Idealism: Man's Greatest Threat

[Idealism is] in philosophy, any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience. It may hold that the world or reality exists essentially as spirit or consciousness, that abstractions and laws are more fundamental in reality than sensory things, or, at least, that whatever exists is known in dimensions that are chiefly mental—through, and as, ideas.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Everyone automatically abstracts real and physical things/events into memories. We need those memories to serve us throughout our lives as reminders. But what happens when those memories, ideals and abstractions become more important than the physical experiences that created them? We get a paradoxical and dangerous philosophical outlook of reality—Idealism.

It is likely that the philosophies of Plato is the cause of such reverence towards thoughts and ideals. His theories regarding ideas, immortality, cosmogony and politics have been passed down through the ages by humans bent on bestowing mankind with an air of superiority over everything else. Platonic idealism is ingrained so deeply in the culture of man that to this day, any idea that casts doubt upon forms of idealism—whether it be spirituality, religion or morals—is deemed heretical, evil and wicked. We dare not allow our vanity be hurt by such doctrines that place man on a lower rung.

Most physical or scientific discovery of the world, those that would have undoubtedly serve mankind for the better, was made at the risk of banishment, ostracism and even death. Giordano Bruno, who imagined the sun was merely a star, was burned at the stake for his ideas. Galileo’s ideas on heliocentrism led him to be tried by the inquisition; and he was subjected to lifelong house-arrest. The laughing philosopher, Democritus, who championed Atomism thousands of years before atomic theory, “was hated by Plato so much that he wished his books burnt” [Bertrand Russel HWP, p. 65]. These men, who at least considered reality before their ideals, presented their ideas at risk of life and limb. They were deemed heretics. Heresy, of course, is merely anything that casts doubt on the prevailing idealism of the day.

Upon further reflection and honesty, we can see that idealism has birthed all genocide and atrocities committed by man on his own brothers. Hitler held such and abstract view of the Jewish people, and feared that abstraction so much, that he would put to death millions to destroy that ideal jew he found so real in his mind. He saw them not as people or individuals—which the indeed were—but as less than human. Entire populations of natives have been systematically eradicated by those that held their ideals as more important than living beings. When one flies an airplane into a building full of humans, he does so to perpetuate his own idealism. It has taken him so far from the truth that he finds it necessary to kill others and himself for these abstractions and mere fabrications of reality. Indeed, during the Cold War, as idealists held their shaky hands upon the buttons that would spell the end of humanity, the ideal took precedence over millions, if not billions, of beating hearts.

Idealism, in the end, will be the death of the human species. Those who see themselves as more than what they are; they who would go so far as to abstract reality to fit their own vain attempts at spirituality; they who would search for something above and beyond what they truly are; they who would rather perpetuate their ideas and who would rather destroy whatever doesn’t live up to the ideal that they hold; they are the harbingers of the death and destruction of everyone and everything we often fail to hold dear.

We are not our ideals, and they are not the ideals we think they are. Our spirituality, our religious tendencies and any concern for the next world in favour of this one, is an attempt to forget reality. We put ourselves on a spiritual pedestal merely so we can stand the look of ourselves. Although we are all idealists in a sense, don't allow them to run away from you and get ahead of what matters. Especially, don’t allow the ideals of others to take parasitic hold in your memory. Remember what they are, mere fragments of someone else’s experience. And during your search for meaning and mental growth, don’t get lost among the forest of your own ideals. Leave peaces of bread crumbs along your path to remind where you’ve actually been and what you and others actually are.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


/ only hope


I think spiritual,,, can be substituted with,, information, intelligence, conception, idea, abstract human thought.,.,.,

theres no rules on how to think and what to think about,.,. im not sure what you are suggesting in your OP.,,. to start from scratch and live basely and only receive necessities until we can slowly, carefully and surely build up a true ideal "non ideal" way of being? or by thinking and establishing a system that was once not there, is that act ideal? humanity is birthed from the ideal..,,,

if you do not think being a monkey or another animal in a mysterious, wild, and vicious land is ideal,, and you would rather be a human,, you are embracing idealism,,, from the creation of the spear,, to the harnessing of fire,, and beyond,.., we would all be rocks if there was no value in the ideal..

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


Humans are creatures of culture, they receive it, they create it, they communicate it, they transform it. From the mouth of Alfred Korzybski, the founder of General Semantics, humans are “time-binders”, and it means that if there is a real functional difference between humans and chimpanzees or any other species, it's the capacity to connect points separated by hundreds or thousands of years. Unlike any other species on planet Earth, humans have the capacity to build upon the works of others. They start where their ancestors have stopped, while other species individuals all start at the same point as their ancestors. Humans have at their disposal the knowledge accumulated by all previous generations of individuals. There are clever species like orangutans or chimpanzees which have culture and communication skills, but they are limited to contemporary exchanges, unlike humans which have the capacity to play with mental symbols and complex concepts and to write them down. The time-binding capacity is obviously of great benefit to mankind and without it humans wouldn't be able to improve their knowledge and build civilizations, without it they would have to rediscover the wheel again and again. But there is an inconvenient : the human brain doesn't have a “bull# detector” built-in. It means that humans transmit to future generations everything and anything, the good and the bad, the useful and the useless, the salutary and the harmful, the true and the false, and we can arrive at a situation where there is so much irrelevant information and it's so spread out that it can outmatch the relevant information. Mankind has not yet mastered the tool that is culture ; the portion of culture which should be about how to manage culture doesn't exist yet or is too young.

A relevant information is something which is related to reality at some degree. I recommend you to read about general semantics.

Originally posted by gosseyn
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Humans are creatures of culture, they receive it, they create it, they communicate it, they transform it. From the mouth of Alfred Korzybski, the founder of General Semantics, humans are “time-binders”, and it means that if there is a real functional difference between humans and chimpanzees or any other species, it's the capacity to connect points separated by hundreds or thousands of years. Unlike any other species on planet Earth, humans have the capacity to build upon the works of others. They start where their ancestors have stopped, while other species individuals all start at the same point as their ancestors. Humans have at their disposal the knowledge accumulated by all previous generations of individuals. There are clever species like orangutans or chimpanzees which have culture and communication skills, but they are limited to contemporary exchanges, unlike humans which have the capacity to play with mental symbols and complex concepts and to write them down. The time-binding capacity is obviously of great benefit to mankind and without it humans wouldn't be able to improve their knowledge and build civilizations, without it they would have to rediscover the wheel again and again. But there is an inconvenient : the human brain doesn't have a “bull# detector” built-in. It means that humans transmit to future generations everything and anything, the good and the bad, the useful and the useless, the salutary and the harmful, the true and the false, and we can arrive at a situation where there is so much irrelevant information and it's so spread out that it can outmatch the relevant information. Mankind has not yet mastered the tool that is culture ; the portion of culture which should be about how to manage culture doesn't exist yet or is too young.

A relevant information is something which is related to reality at some degree. I recommend you to read about general semantics.

I've read Science and Sanity (5th edition I think). Great book, long read. I've never read Korzybski's previous work on time-binding. But thank you for the recommendation.

ETA: Much of my ideas on abstraction are derived from Korzybski's ideas. One of my previous threads on why consciousness doesn't exist is a direct result.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

/ only hope


I think spiritual,,, can be substituted with,, information, intelligence, conception, idea, abstract human thought.,.,.,

theres no rules on how to think and what to think about,.,. im not sure what you are suggesting in your OP.,,. to start from scratch and live basely and only receive necessities until we can slowly, carefully and surely build up a true ideal "non ideal" way of being? or by thinking and establishing a system that was once not there, is that act ideal? humanity is birthed from the ideal..,,,

if you do not think being a monkey or another animal in a mysterious, wild, and vicious land is ideal,, and you would rather be a human,, you are embracing idealism,,, from the creation of the spear,, to the harnessing of fire,, and beyond,.., we would all be rocks if there was no value in the ideal..

edit on 8-9-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I am merely suggesting to not let ideas, specifically ideals, run rampant in our minds. Everyone is to some extent an idealist, but we don't need those ideals spilling out into the material world, where they manifest into violence against real things.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

/ only hope


I think spiritual,,, can be substituted with,, information, intelligence, conception, idea, abstract human thought.,.,.,

theres no rules on how to think and what to think about,.,. im not sure what you are suggesting in your OP.,,. to start from scratch and live basely and only receive necessities until we can slowly, carefully and surely build up a true ideal "non ideal" way of being? or by thinking and establishing a system that was once not there, is that act ideal? humanity is birthed from the ideal..,,,

if you do not think being a monkey or another animal in a mysterious, wild, and vicious land is ideal,, and you would rather be a human,, you are embracing idealism,,, from the creation of the spear,, to the harnessing of fire,, and beyond,.., we would all be rocks if there was no value in the ideal..

edit on 8-9-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I am merely suggesting to not let ideas, specifically ideals, run rampant in our minds. Everyone is to some extent an idealist, but we don't need those ideals spilling out into the material world, where they manifest into violence against real things.

ok but the material world that is not naturally nature,,, the material world humans have created since the spear and mud hut,,., is all ideal,.,.., all created from ideas,, from the mind of humans,.,.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
ok but the material world that is not naturally nature,,, the material world humans have created since the spear and mud hut,,., is all ideal,.,.., all created from ideas,, from the mind of humans,.,.

edit on 8-9-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I don't quite understand how the material world is not naturally nature. But yes man's creations are birthed in his ideas. But in this sense, they were used for material purposes: survival, comfort, warmth etc. not for ideological or idealistic reasons. They weren't built for a God or for spiritual purposes.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi
ok but the material world that is not naturally nature,,, the material world humans have created since the spear and mud hut,,., is all ideal,.,.., all created from ideas,, from the mind of humans,.,.

edit on 8-9-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I don't quite understand how the material world is not naturally nature. But yes man's creations are birthed in his ideas. But in this sense, they were used for material purposes: survival, comfort, warmth etc. not for ideological or idealistic reasons. They weren't built for a God or for spiritual purposes.

the material world that humans created,,, that was not here before humans,, that nature did not create by itself,, yet it created via humans, as humans created their material and conceptual and ideal world,...,

so your saying,, anything that is practical or necessary is not ideal,,, survival, comfort, warmth,, and we can group in all of mans material and informational progression.,,.,.

you associate the word and concept ideal,,, with religion, spirituality, metaphysics, god,.,,,, and so when or if ideal equals those things,,,, you think idealism is useless,, a nuisance,, and more bad then good.,,.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi
ok but the material world that is not naturally nature,,, the material world humans have created since the spear and mud hut,,., is all ideal,.,.., all created from ideas,, from the mind of humans,.,.

edit on 8-9-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

I don't quite understand how the material world is not naturally nature. But yes man's creations are birthed in his ideas. But in this sense, they were used for material purposes: survival, comfort, warmth etc. not for ideological or idealistic reasons. They weren't built for a God or for spiritual purposes.

the material world that humans created,,, that was not here before humans,, that nature did not create by itself,, yet it created via humans, as humans created their material and conceptual and ideal world,...,

so your saying,, anything that is practical or necessary is not ideal,,, survival, comfort, warmth,, and we can group in all of mans material and informational progression.,,.,.

you associate the word and concept ideal,,, with religion, spirituality, metaphysics, god,.,,,, and so when or if ideal equals those things,,,, you think idealism is useless,, a nuisance,, and more bad then good.,,.

material |məˈti(ə)rēəl|
noun
1 the matter from which a thing is or can be made : goats can eat more or less any plant material | materials such as brass | highly flammable materials.
• (usu. materials) things needed for an activity : cleaning materials.
• [with adj. ] a person of a specified quality or suitability : he's not really Olympic material.
2 facts, information, or ideas for use in creating a book or other work : there is much good material here for priests to use in sermons.
• items, esp. songs or jokes, comprising a performer's act : a band playing original material.
3 cloth or fabric : a piece of dark material | dress materials.

That is not what I'm saying. Idealism vs. Materialism is a false dichotomy. We are all idealists and materialists whether we like it or not. It's when idealism runs rampant where it becomes dangerous, as I think I've shown. If one sees a homeless man, he automatically associate him with the ideal he holds of homeless people, usually without considering that particular homeless man. The ideal takes precedence over the real thing, that is when idealism becomes dangerous.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


"If one sees a homeless man, he automatically associate him with the ideal he holds of homeless people, usually without considering that particular homeless man. The ideal takes precedence over the real thing, that is when idealism becomes dangerous."

ok,, good example,,, now i see what your saying.,.,.,

but the economic system we have created and follow,, say every man for himself,.,. how should we view a homeless man? how should we view all homeless men?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Let's consider the opposite, that a man murders another to take his food, not because he hates that man, but because he is starving. But let's say instead that he hates that man or men like him, and kills him merely out of spite, and because that man's existence was conflicting with his idealism. Which intent is worse?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

"If one sees a homeless man, he automatically associate him with the ideal he holds of homeless people, usually without considering that particular homeless man. The ideal takes precedence over the real thing, that is when idealism becomes dangerous."

ok,, good example,,, now i see what your saying.,.,.,

but the economic system we have created and follow,, say every man for himself,.,. how should we view a homeless man? how should we view all homeless men?

We shouldn't view all homeless men or lump them under one ideal. I understand that it is necessary for the purposes of language, but when it comes to one particular man that happens to be homeless, we should first consider that homeless man on his own before we consider the ideal.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Let's consider the opposite, that a man murders another to take his food, not because he hates that man, but because he is starving. But let's say instead that he hates that man or men like him, and kills him merely out of spite, and because that man's existence was conflicting with his idealism. Which intent is worse?

they are both the same,,, one man dies,, one man lives,.,..,,.

one man justifies his murder,,, one man justifies his murder,..,.,

what is the point of creating a value system of better for worse,, when it is contrasted with the loss of a human life?

im sure a lion can kill an animal for food when it is hungry,,,, but also wouldnt think twice about killing an animal that is strutin its stuff a little to confidently in "the kings" territory,,,.,.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

"If one sees a homeless man, he automatically associate him with the ideal he holds of homeless people, usually without considering that particular homeless man. The ideal takes precedence over the real thing, that is when idealism becomes dangerous."

ok,, good example,,, now i see what your saying.,.,.,

but the economic system we have created and follow,, say every man for himself,.,. how should we view a homeless man? how should we view all homeless men?

We shouldn't view all homeless men or lump them under one ideal. I understand that it is necessary for the purposes of language, but when it comes to one particular man that happens to be homeless, we should first consider that homeless man on his own before we consider the ideal.

ok i can agree with this..,., this is about relativity,, circumstance,, value,, weighing a situation,.,.,..,

if a homeless man is a heroin addict and wants nothing more,,, maybe keep walking,.,.

if another homeless man,, is a 19 year old kid who got kicked out of his home by a alcoholic father,, maybe give him a few bucks or at least feel sorry?

you are saying as much as things can be generalized,, there can be many detailed differences in terms of meaning and value in any given situation or study?

reply to post by ImaFungi


I agree. I am not justifying murder in any way. Perhaps it was a bad example.

A lion would kill for food. But he would never kill because he thought all zebras were inferior beings. If he kills another lion strutting his stuff, it is because he may lose his chance at finding a mate, which affects his livelihood. There's no idealism in his intention.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

"If one sees a homeless man, he automatically associate him with the ideal he holds of homeless people, usually without considering that particular homeless man. The ideal takes precedence over the real thing, that is when idealism becomes dangerous."

ok,, good example,,, now i see what your saying.,.,.,

but the economic system we have created and follow,, say every man for himself,.,. how should we view a homeless man? how should we view all homeless men?

We shouldn't view all homeless men or lump them under one ideal. I understand that it is necessary for the purposes of language, but when it comes to one particular man that happens to be homeless, we should first consider that homeless man on his own before we consider the ideal.

ok i can agree with this..,., this is about relativity,, circumstance,, value,, weighing a situation,.,.,..,

if a homeless man is a heroin addict and wants nothing more,,, maybe keep walking,.,.

if another homeless man,, is a 19 year old kid who got kicked out of his home by a alcoholic father,, maybe give him a few bucks or at least feel sorry?

you are saying as much as things can be generalized,, there can be many detailed differences in terms of meaning and value in any given situation or study?

Yes essentially. This is of course common knowledge, but hardly comes about in practice.

If Hitler didn't compare all jews to the one ideal jew he held in his mind, there would have been no holocaust. His aims weren't materialistic. It was completely idealistic. If out of morbid curiosity you ever read Mein Kempf, this will become apparent.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

I agree. I am not justifying murder in any way. Perhaps it was a bad example.

A lion would kill for food. But he would never kill because he thought all zebras were inferior beings. If he kills another lion strutting his stuff, it is because he may lose his chance at finding a mate, which affects his livelihood. There's no idealism in his intention.

ok,, murder is a bad example.,.,., because to the dead lion,,, what is the difference of what the lion killed him over?

we have to define the value of life,,, and if we are speaking of only humans.,,. is every humans life valuable,, is human life in general "good"? if so,,, it is always unjustifiable to take another life ( you can say the death penalty type exceptions) .,..,., other wise its,..,,. im ok with you killing me if your hungry and want to take my food,,, just as long as your not killing me because i believe in a different religion then you,,. because the actualization of idealism is my biggest fear,..

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

"If one sees a homeless man, he automatically associate him with the ideal he holds of homeless people, usually without considering that particular homeless man. The ideal takes precedence over the real thing, that is when idealism becomes dangerous."

ok,, good example,,, now i see what your saying.,.,.,

but the economic system we have created and follow,, say every man for himself,.,. how should we view a homeless man? how should we view all homeless men?

We shouldn't view all homeless men or lump them under one ideal. I understand that it is necessary for the purposes of language, but when it comes to one particular man that happens to be homeless, we should first consider that homeless man on his own before we consider the ideal.

ok i can agree with this..,., this is about relativity,, circumstance,, value,, weighing a situation,.,.,..,

if a homeless man is a heroin addict and wants nothing more,,, maybe keep walking,.,.

if another homeless man,, is a 19 year old kid who got kicked out of his home by a alcoholic father,, maybe give him a few bucks or at least feel sorry?

you are saying as much as things can be generalized,, there can be many detailed differences in terms of meaning and value in any given situation or study?

Yes essentially. This is of course common knowledge, but hardly comes about in practice.

If Hitler didn't compare all jews to the one ideal jew he held in his mind, there would have been no holocaust. His aims weren't materialistic. It was completely idealistic. If out of morbid curiosity you ever read Mein Kempf, this will become apparent.

I have wanted to read mein kempf,, i have heard it is quite brilliant,,, and not all about barbarically wanting to kill jews.,.,,.,.,.

it wasnt about comparing to one jew he held in his mind,, are you serious,, thats you generalizing,.,.he really just didnt like them,, or want them to exist,,, he was being the lion of his jungle of germany,.,.,. he was acting out the will of nature ( his nature),.,. you have some idealism that all humans should get along and live in peace?

his aims were materialistic as well,, he thought the jews were taking away jobs and money,, he promised the german people, that germanies germans would prosper with all the jews gone,..,,.
i am not sympathizing,,, throughout history groups of people have held other groups of people in lower regard,,, from slaves,, to caste systems,, to class systems,,.,

Originally posted by ImaFungi

I have wanted to read mein kempf,, i have heard it is quite brilliant,,, and not all about barbarically wanting to kill jews.,.,,.,.,.

it wasnt about comparing to one jew he held in his mind,, are you serious,, thats you generalizing,.,.he really just didnt like them,, or want them to exist,,, he was being the lion of his jungle of germany,.,.,. he was acting out the will of nature ( his nature),.,. you have some idealism that all humans should get along and live in peace?

his aims were materialistic as well,, he thought the jews were taking away jobs and money,, he promised the german people, that germanies germans would prosper with all the jews gone,..,,.
i am not sympathizing,,, throughout history groups of people have held other groups of people in lower regard,,, from slaves,, to caste systems,, to class systems,,.,

But why didn't he like them? Read the link I posted about his views of the Jews, which he didn't derive from his own experience, but from the abstract ideas of others. His idea about the jews grew into hate, which is completely idealistic. It makes me wonder if he ever approached a real Jew at all.

I found Mein Kempf the ramblings of an insane idealist.

...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Is this a conclusion based on the experience he had with Jews? Or is this wild idealistic fanaticism?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


a thought experiment;

tomorrow the concept of idealism, and the ability to be ideal disappears from existence and potential to exist,.,.

give me an objective over view of what the world would look like...

how would all men interact with one another?

what would be humanities goal/s?

what would be going on?