The death of idealism - A place of mourning. . . . . .or joy?

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-22 20:48:09

With idealism, it is oboius that hyprocites are around, but ideals are the highest to adhere to. Why not shoot after them?

Without idealism, what is the ultimate goal of man? His own self gratification? or his neighboors self gratification?

Ideals must be reconized as impossible, but we must have our ideals or we risk losing our lives as we know it.

I suppose no ideals would be apt to anarchy. . . .

On the gounds that ideals tend to mobilize and organize man into hierarchys. And organization is just another word for the sub-establishments. In the end, there is no absolute ruler, there is only a collection of sub-establishments with ties and a general agreement on how things should be done, thus creating the government aka state.

As hard as one might, there is no true single ruler. Even in homogonous cultures there are subsets of the culture in itself, which sow the seeds of the sub-establishment, which is only a consenting member of the establishment at large.

without fail, every human civilization has had its own sub divisions within the estabishment. Each one has had different ideals, ideals that set them appart from the establishment at large.

The establishment goes after these ideals primarily without really regarding other ideals

ex. special interest groups.

ex. Nobility.

ex. religion.

The question is who created the ideals, and who controls this creation?

sethmckiness · 2003-07-22 22:16:39

With idealism, it is oboius that hyprocites are around, but ideals are the highest to adhere to. Why not shoot after them?

Idealism is still here. I would consider myself a pseudo-idealist. I am not a full idealist anymore.. But I am moving back.. Idealism focuses on Ideals, opposed to realism. We are probably one of the most idealistic countries that has ever existed. How many other countries have gone out to help so many people. I do think that both Persian Gulf Wars were for the right reason. I believe Bosnia was for the right reason. I believe we didn't goto Rwanda due to what happened in Somalia. That will also be a big factor in our descision to goto Liberia. I don't think Idealism is Dead, but Idealism should never reign. Idealsism should be coupled to produce a good moderate view/vantage point. Hence why both Liberal and Conservative view points are good if compromise can take place. It allows for special interests to not get passed the floor of the house or senate.

Free Spirit · 2003-07-22 23:16:05

I suppose no ideals would be apt to anarchy. . . .

If you believe that do research into anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-primitivism. The idealism of these movements maintains that hierarchical power is always corrupt and exploitative of those at the bottom (among any other things.) I'm not sure I would go so far though as to say that idealism is always a good thing. More people have been butchered under the guise of idealism than anything else. Nazis, after all, were very much into idealism. And please note, I'm not saying anarchism is right or wrong, only that it does have idealistic roots.

Without idealism, what is the ultimate goal of man? His own self gratification? or his neighboors self gratification?

Depends on the brand of ideology you subscribe to. There are very individualistic political ideologies and very collectivist ones.

Ian · 2003-07-23 07:07:43

With idealism, it is oboius that hyprocites are around, but ideals are the highest to adhere to. Why not shoot after them?
Without idealism, what is the ultimate goal of man? His own self gratification? or his neighboors self gratification?
Ideals must be reconized as impossible, but we must have our ideals or we risk losing our lives as we know it.
I suppose no ideals would be apt to anarchy. . . .
On the gounds that ideals tend to mobilize and organize man into hierarchys. And organization is just another word for the sub-establishments. In the end, there is no absolute ruler, there is only a collection of sub-establishments with ties and a general agreement on how things should be done, thus creating the government aka state.
As hard as one might, there is no true single ruler. Even in homogonous cultures there are subsets of the culture in itself, which sow the seeds of the sub-establishment, which is only a consenting member of the establishment at large.
without fail, every human civilization has had its own sub divisions within the estabishment. Each one has had different ideals, ideals that set them appart from the establishment at large.
The establishment goes after these ideals primarily without really regarding other ideals
ex. special interest groups.
ex. Nobility.
ex. religion.
The question is who created the ideals, and who controls this creation?

On the gounds that ideals tend to mobilize and organize man into hierarchys. And organization is just another word for the sub-establishments. In the end, there is no absolute ruler, there is only a collection of sub-establishments with ties and a general agreement on how things should be done, thus creating the government aka state.

Have you read "The Origin And Design Of Government" By Thomas Paine? I'm sure he would probably agree if he was alive today.

prometheusunbound · 2003-07-23 11:42:25

Have you read "The Origin And Design Of Government" By Thomas Paine? I'm sure he would probably agree if he was alive today.

Nope, but thanks for the suggestion, I'll order it from the library if I can.

Visited by moderator 2022/01/28

Ian · 2003-07-23 11:59:02

You should probably get "The Life and Major Writings of Thomas Paine" It has Common Sense, The Age Of Reason, The Rights of man and something else too. Agrarien Justice I think. I forgot how to spell Agrarien. I think it has to do with farmland. Right?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-07-22 20:48:09

Re: The death of idealism - A place of mourning. . . . . .or joy?

#2 2003-07-22 22:16:39

Re: The death of idealism - A place of mourning. . . . . .or joy?

#3 2003-07-22 23:16:05

Re: The death of idealism - A place of mourning. . . . . .or joy?

#4 2003-07-23 07:07:43

Re: The death of idealism - A place of mourning. . . . . .or joy?

#5 2003-07-23 11:42:25

Re: The death of idealism - A place of mourning. . . . . .or joy?

#6 2003-07-23 11:59:02

Re: The death of idealism - A place of mourning. . . . . .or joy?

Board footer