The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Idealism without pragmatism is an unsuccessful attempt at improving things. Pragmatism without idealism is rushing blindly forward into the abyss. Therefore, idealism > pragmatism.

Do you know what either of those words mean in a philosophical context?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:27 pm Idealism without pragmatism is an unsuccessful attempt at improving things. Pragmatism without idealism is rushing blindly forward into the abyss. Therefore, idealism > pragmatism.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:36 pm Do you know what either of those words mean in a philosophical context?

More to the point [mine] given how you have come to understanding the meaning of them philosophically, how would you encompass that technical understanding in an actual existential context in which some embrace idealism [right makes might] while others champion pragmatism [moderation, negotiation and compromise].

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:05 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:27 pm Idealism without pragmatism is an unsuccessful attempt at improving things. Pragmatism without idealism is rushing blindly forward into the abyss. Therefore, idealism > pragmatism.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:36 pm Do you know what either of those words mean in a philosophical context?

More to the point [mine] given how you have come to understanding the meaning of them philosophically, how would you encompass that technical understanding in an actual existential context in which some embrace idealism [right makes might] while others champion pragmatism [moderation, negotiation and compromise].

To quote FD...

Do you know what either of those words mean in a philosophical context?

Idealism does not entail right make might, though some idealists may believe this, nor need a pragmatist be moderate though some are. Pragmatic as an adjective in every day speech, talking about a politician might entail some kind of moderation, though their politics could be extreme and radical. Idealist in everyday language need not at all entail right makes might. So, philosophical context, nah, that's confused. Everyday use of those terms, not really either.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:55 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:05 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:27 pm Idealism without pragmatism is an unsuccessful attempt at improving things. Pragmatism without idealism is rushing blindly forward into the abyss. Therefore, idealism > pragmatism.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:36 pm Do you know what either of those words mean in a philosophical context?

More to the point [mine] given how you have come to understanding the meaning of them philosophically, how would you encompass that technical understanding in an actual existential context in which some embrace idealism [right makes might] while others champion pragmatism [moderation, negotiation and compromise].

To quote FD...

Do you know what either of those words mean in a philosophical context?

Idealism does not entail right make might, though some idealists may believe this, nor need a pragmatist be moderate though some are. Pragmatic as an adjective in every day speech, talking about a politician might entail some kind of moderation, though their politics could be extreme and radical. Idealist in everyday language need not at all entail right makes might. So, philosophical context, nah, that's confused. Everyday use of those terms, not really either.

We'll need an "actual existential context" of course. Or, rather, I will.

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:27 pm Idealism without pragmatism is an unsuccessful attempt at improving things. Pragmatism without idealism is rushing blindly forward into the abyss. Therefore, idealism > pragmatism.

Even if idealism could be reduced to an attempt, one's idealism could be precisely the opposite of someone else's - this taking the word in a more everyday sense, not the ontological and epistemological senses. So, I don't see how one could see it as necessarily better than some other philosophical outlook. Hitler the idealist...

“Idealism does not represent a superfluous expression of emotion, but in truth it has been, is, and will be, the premise for what we designate as human culture...Without his idealistic attitude all, even the most dazzling faculties of the intellect, would remain mere intellect just like
outward appearance without inner value, and never creative force....The purest idealism is unconsciously equivalent to the deepest knowledge...”

vs,
William James the pragmatist...

A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.

William James

But to be charitable, let's not take these as philosophical terms, but assume you means something like a person with noble goals but without much common sense is superior than someone with a great deal of common sense and not a shred of nobility.

Then it depends on the goals and since the world noble is in there it is assumed they are good, or at least pleasing to the evaluator.

According to philosophical jargon, idealism is the same as immaterialism.

Idealism/immaterialism is a theory of existence. Other main theories of existence are materialism, Cartesian dualism, Spinozan or neutral monism, and existentialism.

Pragmatism is not a theory of existence but is a theory of epistemology/how we can know. Pragmatism roughly is about how a train of thought works out in practice; it's a method.

I agree with Advocate that a believer in philosophical idealism needs to know how she came to know that philosophical idealism is true.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:28 pm I agree with Advocate that a believer in philosophical idealism needs to know how she came to know that philosophical idealism is true.

Did Advocate say this in this thread? I ask because I can't see that.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:40 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:28 pm I agree with Advocate that a believer in philosophical idealism needs to know how she came to know that philosophical idealism is true.

Did Advocate say this in this thread? I ask because I can't see that.

Advocate wrote in the original post in this discussion:

Idealism without pragmatism is an unsuccessful attempt at improving things. Pragmatism without idealism is rushing blindly forward into the abyss. Therefore, idealism > pragmatism.

I have been hoping Advocate is using the word 'idealism' in its proper philosophical sense.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:44 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:40 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:28 pm I agree with Advocate that a believer in philosophical idealism needs to know how she came to know that philosophical idealism is true.

Did Advocate say this in this thread? I ask because I can't see that.

Advocate wrote in the original post in this discussion:

Idealism without pragmatism is an unsuccessful attempt at improving things. Pragmatism without idealism is rushing blindly forward into the abyss. Therefore, idealism > pragmatism.

I have been hoping Advocate is using the word 'idealism' in its proper philosophical sense.

I got this latter point. I still can't see the other one.

It seems to me he is Idealism in its everyday sense, something like having a noble goal/outlook. Without pragmatism it just can't realize its vision. I don't see any epistemological critique of idealism.

[quote=Iwannaplato post_id=612831 time=1670504040 user_id=3619]
It seems to me he is <using> Idealism in its everyday sense, something like having a noble goal/outlook. Without pragmatism it just can't realize its vision. I don't see any epistemological critique of idealism.
[/quote]

Yes, that.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 4:01 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:54 pm It seems to me he is <using> Idealism in its everyday sense, something like having a noble goal/outlook. Without pragmatism it just can't realize its vision. I don't see any epistemological critique of idealism.

Yes, that.

So by idealism you mean idealism in is everyday sense, not the ontological sense. Then the pragmatic method is the only safe method. As Jesus said "By their fruits you shall know them" and I have no doubt other sages agree and have said so..

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:13 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 4:01 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:54 pm It seems to me he is <using> Idealism in its everyday sense, something like having a noble goal/outlook. Without pragmatism it just can't realize its vision. I don't see any epistemological critique of idealism.

Yes, that.

So by idealism you mean idealism in is everyday sense, not the ontological sense. Then the pragmatic method is the only safe method. As Jesus said "By their fruits you shall know them" and I have no doubt other sages agree and have said so..

sages, orchard workers...

-Imp

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:55 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:05 pm

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 3:27 pm Idealism without pragmatism is an unsuccessful attempt at improving things. Pragmatism without idealism is rushing blindly forward into the abyss. Therefore, idealism > pragmatism.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 8:36 pm Do you know what either of those words mean in a philosophical context?

More to the point [mine] given how you have come to understanding the meaning of them philosophically, how would you encompass that technical understanding in an actual existential context in which some embrace idealism [right makes might] while others champion pragmatism [moderation, negotiation and compromise].

To quote FD...

Do you know what either of those words mean in a philosophical context?

Idealism does not entail right make might, though some idealists may believe this, nor need a pragmatist be moderate though some are. Pragmatic as an adjective in every day speech, talking about a politician might entail some kind of moderation, though their politics could be extreme and radical. Idealist in everyday language need not at all entail right makes might. So, philosophical context, nah, that's confused. Everyday use of those terms, not really either.

How about this...

We agree on a particular moral or political issue in which some construe themselves to be idealists, whiles others embrace what they construe to be pragmatism. Then, given "an actual existential context" most here will be familiar with, we compare and contrast our own philosophies.

Or, sure, we can put that part off until we pin down technically/epistemologically how all "serious philosophers" are obligated to define and understand idealism and pragmatism.

Or [once again] am I misconstruing what a proper "philosophical context" is?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 6:07 pm Or [once again] am I misconstruing what a proper "philosophical context" is?

You guys are nuts. I was just f****** with the crazy narcissist who thinks he is the greatest philosopher of all time but doesn't know the basic vocabulary of the subject.

You see that banal OP with no interesting content? He thinks that shit is the absolute best thihng you have ever read in your worthless little life. That's how mad Advocate is.