idealism before rationalism?

[soulfilms]

what says you on this topic??

i thought about this whilst hearing that the zimbabwe government is driving out white farmers so that they may be occupied by black farmers so black people will be better off, but this is going on amidst a time of food shortage and possibly without people to bring in the harvest.

the above 'analysis' of the country contains GROSS SIMPLIFICATIONS.

[SHATOUSHKA]

hmmm....

i may be a bit biased in my answer.
for me, i'd assume that everyone is
idealistic prior to being rational...
then maniplates rationality toward
the 'goal'.

somehow, the more i think about the
question, the more 'chicken or the egg'
it seems.

...must....ponder..... more....

[soulfilms]

yes, i do believe i agree with you in saying idealism comes before rationalism. but maybe rationalism curbs idealism and ultimately, it is rationalism that wins in the end with a warped view of the original idealism?

[kaant]

maybe it is idealism that affects rationalism and that idealism is stronger then rationalism and it gets drowned out or meets halfway. and maybe for the zimbabwians the idealism of gaining back there land is stronger then there need for stability and collecting the harvest and once the famine starts rationalism will start to take over and the idealogy starts to shift again.

personally i think the zimbabwian govt has mis thought this situation. though the idealism is strong they have forgotten rationalism is necessary to survive at the current situation.

but to summon up the philosophy i think (Dialectical Materialism)
it is a continous circle of consciousness (idealogy) that influences the matter (situation) that then determines someones consciousness.

<font color="#6699FF" size="1">[ June 30, 2002 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Socialaus ]</font>

[SHATOUSHKA]

ok socialaus...
the last statement kinda threw me.

i can see the definite path you drew,
but at what point would rationale come in?

this is what makes it especially hard for
me to determine which rules over which.

at the point of a decision, is it rationality
or idealism that determines the final outcome
or behavior?

and in addition to that, IN THAT VERY MOMENT,
is it really YOUR rationality/idealism that
determines the course you take...
or something more.....say....... social?

hmmmmm....

must ponder more

[kaant]

it is a lot to ponder about.

ok for me the end result is a mix of both idealism and rationale.

rationalism and idealism can both affect the other.
it is like the question of the chicken or the egg. which comes first.

but i think rationalism starts when you put your idealogy to work. and when rationalism comes into affect, your action changes to suit the situation and maybe so does your idealogy.

the question of which controls which is hard as people are different and some have strong idealisms and others none, weak or medium, some rely basely on rationalism. people like Hitler had a strong idealism and that over took his ability to think rationaly.

At the very Moment is it your decision?
it is your surroundings, it is the social pressure of that time and your idealism and those of who you will affect.
Everything plays its part when you make your decisions, it could be part of your idealism and part rationalism, part of societies acceptance and rules of law.

but in the end it really comes down to you on what sources (idealogy, rationale, society, environment) you wish to rely on for your decision making.

hmmmm i think it is like that

[SHATOUSHKA]

i agree.

i think that different people allow for
different aspects to govern their decision making...
unfortunately.

maybe i shouldn't be so cynical.

perhaps this difference is what makes new ideas
surface and old ideas surrender.

hmmm...

i suppose in this discussion i keep returning
to the conception of 'peace'.
it seems that almost EVERYONE has this notion
of peace and (supposedly) we are all attempting
to reach that goal (no matter how ridiculous
i think that notion is).

the conception of 'peace' is as idealistic
as betty crocker is to cupcakes.
yet it is highly unattainable.

if the world-view is that of 'peace', what
is it that prevents its occurance?
is it rational to create peace? *chokes*

forgive me if i am wrong, but wasn't it
john dewey that discussed this obsession
with peace and the dilusional concepts of
'struggle' and 'oppression'?
(and if it wasn't him, i'll find out whom it was)

he stated that we, as humans, consistantly
create this image that we are heading toward
this common goal... this pie in the sky...
and through further technology and understanding
of basic human interactions, we believe we
will one day reach this place. (green line)
but dewey rejected that idea in place of one
of a more interesting (and seemingly rational)
concept:
we never improve, yet follow the same unending
path because these concepts (or ideals) are
non-existent and imaginary. (red line)

the (shitty) graph should show that concept.



the scale to the left shows (roughly) the common
goals of the people, the higher-most being
eventual peace. and the bottom shows the amount
of supposed time it would take to achieve those
goals IF we were all working toward the ideal.
of course there were no ACTUAL times listed on
the graph, but many people, for many years,
believed (and still do) that we will one day
reach this er.... utopian state. *laughs*

this is why i think that most people are
more idealistic as opposed to rational.
of course, if we all believed that our dreams
of peace were really ridiculous, would we
revert back to animalistic territorial behaviors?

i suppose that, like religion, these idealisms
create a sense of hope in an otherwise tense
reality. but then again, if we were to wake up
to this undiscovered reality, would we really
fear it or would we have to accept our
'predicament' and go from there... with more
rational motivations?