In Defence of Idealism

Image via Wikipedia

Idealism carries a connotation. A connotation that is now used in a similar manner to the one imposed on the word ‘utopia’. The word utopia has been used in mainstream media, and subsequently common discussion, to conjure up images of impossibility, an idea that is unrealistic. And so we have come to the old contest, ideas over reality. Realism has been a common ward of both Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative. The common allure is one of pragmatism, realistic aims and goals, a TRUE understanding, rooted in reality and so on. It is rare in discussions that you will find someone criticizing another’s realism. Often, when someone’s suggestion is denounced as unrealistic, they often go on the defense, claiming that they are realistic.

But here, I choose to contend. My contention begins that just because an idea is “idealistic” doesn’t mean it is not significant if not superior to a “realistic” idea. In fact, realism is useless without idealism, because without ideas, there could be no realistic norm.

Let me explain. Typically, the perceived value of realism is its connection and reality, to our current reality more specifically. But relativity is everything. When someone criticizes a certain idea for being "idealistic", their alternative would be that the person offer a more "realistic" idea. But here is the problem with being "realistic" all the time. It is relative to the reality we have now. It is inherently passive. It is the single largest factor in preventing change. When someone decries an idea as unrealistic, they advocate remaining in this current reality. They advocate fear of change, passivity in ideas, and the overall cowardice by cowering behind the enormity of the reality idealism questions.

Idealism, in contrast, is the basis of all change. In a real world (the irony is not lost on me) example, the idealistic designs of John Locke and then the Founding Fathers succeeded in changing our reality, changing the rules of the world and microcosm we live in. Had John Locke decided to remain "realistic" his radical ideas would instead have been the passive conservative-liberal thought process,
one simply content with quibbling over the most pointless and now relatively insignificant aspects of a monarchy-based society, and freedom absent reality… much in the same manner as most political commentators today act. They are content to squabble about insignificant “ideology-lite” and the most insignificant portions of the organization of our society. Like health-care. We are still worrying about the insurance-companies and not about 10,000 people dying a year from being uninsured. This is like John Locke complaining about someone censoring his article addressing the price of grain in England during his epoch. It misses the point.

The point is not that day to day problems are not worth solving. The point is that we lack the macro-understanding of our reality, instead choosing to operate within it's "realistic" boundaries, rather than exploring "idealistic" ideas like the freedom of press for John Locke and free health care for citizens of the richest country in the world(or simply that dead people = more important than less profit… novelty). More discussions should be held with more contending idealism, less small-minded quibbles over the allocations of resources in an inefficient and inherently unequal and freedom-less reality. We must break down reality, in favor of understanding the root causes of problems, rather than be satisfied with fixes within the boundaries of "a realistic" understanding.