Idealism: The tendency to represent things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are, with emphasis on values.
Cynicism: An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.
I sometimes wonder if idealists even have the ability to see the world as it is. But then again, I am a semi-professional cynic. It's not that I have a jaded negativity about everything or that I wish to distrust the integrity or motives of others, but it's a bad habbit that formed from a bad experience, or rather, a series of bad experiences.
The idealists that I know, and I do know several, tend not only to present the world in an ideal fashion, but to act in the world in the way that they think the world would ideally act. That sentence confuses me, so let me explain: they act not necessarily in the way that would be best in a particular situation, but in the way that they think they would act if we lived in an ideal world. Since we don't live in an ideal world, though, this tendency can lead to much less than ideal consequences. They tend to disregard tact and sometimes charity which causes confusion at the very least and hatred at worst. I can see why they would want to act to act ideally. I've seen situations where acting ideally is perfectly fine. But something that always amazes me and confuses me is this: they seem to think that by acting "ideally" the world will somehow become more ideal as a whole. I see evidence to the contrary. By acting "ideally" they cause discord and ill-will which takes the world further from being an ideal world, not closer to it when, had they acted in what I'm going to call a practical manner- that is, in a way best suited to a particular situation- their actions would bring harmony and peace, or at least justice and right, which actually moves us closer to something resembling an ideal world. Yet, idealism has its redeeming qualities. There are those idealists who encourage others, who never give up fighting for an ideal world, and who, despite it all, actually do love the world, as much as it isn't so ideal.
Cynicism, on the other hand, hasn't really any redeeming qualities at all, at least, none that I can see. We tend to be more likely to give up because it's just no use; we tend to be hyper-critical of people (including ourselves) and we tend to "hate life". I think sometimes we even tend to act not in accordance with what is best, or "ideally", but apathetically. We can see what the world should be and we see how it is. And it's so far from ideal that there's really no point in even bothering. After all, what difference does it make, people aren't going to change, and nothing we do is ever going to be of any help. - It's a very bleak way to think.
Enter reality. The world is not ideal. But the world is not the most dismal thing possible. People act horridly sometimes. But they can be taught or persuaded (by reason...) to act otherwise. And on the flip side: even if I would act this way in an ideal world, we are not in an ideal world and therefore, perhaps, it's better to act practically. I think sometimes that the idealists get so lost in the ideals that they really cannot see how ideals impropperly applied are actually (and sometimes extremely) detrimental. And the cynics get so lost in the filth that they forget that they have the ability to clean. In order to get to the ideal, we must get through the muck- without adding to it.
The cynics add to the muck by refusing to see that it can be cleaned. The idealists add to the muck by refusing to clean in order. They vacuum before they dust. And then they wind up having to vacuum again and more. The cynics refuse to see that we can be lifted into the ideal. The idealists refuse to see that we do indeed need to be lifted; they bring it down to us before we are ready.
Cynics wallow in the muck. They see the clouds as unattainable and fanciful.
Idealists are in the clouds. But the clouds are much higher than the earth. It's not ideal to bring them to earth. We get fog. We have to bring earth to the clouds.
"And when it rains on your parade, look up rather than down. Without the rain, there would be no rainbow." ~Chesterton
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Search
10 comments:
I think that's a misrepresentation of idealism; or rather, it's a representation of idealism without room for a coinciding realism. More or less, you seem to be portraying idealists as fantasists.
Confusion is inevitable. But you seem to be advocating compromise in order to prevent the unpreventable. At any rate, I find saying what you mean, possibly, probably confusing someone, and explaining yourself more sensible than not saying what you mean and trying to work it around to what you do.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: we're not called to live in an ideal world, only to strive for one. I've no doubt that my acting "ideally", as you put it, from my ideal principles, will cause upset and discord and occasional lack of harmony - and if ever I thought otherwise, God knows that living here has taught me the reality - but I do them nonetheless.
Earth is not heaven, but that does not mean there isn't an ideal of earth. And if you bring it to the clouds, you're still going to end up with fog.
Clouds and fog and earth all make for rather fuzzy metaphors at any rate.
Not fanatics necessarily, though sometimes they are, but definitely not realists. I most certainly do mean not compromise and I am not only talking about saying what you mean, which can be done in many ways. Confusion, I suppose does seem to somehow imply speech...? but I used that word NOT to imply speech but because it was the least amount of bad that I could think of as it is kind of nuetral-ish, just meaning that there was something, something small even, amiss, whether it be understanding or presenting that be amiss.
Acting practically is not compromising. It is acting in the best possible manner (let's say with tact (and by tact, I don't mean sly or trying not to step on someone's toes, I mean saying things with a focus on charity and truth) rather than bluntness, since you want to use that example), for if acting ideally causes chaos and upset, IS it actually acting ideally??? No. It completely defeats the purpose of the act.
Confusion may be inevitable, but it was not intended and can be averted or assuaged, at least lessened. (Isn't the least amount of confusion, since it is inevitable, ideal?)It is possible to say what you mean -exactly what you mean- without compromising and without causing confusion (though, I do, admitedly fail at the not causing confusion part...) . Do you honestly think I would advocate compromise on moral issues? I don't see how acting ideally is actually ideal if you cause more confusion than if you had just acted in the best way possible.
I'll write more later.
Library's closing...
I'm not saying you're genuinely advocating compromise, but you are certainly advocating disordered priorities: namely that you're putting harmonious human (alliteration, anyone?) accord ahead of truth; which is rather like putting mercy before justice: it doesn't work.
What makes something "the best way possible"? Really, if you want to talk about some blind idealism, try making that happen all the time. Humans are fallible, fallacious, and fallen (can't get off the alliteration) and trying to accomodate the truth, righteousness, and justice, without stepping on other's toes, treating them with a feel-good sort of charity is a sure sign of stupidity.
No, you do not have to hit someone in the face with the cold, wet mackerel of truth every time they stray from it; but oftentimes, particularly in this day and age, they do need it. And if that cold, wet mackerel is a wrecking ball, that ain't so bad sometimes; chaos and confusion can be a good thing if it turns away from the bad and towards the good. Tower of Babel? If people were all generally good, if they were all virtuous, that'd be great, we could all speak nicely and courteously and have polite little disputes about things, but people aren't, people suck, people do things that are wrong, and when you've an empire of viciousness in your soul, a little violence does it no real harm.
Idealism isn't unwavering adherence to an extreme point of view: it is always striving for the best, otherwise it is fanaticism (though I earlier said "fantasist", as in one who creates fantasy). At any rate, your post seems to me a sort of admonition to those who are not lukewarm. I don't think I have to quote scripture in this case.
"If you call a man too idealistic, you simply admit that he has found the way and that you will be dragged after him sooner or later." (paraphrase)
Sorry, I misread that. I’m awfully good at the being confused part, too… (that and blind, pretty much).
I do believe that that is one time when I have to disagree with Chesterton. And since he’s not the pope speaking ex cathedra, it is possible…
Idealists haven’t found the way as much as the goal. If they had found the way this post would not have been written. I will readily admit that they have found the goal, but I see that they haven’t found the way. Or at least, not all of them have.
You can’t have honest harmonious human accord without truth…
Yes, humans are fallible, fallacious, and fallen (yay for alliteration). That means we aren’t ideal, which in turn means we can’t act as if we were without consequences.
Feel-good charity??? Where’d that come from? Not from me, that’s for sure. Really, if you know anything about me, you ought to know that feel good charity (which, BTW, could be a contradiction, right there) makes me want to cry. Or puke. Depends on the day. Charity is not (necessarily) feel good, it isn’t a feeling, it’s a virtue- something that one chooses. Truth, righteousness and justice sometimes pain, but that’s not stepping on someone’s toes. That, my friend, is charity. It sometimes sucks to be charitable and to receive charity. Stepping on someone’s toes almost always involves some bit of pettiness. In the case of actual stepping (where it is the actor’s fault), it is deliberate and unneeded and thrust upon someone else with and despite the knowledge, or at least suspicion that there will be consequences that are not good. Charity, however, is needed. Charity also involves something called restraint- restraining those things which, while they may have some justification- though the justification is normally sketch-, are not necessary to one’s salvation, and in fact, sometimes lead one away from it. Idealism doesn’t seem to have realistic restraints.
“people do things that are wrong, and when you've an empire of viciousness in your soul, a little violence does it no real harm.” Huh? I can’t help but think of all the saints who converted people by violence… yeah, none. They did however convert them by charity (not feel good), kindness, and gentleness; they converted them by acting in the best possible way.
Acting in the best way possible IS acting ideally, but the idealists I know tend to think almost in a Kantian sort of way: all men SHOULD have a fully functional reason and that reason should lead them to the same conclusions (generally MY conclusions) and they should act in accordance with reason. They seem to think that “in an ideal world, I’d do this so I am going to do this now” whether or not it’s appropriate. We don’t live an ideal world so the ideals in practice don’t always go over so well. That and, there really is no possible way to say “this is what I’d do in an ideal world”. If we lived in an ideal world, the issues wouldn’t even come up. Yes, it would be the ideal thing to be able to say to someone something that isn’t pleasant for you to say or for him to hear, but in an ideal world, he wouldn’t even need to be told. Acting in the best way possible acknowledges the ideals, maybe even goes along with them but is not guided by some external and yes, even fantastical theory of what universally should be (and since it should be, it is acted, whether or not it is good in that instance).
My post is not an admonition of those who are not lukewarm, and honestly, I can’t believe you would say that and I don’t see how you came to that conclusion, (except by misreading everything). It’s an admonition of those who are too caught up in what should be to act according to how it is.
Actually, St. John Vianney used to go into bars, pull the drunks out, and punch them. Then hand them a rosary.
Again, you're entirely misrepresenting what it is to be an idealist; as I said before, not to live in a necessarily ideal world, but to strive for one; not to act as though you live in one, but as though you are trying to make one. Mitigation of those principles, i.e., restraining your actions from being in full accord with them, is assuredly not striving for their implementation.
For instance, I believe ideally in speaking properly, having clear meaning in language, and when you use the word "idealist" but misrepresent what an idealist is, I kick you for it.
Will continue later, class is starting back up.
Ah, but he didn't leave it at a punch, did he?
You can't make an ideal world by acting like you are already in one. And that's what I see self proclaimed (and non-self proclaimed) idealist doing. You aren't and you have to face the reality of it. You don't restrain your principles in order to get to one, you restrain the actions that lead away from it.
If anyone is misrepresenting idealists, then it the idealists themselves. I am only commenting on what I see.
Also, the post was not just about idealism. It also critiqued cynicism (and those who because of being cynics were lukewarm, btw). Honestly, look at your posts. Feel good charity or not, there's hardly any charity there at all.
P.S., did you read "Where Charity and Love Prevail"?
Mt 23:14-38
Call things what they are.
Or was Christ uncharitable too?
Just because you're supposed to give a fallen person a hand up doesn't mean you're not supposed to knock 'um down from time to time.
And if these people call themselves idealists then don't give credence to their misnomer and call them such if you disagree, because that's not what an idealist is.
Jn 2:15
I think you underestimate the depravity if our society; and if the depravity of Christ's required such, what does our own require?
I don't think that even deserves a response. You are simply arguing to argue now. And you're just proving my point while you're doing it.
Really, I can only think of three or so things to say to that. One of them being, Oh, the irony.
And you can't use charity as an excuse for violence or bad behaviour. Notice that I used the word excuse. It's significant.
Post a Comment