On 01/12/2014 10:57 AM, glen wrote:
Anyway, no, "idealism" is non-rational. As I've tried to explain, I
think to be rational requires multiple options. By that I mean actual,
feasible options, not just possible in principle. Idealism tends
toward pure, non-interactive, closed reasoning. Idealists will
conclude whatever their ideology determines they'll conclude. That's
not to say that idealism is binary. One can be more or less
idealistic. And, hence, idealism is probably a good thing in
moderation. But moderate idealism is a bit self-contradictory. Only
practical people will be capable of selecting, cafeteria-style, the
good from the bad ideas of various ideologies.
The perfect should not be the enemy of the good, but if you can't
imagine perfect, your idea of good won't be very good. And if you
don't pursue good, your aesthetics about perfect will probably not be
informative either. People often think of idealism as a young person's
game. I don't think that's true. Adults are just forced to become
opportunistic in pursuing their ideals. Most people gain some degree
over something in their lives, and the trick is to wait for your 15
minutes to turn the knobs, and to turn them without missing a beat, and
without caring, or even asking, what anyone else thinks about it (those
conversations should have come before, in more abstract forms).
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
