Idealism is bad

[mediumaevum]

I will put this ideal into place: Idealism is bad, always bad.

How I define idealism:

Idealism is the belief that something ought to be ideal, that we have to work towards the ideal state of just about anything.

Example:
You might think that everyone, regardless of work, should have the same salaries. That would be ideal, and we don't think about the economic consequences as such.
The problem is not that it is bad for the economy, the problem is that it is inherently wrong.

If everyone were to have the same salaries, we become equal.
Equality means we all share the same duties towards the common good of society.
That means we should give up our identity and differences. The problem with equality is that you cannot prioritize your own values.

If, for example, that I'd like to work little to no time, I can't do it in the Society of Equals. Because in the society of equals, I will have to work 30 hours a week no matter what, to make it fair that I recieve a salary at all. There's only one salary: Equal payments.

People should have a choice, or we cease being individuals.

It would be ideal if there were no murders. But you know what, I'd like to NOT live in a society without murders!
The reason I don't want to live in a murder-free society, is because, in that society, I cannot be innocent or special in terms of being a righteous citizen, because that ain't special, thus it is not valued, because nobody can commit murder. If you have the chance to say YES to murder, you also got the chance of saying NO.

But in the ideal murder-free society, there is no such thing as a "yes" or "no". It just is the way it is. Nobody are special, nobody can make wrong decisions, and hence nobody can make right decisions. You might say we all make the right decisions in an ideal society. But people aren't special if everybody can make the right decisions. Everyone becomes one and the same.
You ain't special anymore.

I want to be special. I want to be unique. I can only be special and unique in a non-ideal society.

[Jmpty]

THIS is what idealism is. I don't know WHAT the fuck you are talking about.


ide·al·ism
 noun ?-?d?-(?-)?liz-?m, ??-(?)d?-  

: the attitude of a person who believes that it is possible to live according to very high standards of behavior and honesty

 





Full Definition of IDEALISM


1

a  (1) :  a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena  (2) :  a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason  

b  (1) :  a theory that only the perceptible is real  (2) :  a theory that only mental states or entities are knowable

2

a :  the practice of forming ideals or living under their influence  

b :  something that is idealized

3

:  literary or artistic theory or practice that affirms the preeminent value of imagination as compared with faithful copying of nature — compare realism

[Plu]

How I define idealism:

This is where it falls apart. Don't redefine words that already have a different definition.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

You're all being to critical of someone who lives in their own, special, alternate universe.. Really now...  :-k  :-$

[Sal1981]

I will put this ideal into place: Idealism is bad, always bad.

If that's an ideal, then your ideal about the ideal is bad as well. QED.

[Jason78]

Damn that's a whole lot of non-sequiturs in one post mediumaevum!

You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all a part of the same compost pile.

[mediumaevum]

THIS is what idealism is. I don't know WHAT the fuck you are talking about.

My dictionary, Den Danske Ordbog, has another definition.

a  (1) :  a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena  (2) :  a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason  

b  (1) :  a theory that only the perceptible is real  (2) :  a theory that only mental states or entities are knowable

2

a :  the practice of forming ideals or living under their influence  

b :  something that is idealized

I can't see how my definition of idealism cannot be derived from the dictionary definition of idealism.
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealisme

Danish definition:

His man er idealistisk, betegner dette i almindelig sprogbrug, at man handler ud fra idealer. Dvs. at man ikke bøjer sig for de faktiske forhold i verden, men forsøger at omforme disse efter ens egne ideer. Især bruges begrebet på denne måde inden for politik.

If you are an idealist, you are not subjet to real or factual relationships in the world, but tries to form the world according to ones own ideals.
Especially used in politics.

This is backed up by the Official Danish Dictionary:

http://ordnet.dk/ddo/ordbog?query=idealist

[mediumaevum]

I think we had a similar discussion about Right and Left, Conservative and Liberal.
Seems we have different definitions of the same words.

[Plu]

I think I figured out the disconnect.

Idealism is generally considered to be the desire to reshape the world into something you consider to the better. This concept, on its own, is generally a good thing.

It goes bad under one of these two circumstances:

A) Someone's vision of a better world is, to you, a worse world. This is because "better" is subjective. I would be opposed to a racists' view of a "best world" where all people of a certain race become slaves to another. That doesn't mean that conceptually idealism is bad, it means that this person has a view I very much disagree with.

B) You imagine what the world would be like if one specific person could implement all of his ideals. This is just a hypothetical situation because nobody has that kind of power, but all of these end up sour because nobody is smart and knowledgable enough to figure out everything, so if you keep asking them about ideal situations they will eventually no longer be able to answer your questions properly and you get weird situations.

But generally speaking, people working towards making the world a better place are not doing something terrible. People working towards specific goals might be doing something terrible, but that's not because of conceptual idealism, but because of the vision they have set for themselves.

And I think this then also ties back into your view of the world. You still think everyone is an evil bastard out to get you, so obviously to you all forms of people working towards changing anything is a negative thing, so it becomes easy to mistake idealism itself for the things people try to accomplish in its name.

[mediumaevum]

Thank you Plu, really helped :)

[Brian37]

I will put this ideal into place: Idealism is bad, always bad.

How I define idealism:

Idealism is the belief that something ought to be ideal, that we have to work towards the ideal state of just about anything.

Example:
You might think that everyone, regardless of work, should have the same salaries. That would be ideal, and we don't think about the economic consequences as such.
The problem is not that it is bad for the economy, the problem is that it is inherently wrong.

If everyone were to have the same salaries, we become equal.
Equality means we all share the same duties towards the common good of society.
That means we should give up our identity and differences. The problem with equality is that you cannot prioritize your own values.

If, for example, that I'd like to work little to no time, I can't do it in the Society of Equals. Because in the society of equals, I will have to work 30 hours a week no matter what, to make it fair that I recieve a salary at all. There's only one salary: Equal payments.

People should have a choice, or we cease being individuals.

It would be ideal if there were no murders. But you know what, I'd like to NOT live in a society without murders!
The reason I don't want to live in a murder-free society, is because, in that society, I cannot be innocent or special in terms of being a righteous citizen, because that ain't special, thus it is not valued, because nobody can commit murder. If you have the chance to say YES to murder, you also got the chance of saying NO.

But in the ideal murder-free society, there is no such thing as a "yes" or "no". It just is the way it is. Nobody are special, nobody can make wrong decisions, and hence nobody can make right decisions. You might say we all make the right decisions in an ideal society. But people aren't special if everybody can make the right decisions. Everyone becomes one and the same.
You ain't special anymore.

I want to be special. I want to be unique. I can only be special and unique in a non-ideal society.

Dawkins makes this point in the preface of "The Greatest Show On Earth". He actually blames Plato for his "essence" theory that if you just "think about it" you can find the "essence" of anything. Plato did fuck up humanity because this idealism took of and infected politics and religion.

Plato had no way of knowing the importance of control groups and peer review. His idea of "questioning" didn't place importance on testing, but "questioning" in the form of finding idealism. Basically it gave birth to excuse making where you retrofit to suit your ideas.

[mykcob4]

I will put this ideal into place: Idealism is bad, always bad.

How I define idealism:

Idealism is the belief that something ought to be ideal, that we have to work towards the ideal state of just about anything.

Example:
You might think that everyone, regardless of work, should have the same salaries. That would be ideal, and we don't think about the economic consequences as such.
The problem is not that it is bad for the economy, the problem is that it is inherently wrong.

If everyone were to have the same salaries, we become equal.
Equality means we all share the same duties towards the common good of society.
That means we should give up our identity and differences. The problem with equality is that you cannot prioritize your own values.

If, for example, that I'd like to work little to no time, I can't do it in the Society of Equals. Because in the society of equals, I will have to work 30 hours a week no matter what, to make it fair that I recieve a salary at all. There's only one salary: Equal payments.

People should have a choice, or we cease being individuals.

It would be ideal if there were no murders. But you know what, I'd like to NOT live in a society without murders!
The reason I don't want to live in a murder-free society, is because, in that society, I cannot be innocent or special in terms of being a righteous citizen, because that ain't special, thus it is not valued, because nobody can commit murder. If you have the chance to say YES to murder, you also got the chance of saying NO.

But in the ideal murder-free society, there is no such thing as a "yes" or "no". It just is the way it is. Nobody are special, nobody can make wrong decisions, and hence nobody can make right decisions. You might say we all make the right decisions in an ideal society. But people aren't special if everybody can make the right decisions. Everyone becomes one and the same.
You ain't special anymore.
I want to be special. I want to be unique. I can only be special and unique in a non-ideal society.

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Back up and try again.
Idealism isn't bad, some ideas are bad.
You think that you won't be unique or innocent unless there is murder in society? That is just flat out dumb. A person isn't judged on what other people do. They are judged on what they do. And why would a person care about the judgement of others anyway. You lack confidence. You lack understanding, and your thread lacks basic common sense!

[entropy]

.

[Solitary]

I will put this ideal into place: Idealism is bad, always bad.

How I define idealism:

Idealism is the belief that something ought to be ideal, that we have to work towards the ideal state of just about anything.

Example:
You might think that everyone, regardless of work, should have the same salaries. That would be ideal, and we don't think about the economic consequences as such.
The problem is not that it is bad for the economy, the problem is that it is inherently wrong.

If everyone were to have the same salaries, we become equal.
Equality means we all share the same duties towards the common good of society.
That means we should give up our identity and differences. The problem with equality is that you cannot prioritize your own values.

If, for example, that I'd like to work little to no time, I can't do it in the Society of Equals. Because in the society of equals, I will have to work 30 hours a week no matter what, to make it fair that I recieve a salary at all. There's only one salary: Equal payments.

People should have a choice, or we cease being individuals.

It would be ideal if there were no murders. But you know what, I'd like to NOT live in a society without murders!
The reason I don't want to live in a murder-free society, is because, in that society, I cannot be innocent or special in terms of being a righteous citizen, because that ain't special, thus it is not valued, because nobody can commit murder. If you have the chance to say YES to murder, you also got the chance of saying NO.

But in the ideal murder-free society, there is no such thing as a "yes" or "no". It just is the way it is. Nobody are special, nobody can make wrong decisions, and hence nobody can make right decisions. You might say we all make the right decisions in an ideal society. But people aren't special if everybody can make the right decisions. Everyone becomes one and the same.
You ain't special anymore.

I want to be special. I want to be unique. I can only be special and unique in a non-ideal society.

I agree, the idealist have done more harm than the realists have for all of recorded history. What difference does it make what definition one uses to make a point, the point in question is what counts. Anytime there is a debate here the ugly head of definitions raises its head. All religions and politics are based on idealism, or what is thought to be the best, instead of being realistic. We know now that Hitler was wrong with his idealism of being free of the Jews. We have a government now that is based on the ideal that secularism is best and challenged by those that think theocracies are best. It is obvious to me that secularism is not only an ideal, but realistically better. Solitary

[Jmpty]

You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"

George Bernard Shaw,