Tim's Favorite Blogs
Media Matters
Blog Directories
Monday, June 21. 2010
Idealism and Reality
but it’s so well written it deserves it’s own post here! Hope you don’t mind Dan!
I would agree that “selfishness” is promoted in America (which makes it rather puzzling why so many people hate Ayn Rand. Or maybe that explains it). There is some measure of the idea that a group of individuals acting out of motivated self interest can create a sustainable and beneficial system for everyone involved which is built into the fabric of our country. I would have to imagine that Adam Smith’s work was highly agreeable in America's formative years (Given that it was published in 1776 it was definitely with us from the beginning) and certainly reflected some aspects of enlightenment philosophy which formed the foundation of our country. .
But I wouldn’t say that it’s selfishness, really. To be selfish implies focusing on yourself to the exclusion of others, even at the cost of the well being of others. While, in certain extreme situations, this is certainly the case, I would say that on the whole we Americans focus on ourselves only slightly more than we focus on the welfare of others.
But this is getting away from where I was intending to go. People call me an idealist from time to time, and I certainly give them evidence for it. But it’s hard to make a declarative statement, especially regarding philosophy, without sounding like an idealist. But then, what are ideals? I like to use the Platonic ideal as a starting point. Unlike Plato, though, I don’t view ideals as some real object floating in some metaphysical world of which we have only the pale and diluted shadows to ponder. Rather, I look on them as ultimate goals that can never be ultimately reached, but in reaching for them we better ourselves. Ideally one would apply skeptical inquiry in their political pursuits, be it running for president or voting at the town council. Ideally, we would have a direct democracy. Of course, the real world isn’t ideal, so these ideals can never come to absolute fruition. The practical impediments for the latter alone are seemingly insurmountable.
Though the case for a direct democracy has a new argument now that we have the World Wide Web.
Of course, that brings on a whole slew of counterarguments against voting online or some variant, a topic I’ll not get into right now as I’ve already started this reply with a tangent and I won’t be doing that again, though I am getting rather tangential right now with this massive run-on sentence so I’ll just shut up and get back to the point.
Ideally, yes, a more scientific approach to politics would be beneficial. But that runs in the face of “free market” ideals which kind of assumes people will be dumb as rocks, but a well designed system will use that to create a strong system. As in all things, a balance seems to be needed. Those in power should be way more scientific than they are, as you pointed out with your health care example. And those not in power will do whatever they can to save the life of their loved ones, even if it means abusing the system. Which makes the health care example quite apt and harkens back to those extreme circumstances I mentioned earlier.
But people are dumb as rocks and hence highly selfish most of the time, and will likely be so for a long time to come. I personally deplore the lack of understanding about science in our culture right now and think that we need more of it, but science is not likely to be dominant for some time to come. And so we have representative democracy and free markets and we all hope like hell that the people in charge are smart enough to keep everything working properly. Ideally the real world will balance idealism against pragmatism, selflessness against selfishness, hope against pessimism. Though for me, right here and now, my biggest concern is paying the rent.
Calendar
Quicksearch
Categories
AD Links
Referrals
Syndicate This Blog
Blog Administration
Powered by
TheForkesReport