Why idealism is better

A realist who is neither an optimist nor a pessimist who examines situations objectively and assess them realistically is an example of someone who is a pragmatist. Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel. Skip to content Home Engineering Is it better to be an idealist or realist? Ben Davis February 26, Is it better to be an idealist or realist? What is a realistic leader?

Who is idealist and realist? Is it a good thing to be an idealist? Why Being an idealist is bad? What is an idealist personality? Is it better to be pragmatic or idealistic? Are you more realistic or idealistic? How do I stop being an idealist? Why is it better to be realistic? What is the difference between a realist and a pragmatist?

How does a pragmatist think? They go beyond -- way beyond -- anything merely "given" in sensation. If you accept that Humean conclusion you might be tempted to conclude that a our representations as of an "external world" of objects arrayed in space, rushing in upon the portals of sensation, is some sort of illusion and that many of our representations are groundless and deserve to be abandoned.

In some moods, Hume seems to flirt with such the view that many of our representations as of an external reality are groundless. But his finals views are actually quite subtle. An alternative path from Hume's insights -- which are genuine insights -- is represented by Kant.

Kant claims, by the way, that reading Hume awoke him from his "dogmatic slumber. We don't derive our representations of cause, effect, persistence, change, space or time from the inward rush of sensation.

Rather, we impose them upon the inward rush and thereby "constitute" or "create" the world -- at least the world that we experience -- which is the only world that we can know. The representations of space, time, cause, effect, persistence are already resident in the mind, prior to the inward rush.

They are deployed by the mind to "organize" the inward rush. In organizing the inward rush via these pre-given representations, we structure and order the world. The structure and order that we impose on the inward rush is not there before we do our thing. It's not something we find in the inward rush. Why is this a tempting idea? In large measure its allure results from the its promise to explain, in a way that few competing theories do, just how we mamage to cognize a highly complex, structured and ordered world, on the basis of the meager deliverances of "brute" sensation.

It comes with a cost, though. If the order and structure we cognize in the world is merely the mind's own imposition, that means we can't really know anything about the world "in itself. Personally, I find that an inordinate cost. But this is not the place to talk about how we can avoid paying that cost.

Immanuel Kant introduced the human mind as an active originator of experience rather than just a passive recipient of perception. How has his philosophy influenced the world after him? George Berkeley Nov 01, Berkeley founded and defended idealism, the doctrine that there is not a material world; reality is the orchestration of ideas in minds, nothing more.

Hegel Jun 06, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is without doubt one of the most influential philosophers of all time. Why Do People Argue about Fiction? August Does Meritocracy Have Merit? Am I in Everything I Imagine? What Is Good Philosophy? Human, Subhuman, or Both? Should We Abandon the Canon? April Philanthropy vs. Are We Slaves to Technology? Is there a Right to Sex? Faith and Humility Happy th, Karl Marx! Who Gets To Decide the Truth?

Dark Knowledge? Is 'The Will of the People' Sacred? Is There a Case for Bullshit? What props up morality? Do Scientists Need Philosophers?

Are Americans All Nationalists? Is Neoliberalism Destroying the Earth? Flexitarian vs. Vegetarian Dennett vs. Could the Laws of Physics Change? Can the Laws of Physics Change? How is the Internet Changing Friendships? Transhumanism Cognitive Bias D'oh! Reality TV: Ethics or Entertainment? Can Free Speech Exclude? Should Belief Aim at Truth? Are Taxes Fair? Is This Still the End of History? Is Consciousness an Illusion?

Feel like Democracy is Crumbling? What are Crony Beliefs? Is Postmodernism to Blame for Post-Truth? Why Teach Prisoners? Is it Okay to Punch Nazis? Teaching Philosophy: The Answer to Automation?

Introducing: Francis on Film R. April How Many Children? The Culture Wars: Phase 2? Should the ethics of Presidential candidates matter? Nivison The More Good the Better? Why Philosophize? Is Anarchy Possible? Why Be Moral? Does Language Affect Thought? What Might Have Been! What's on your summer reading list for ? What Are Leaders Made of? A Blog for Christmas Is it wrong to wreck the earth?

Kierkegaard Is Nothing Sacred Anymore? The Extended Mind What is an adult? Too Much Information? Corporations as Persons Psychological vs. March Fear! Live Blogging! April Journalistic Ethics? Beyond the Cartesian Moment? To blog is to forgive? Thanks for your wonderful radio program and your excellent blog! You ask, "Why should anybody find the idea that we perceive and think about a world not contained within mind and not entirely of the mind's own constituting at all puzzling?

It's much like the tediously incessant discussions over the "meaning of 'meaning'" and other such things. In my view, "meaning" means what an elementary school child thinks it means and our sensations mean what a dog think they mean.

This is not to say that we don't have misperceptions and that our minds don't sometimes fill in the gaps indeed, we know for a fact this is true based on cognitive studies. To say that there are inaccuracies and a subjectivity inherent in perception and in our internal models is justified. But to then say that there is no external reality in principle, or even that reality is vastly and hopelessly different than perceived even on the macro scale is simply "emperor's new clothes" talk.

In the end, the main problem with such a stance is that it has no practical application. If we decided there was no objective reality, or that we were all brains in jars, what would that mean to how we lived? Just my take :. Thursday, December 15, -- PM. Just my take : I think even if we were to suppose that all philosophy should be directed towards answering questions about how we should live, I'm not at all convinced philosophers would do a better job answering that question if they stopped thinking about other traditional philosophical questions and spent all of their time tackling the 'How are we to live?

At any rate, we already know part of the answer to that question and that part of the answer is 'We should live our lives as the types of people who think about things like idealism even though it won't help you bake bread'. Saturday, December 17, -- PM. Very true, and far be it from me to suggest we shouldn't think about x or y. But whether or not we consider this in the field of "philosophy" or merely recreational "brain-boggling musings" is another matter.

Tuesday, December 20, -- PM. DT, I think David Sedaris is helpful here. You are the one paying to be here', he responded. That seems a good first approximation at the distinction between philosophizing and brain-boggling musing. Wednesday, December 21, -- PM. You present and engage with the material in a way my philosophy professors never did: progressively, playfully, wading into them a little bit at a time, rather than as so many of my professors did, from their long-settled views and with a certain impatience they never quite explained.

Despite your mastery of the topics, you keep in mind the enthusiasm and perspective of the student for whom all this is new -- and that is very helpful. Friday, December 23, -- PM.

DT and Clayton, I think that it IS important to know what reality is before one rushes headlong into "what to do?! It's like a doctor determining the cause of the illness before prescribing the drugs. If it's true that from all we can tell, we might be brains in vats, that would certainly lead some to a malaise of fatalistic thought and action.

Others would seek to fantasize their lives into quite wonderful flights of fancy. Still others would rebel, in a mad attempt to smash the vats and spill out free upon the floor. This is why the first Matrix movie should be shown and discussed in all Philosophy classes! Jeanne-Marie, I don't subscribe to the view that the only question philosophers should concern themselves with is the question 'How should I live? We would still have to grant that thinking about idealism, scepticism, and the like paid dividends.

That being said, I don't quite see why one would have to settle questions about idealism or radical sceptical hypotheses prior to determining what to do. Suppose the world really is for you and I just as it seems to us to be and we have some 'twin' trapped in the Matrix.

If our perpsectives on the world are perfectly alike, will there ever be a situation in which we would be wise, reasonable, rational or what have you to pursue one course of action but it would be wise, reasonable, or rational for them to pursue some completely different course of action? If not, it seems hypotheses such as 'The idealists have the right metaphysical story about this table' or 'I'm a brain in a vat' will not have practical significance.

There are details to be argued over, but that is at least the start of an argument. Do you really think The Matrix should be shown in philosophy classes? I'm partial to Jacob's Ladder. Sunday, December 25, -- PM. Hi Clayton! I'm curious to hear what dividends you think thinking about all this pays! Thus, they may think that they don't trouble themselves with epistemic certitude before proceeding in taking actions, merely because it has already been settled in their minds psychologically.

But the way it was settled for them may be very flawed indeed, once examined. IS "the unexamined life worth living? My point is that one's attitude about the nature of reality or ideality, despite one's degree of care in establishing a factually-based attitude, definitely predicates one's actions in the world. Your twins may well choose different courses of action.

The one convinced he is a brain in the vat may decide that further exertion of "will" is illusory, and he may just give up, live the rest of his life a passive recipient of experiences. Why not? After all, to him, life is an illusion. Whereas the "realist" twin would not stop his willful, operant participation in the rat-race. I've had occasion to discuss things like this with people who sincerely believe that reality is somehow based on their ideas of it, and such people absolutely do make different sorts of choices from the hard-liners who assume they know all about the brass tacks of hard, cold reality.

I haven't seen Jacob's Ladder, but now I will keep my eye out for it. I was struck by how much philosophy was crammed into The Matrix, even a little heavy-handedly. I haven't seen it for a while, nor have I taken a philo class in a good ten years, so I'm too rusty to elaborate well My other choice of films for philosophy beginners is "Dogma" for Intro to Philo.

As a K teacher, I came to appreciate the power of showing films to get students rolling! It seems far-fetched, silly, and weird to students when they read about people imagining brains in vats, but when they see what that could look like in The Matrix, it fires up their thought-experimenter! Have a great day. Thursday, January 5, -- PM. I am thinking of Steven Pinker's book, "The Language Instinct" where he argues that language is innate.

If we think of the mind and certain innate ideas as a product of an evolved organ the brain then the distinction between ideas and external reality is not so clear cut. That is, perhaps our basic innate ideas about the external world are molded via world itself. Think self assembling matter capable of thought - the assembly process is directed by nature - and so examination of the thought process should yield good insights about reality - up to a point.

Therefore, there is reason to believe that to a certain extent, we can form some ideas that reflect reality pretty closely - especially to the extent that they are ideas about evolutionary significant reality space, time, cause, effect, persistence.

That also suggests that we are not naturally equipped with ideas about things far removed from our collective evolutionary experience, such as quantum mechanics - which would explain why no one really understands it ;.

Sunday, August 23, -- PM. Idealism is actually proven by a cutting-edge science, Quantum Mechanics. Another proof is the Double-slit Experiment, where an electron beam is passed through 2 slits but exhibits a wave-like structure.

Quantum Mechanics revolves around matter having a fluid energy structure, meaning solids are just perception. A new theory, String Theory, says matter and energy is actually modes of vibration of invisible string-like structures.

String Theory means all that is in the universe is possibly just made up of notes of music, but we see the universe as the universe and not heard as music, meaning the universe is based on the perceiver. Skip to main content. Search form Search. The Dark Allure of Idealism. Kenneth Taylor. George Berkeley. Related Shows Kant Dec 13, George Berkeley Nov 01, Berkeley founded and defended idealism, the doctrine that there is not a material world; reality is the orchestration of ideas in minds, nothing more.

Hegel Jun 06, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is without doubt one of the most influential philosophers of all time. Blog Archive October Persons, Community, and the Akan. Why Is Math So Useful? On Awesomeness. Is Facebook Morally Responsible? Microaggressions and Intention. The Slow Miracles of Thought.

Literary Minds. Summer Dylan Reading. Unnecessary Necessities. The Philosophy of the Vienna Circle. Cracking Down on Disinformation. What Montaigne Knew. Is Meritocracy Possible? A Solution. What Makes A Man? Replacing Freud. What Tech Says. The Mathematics of Democracy. When Do False Beliefs Exculpate? Gaining Knowledge without Learning. December The Year in Poetry.

Finding Minds in a Material World. Should the Arts Be for All? Whose Fault Is It Anyway? Why We Argue About Fiction. Why Games Matter. Reasons to Hate. Abortion and Humanity. Skepticism and Trust in Science.

Philosophy for the Apocalypse. Who Gets to be a Citizen? Does Meritocracy Have Merit? Discriminating Streets. Abortion and Dehumanization. On Jerks and Ethicists. A Cat's Life. The Value of Metaphor in a Pandemic. Benjamin and Modern Enchantment. The Ethics of Pet Keeping. Celebrating Our th Episode. Covid and the Veil of Ignorance. Your Racist Mental Habits. Demonizing Black Men. Listener Covidundrums. Puzzle 3: Kant on Lying to Robots.

Can Philosophy Help in a Crisis? Narrative Burnout. A Pandemic of Dreams. More Money Matters. FrancisOnFilm: Crip Camp. Money Matters. Proust and Social Distance.

Puzzle 2: What is an Identity? Philosophy and the Superhero. Trying to Let Go of the Past. Thinking and Mental Action. Puzzle 1: Are Beliefs Voluntary? Viral Xenophobia. Sorry, Critics: Parasite is a Good Movie. Anti-Sacred Spaces. Is the Self Real? FrancisOnFilm: Dionysus for Docs. Rough Humor. Comedy on the Edges. What the Future Holds. How Much Thought Is Inactive? A Tribute to Ken Taylor. Nonhuman Persons, Nonhuman Rights. Francis-on-Film: Parasite. Sanctuary Cities.

Part II. Hobbes and the Absolute State. Real Horror. Machine Consciousness. FrancisOnFilm: Downton Abbey. Should We Trust Polls? The Appeal of Authoritarianism. Music as a Way of Knowing. Explanation at Its Best. What's In a Picture? Changing Minds on Climate Change. Against Introspection. Self Knowledge on Trial. The Doomsday Doctrine. A Simple Test for Fake News.

Postmodernism: The Decline of Truth. How to Think Two Thoughts at Once. JS Mill and the Good Life. Letting Go of Human Nature. Tolerance and Radical Disagreement. A Licentious Lannister? Working for Faith. What Is Reading? Anti-Semitism is Racism. FrancisOnFilm: Shazam! Philanthropy vs. Authority and Resistance. Wanting to Want for Its Own Sake. Hacking Our Sense Perceptions. Sexy Beasts. Ken's Big Announcement. FrancisOnFilm: Green Book.

Your Question: Integrate or Assimilate? Controversy About Climate Denial. Immigration and Multiculturalism. Mind the Gaps! FrancisOnFilm: Minding the Gap. Five Types of Climate Change Deniers.

Finding Yourself in a Virtual Fiction. FrancisOnFilm: Aquaman. The Puzzle of the Unconscious. Is Envy Always a Vice? FrancisOnFilm: Brexit. Getting Clear on the Replication Crisis.

How Not to Fall Asleep. Freud's Philosophical Challenges. December The Examined Year: — Uncut. On Morally Condemning the Past. Philosophical Freud. Foucault on Power.

The Creative Life. Does Reputation Matter? Anti-Semitism The Wrong Abortion Question. How MeToo Helps Men. Can Reason Save Us? The Philosophy of Westworld. Do They Believe in God? The Psychology of Cruelty. Lessons from Lobsters. Athletics and the Philosophical Life.

Should Algorithms Decide? Failing Successfully. FrancisOnFilm: Mission Impossible. Does Science Over-reach? The Truly Beautiful Game. Radical Ideas about Markets. Enlightenment Peddlers. The Ethics of Homeschooling. One Person, One Vote? Puppet Philosophers. Why America is not a Nation. Distortion in Philosophy. Philosophers and the Meaning of Life. The Ethics of Care. Should Robots Be Caregivers? How a Glitch Caused a Crisis. Idealism is the belief that you should stick to your principles, even if your principles have a negative impact on your life.

The idealist is prepared to suffer in order to do what he or she thinks is right. Meanwhile, realists reject idealism. If the ideal gets in the way, the realistic will review the situation and abandon the ideal for a very basic, easy solution. However the practical idealist is prepared to compromise but will still strive to get as close to ideal as possible. Look at what you could achieve if you blend these skills sets.

Realistic idealism means that you want to make the world a better place, and you are prepared to do the ground work to achieve that. Good luck and give practical idealism a go. Pat Mesiti is a best-selling author, coach and educator in the area of personal development.

Thank you for your article. As a heartbroken idealist, it gave me much needed insight and a glimmer of hope. Is it Better to Be an Idealist or Realist? These are what I see as the main strengths of idealists. We are the most creative problem solvers Idealists are able to imagine solutions that are often unique and unusual. We always expect the best from others Idealists always see the good in everyone. Idealists are constantly trying to improve themselves We idealists are always striving to become the people we hope to be.

Idealists are the most romantic people on the planet Because idealists always want to see the best in people when idealist fall in love with someone they too often see perfection and not who that person really is. Charles says:. Brad says:. Anon says:. ImWeDnEsDay says:. Leave Your Message Click here to cancel reply. Our website uses cookies. You can use your browser to change your cookie settings at any time, otherwise, we'll assume you're ok to continue. Privacy Policy.

Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website.