the world, while France did, leading to the Revolutionary Wars.

[Esau of Isaac]

I agree entirely. Blind idealists, no matter how well-meaning, comprise no small part of the world's ills. It is that fanatic adherence which causes a loss of sight and sanity.

I find myself becoming progressively more stressed at the ways in which various forms of idealism is being sugar-coated and packaged to today's youth. I have never been one to lend much credence to tinfoil-hatters, but I do find it distressing that many of today's movements can be boiled down to a hashtag.

[deactivated]

People think that everyone has the same ideals as them, and when they disagree it ends up with people in a bloody war. Nobody's perfect, even if they think they are... What im trying to say is that this needs to stop... The world can't be perfect and when you try to make it your perfect world, it always goes wrong.

[Dwalin2010]

Curiosity: are you only talking about ideals that have relevancy on the national and international political scene or personal ideals as well? Because sometimes ideals are attacked and victimized for no reason, even when they don't harm anyone. I for example have some personal ideals that I can't imagine being harmful in any way to anybody yet the quantity of people hating them is unbelievable.

Sorry if I somehow misunderstood the original post; if it's meant to be an exclusively political/social topic, I apologize for the off-topic.

[blah the Prussian]

I can't answer for the OP, but ideals IMO are fine as long as they don't affect areas where they could be harmful. If the running of the world is handled by realists, that's okay.

[FionordeQuester]

I propose that throughout history, the most deadly conflicts in history when it comes to human on human violence have been driven by ideals as opposed to aims of the strict realist or one pushed by "greed".

Maybe I'm taking this a little too literally, but what exactly are you referring to when you say "ideals"? I believe you may be refdering to one of the Dictionary defintions, which defines an ideal as...

A person or thing conceived as embodying such a conception or conforming to such a standard, and taken as a model for imitation:

So there's that. And then I hear you saying stuff like "fortunately, this world has it's share of realists to try and keep idealists in check". Which implies to me that you have your own set of ideals, that rational thinking should be prized above all things, that we should avoid blind fanatacism and be independant thinkers, that we should be peaceful people who avoid violence, that we should be "realists" who see reality for what it is rather than denying what's in front of us, and etc.

These are good values of course, but they are exactly that. Values. These are all VALUE statements, ones that indicate a bias for a system of that that you believe will promote peace and humanity. These ARE ideals just as much as anti-semitism was an ideal. In light of that, doesn't it seem like you're only looking at one side of the coin? Values CAN be bad, vut they are also the very things that led to the creation of Democracy, and a Bill of Rights meant to protect our basic, God-given rights as human beings. Is that not true?

Edited September 21, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

a rejection of ideals/idealism is not itself an ideal (or, more clearly, not acting in a way that is idealistic). just like a rejection of faith is not itself a type of faith. if i identify as a realist, i'm not an idealist--or better yet, if my actions reflect that of a realist, then i'm not an idealist.

[FionordeQuester]

a rejection of ideals/idealism is not itself an ideal (or, more clearly, not acting in a way that is idealistic). just like a rejection of faith is not itself a type of faith. if i identify as a realist, i'm not an idealist--or better yet, if my actions reflect that of a realist, then i'm not an idealist.

That's technically true I suppose. But, how about the reasons FOR your beliefs? Why do you choose to think the way you do? Surely there was some sort of selection process?

EDIT: Or, if you reject the very basis of ideals, then does that mean there are no standards? Is there no difference, for example, between a "well-written story" and a "poorly written story"? Even those statements are based on a set of values and principles in our head, that there is stuff that is "good" and stuff that is "bad".

Edited September 21, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

there's always a "selection process" for why a person believes anything at all, but that's not necessarily important. the crux of the argument, one that many seem to agree with, is that idealists can be dangerous if people choose to fight for their ideals violently and vehemently. this won't happen with realists. realists see obstacles to change as immutable (eg, because x is this way, y must be this way*), whereas idealists see obstacles as completely malleable/removable (y is this way, so x must be changed*). i speak generally--in reality no one is a pure realist/pragmatist or pure idealogue; it's case by case.

fanaticism is idealism to its extreme.

*roughly speaking. i'm sure someone else can put in the time to explain it better

Edited September 30, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[FionordeQuester]

Ah, very well then. That's what I figured. I agree with everything you said there by the way Phoenix.

Edited September 21, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[Makaze]

The progression of this thread reminds me of the Vinegar Tasters painting, particularly the Buddhist interpretation.

From the wiki page on the Vinegar Tasters painting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters

The three men are dipping their fingers in a vat of vinegar and tasting it; one man reacts with a sour expression, one reacts with a bitter expression, and one reacts with a sweet expression. The three men are Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi, respectively. Each man's expression represents the predominant attitude of his religion: Confucianism saw life as sour, in need of rules to correct the degeneration of people; Buddhism saw life as bitter, dominated by pain and suffering; and Taoism saw life as fundamentally good in its natural state. Another interpretation of the painting is that, since the three men are gathered around one vat of vinegar, the "three teachings" are one.

...

Buddhism, as it is practiced today, was heavily influenced and shaped by Siddhartha Gautama, who claimed to be enlightened when he was thirty-five years old. Siddhartha lived a very sheltered and extravagant life growing up. As he neared his thirties it is said that he became aware of all the ugliness in the world, this prompted him to leave his home in search of enlightenment. At the start of his travels Siddhartha became a beggar and studied philosophy, however, his studies did not lead him to the answers that he sought. He then tried asceticism alongside five monks for six years; this practice also failed to bring him enlightenment. After giving up asceticism Siddhartha decided to meditate until he found the enlightenment that he was searching for. After much meditation he became enlightened and was henceforth known as Buddha which means 'awakened one'. During his meditation he had a vision of humankind and the cycle that we are bound to. He concluded that we are bound to the cycles of life and death because of tanha (desire, thirst, craving). During Buddha's first sermon he preached, "neither the extreme of indulgence nor the extremes of asceticism was acceptable as a way of life and that one should avoid extremes and seek to live in the middle way". "Thus the goal of basic Buddhist practice is not the achievement of a state of bliss in some heaven but the extinguishing of tanha. When tanha is extinguished, one is released from the cycle of life (birth, suffering, death, and rebirth)"(Hopfe/Woodward 2007, p 176), only then will they achieve Nirvana.

One interpretation is that Buddhism, being concerned with the self, viewed the vinegar as a polluter of the taster's body due to its extreme flavor. Another interpretation for the image is that Buddhism reports the facts are as they are, that vinegar is vinegar and isn't naturally sweet on the tongue. Trying to make it sweet is ignoring what it is, pretending it is sweet is denying what it is, while the equally harmful opposite is being disturbed by the sourness.

I agree with the Buddhist interpretation in the sense that suffering comes from desires, the root of idealism. Balance or even ego death is the only way to be at peace with anything, including the world around us.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Makaze

[Alazen]

I'll point out that Democracy as defined in Athens has never lasted anywhere larger than a city-state with its conquered territories (which is unsurprising when you realize so many people do not have the interest in or qualifications for governance beyond their immediate territory at most), United States government has a history of working around if not violating the constitution, and ''rights'' are in actuality what the holder of the monopoly of force permits you to have.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Alazen

[Rapier]

I don't think ideals are necessarily bad because some brought progress while others brought misery, especially post-enlightenment. Without ideals we wouldn't have gotten so far. They are necessary for mankind's improvement.

It is a matter of which ideal one defends and, imo, how farfetched or surreal it is. If it is too much about the ought and ignores what is too much, then one ideal is bound to fail since it is incompatible with reality. If it dwelves into the ought but minds what is, then it is possible that ideal might succeed, because they will be more in tone with reality, which is what they need to work. Ideals that have no basis in empirical evidence that attest to their claims and/or are outright ilogical are the most fragile and the ones I'm looking out for.

I'm more of an idealist person than a realist person, but I try to follow reality as much as I can, tipping my scale too far to their side just to be safe from foolish and dangerous ideals. I think pure realism isn't the answer because it only focuses on what is, ignoring the ought, which could lead us to a slightly more endurable reality. Pure idealism, on the contrary, has more chances of turning the world into a hell. The fact that there are more people nowadays who adhere to the latter is worrisome. They should really improve themselves intelectually before defending such ideals (which is what I am trying to do).

Edited September 24, 2015 by Rapier

[Alazen]

Even the buildup to WW2 counts, considering not only the Nazi leadership's acts but those of the United States (not committing to reining in Germany) and the faith that Hitler just wouldn't accept war.

[Aramis]

Even the buildup to WW2 counts, considering not only the Nazi leadership's acts but those of the United States (not committing to reining in Germany) and the faith that Hitler just wouldn't accept war.

There is much, much more to World War II. What you describe is just pure human failure.

I agree entirely. Blind idealists, no matter how well-meaning, comprise no small part of the world's ills. It is that fanatic adherence which causes a loss of sight and sanity.

I find myself becoming progressively more stressed at the ways in which various forms of idealism is being sugar-coated and packaged to today's youth. I have never been one to lend much credence to tinfoil-hatters, but I do find it distressing that many of today's movements can be boiled down to a hashtag.

"Sanity" is a social construct as much as idealism is, don't forget that.

there's always a "selection process" for why a person believes anything at all, but that's not necessarily important. the crux of the argument, one that many seem to agree with, is that idealists can be dangerous if people choose to fight for their ideals violently and vehemently. this won't happen with realists. realists see obstacles to change as immutable (eg, because x is this way, y must be this way*), whereas realists see obstacles as completely malleable/removable (y is this way, so x must be changed*). i speak generally--in reality no one is a pure realist/pragmatist or pure idealogue; it's case by case.

fanaticism is idealism to its extreme.

*roughly speaking. i'm sure someone else can put in the time to explain it better

I do see your point, but i respectfully disagree that what you call realism and idealism cannot be told apart so easily. The social creed we adhere to, for example is a social construct based on idealism, as all of humanism is. From a realist viewpoint, we are mere animals, nothing more and nothing less. Violence is not an universal taboo, rather part of natural law, while pacifism is a social construct as well.

I don't think ideals are necessarily bad because some brought progress while others brought misery, especially post-enlightenment. Without ideals we wouldn't have gotten so far. They are necessary for mankind's improvement.

It is a matter of which ideal one defends and, imo, how farfetched or surreal it is. If it is too much about the ought and ignores what is too much, then one ideal is bound to fail since it is incompatible with reality. If it dwelves into the ought but minds what is, then it is possible that ideal might succeed, because they will be more in tone with reality, which is what they need to work. Ideals that have no basis in empirical evidence that attest to their claims and/or are outright ilogical are the most fragile and the ones I'm looking out for.

I'm more of an idealist person than a realist person, but I try to follow reality as much as I can, tipping my scale too far to their side just to be safe from foolish and dangerous ideals. I think pure realism isn't the answer because it only focuses on what is, ignoring the ought, which could lead us to a slightly more endurable reality. Pure idealism, on the contrary, has more chances of turning the world into a hell. The fact that there are more people nowadays who adhere to the latter is worrisome. They should really improve themselves intelectually before defending such ideals (which is what I am trying to do).

I assume ideals are nothing more than a nuanced, human-exclusive form of instinct. Also, you get bonus points for JoJo.

Back to the main topic, what you describe as idealism, realism, and greed or desire can't be told apart in the given context. The threat those three pose is natural, and inevitable, as they are irremovable pieces of human nature. You folks also confuse realism with humanism a lot.

[Alazen]

There is much, much more to World War II. What you describe is just pure human failure.

It has been demonstrated that leaders like Chamberlain were impacted by post-WW1 idealism. They honestly believed that Hitler wouldn't go towards war.

[Myke]

yeah but it wasn't just people standing on either side of a line depending on what their position on the argument was. everyone in the war had different motives, and much of the conflict was really about land, power, and resources. there were propaganda campaigns, assassinations, and betrayals leading up to the war for decades

[Magical CC]

It's not the ideal that is dangerous, it's the people who are quick to follow an ideal without fully understand it that are dangerous. But since there are always clueless massive herds available, idealists have no lack of mindless cattle to drive. People like Jesus and Muhammad are the most successful shepherds who gained massive amount of followers and twisted the world based on fairy tales and lies. Really, pig is a dirty animal and we should not eat pig? Have they even try eating bacon and ham for serious?