Ah, yes. The eternal struggle of perspective, the battle of idealism versus cynicism, the half (Full? Empty? Empty? Full? Empty? Full? Full? Empty? Empty? Full? Full? Empty? Full? Empty? Empty? Full?) glass. Optimism vs. Pessimism.
I like to think of myself coming between the two. I consider myself a cynic (when we're talking about the sliding scale of idealism vs. cynicism, I come in very strongly on the latter with some more idealistic points... oh, just read on, I'll explain it), and I like to think of it as the in-between of optimism and pessimism, albeit with some leaning. I'm not optimistic, but I'm not pessimistic to the point of being unreal about it. I judge things based upon their value; if logic dictates that something should work, I assume it will (but prepare for it to not; even though I know it will probably work, I steel myself up for it to not- that way, if it doesn't work I won't be dissapointed, but if it does I get to be pleasantly surprised), and the same applies for something that shouldn't.
So, there's that. What of idealism and cynicism, then? Well, I have a good deal of contempt for the doe-eyed kind of idealism, the 'if only we could all work together' kind of thing. Well, yes, if we all got along, there would be no fighting. But that's irrelevant because people will never get along like that. You can't get rid of prejudice or hate, you can only beat it back for a bit. Here's the thing, though, where some idealism shines through in my beliefs: Just because you can't stop it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Yes, there will always be racists, but that doesn't mean you should just let the KKK be. Yes, there will always be war, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't advocate pacifism. People will always have misunderstandings and fights, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't at least try to be diplomatic. That is where I hold idealism: In the belief that if something is bad, you should try to do something about it even though you can't really eliminate it.
Now, on another note, what I hold in even more contempt then the 'getting together' thing is the darker, more sinister kind- the "If everything was the way I want it to be, the world would be perfect." The idealism of hate, as it were. Now, this is kind of an odd concept, is it not? "There's nothing idealistic about hate!" But... is there?
Let us all accept that idealism is the belief that the world is a generally good place. My point does not shine through here, so let us carry it along a bit. Let us say that you believe the world is a generally good place. Now, unless you're a delusional nutjob, you know that bad things happen, because that's not really something that can be denied. So, the idealist I speak of now, the hateful idealist- not all idealistic people, mind you- believes that all that's wrong with the otherwise good world comes from people being different. You see? I'm speaking not of people who think that the world is a generally good place, I'm speaking of people who think that the world is a generally good place aside from what they hate. I think you see the danger in idealism I'm attempting to portray. Now, obviously, there are cons to cynicism, and done improperly cynicism can lead to atrocities, too. That's something I could figure out but don't really want to right now; I'll get back to that some other time.
Now, cynicism: Cynicism in current understanding (let's not get into ancient Greek philosophies) is the belief that people don't act out of virtue. I hold this as a general principle; I don't assume that people do things because it's the right thing. Sometimes they do, yeah, but it's a general principle. For every tale of a man saving a drowning child (I can even justify that as a mere survival instinct- it's natural to save other humans from dying so the species doesn't die off. Now, here's an interesting topic- when people don't help others. Here it comes down to people being self-centered- the effect of being in a rush, due to society's constant nagging about being on time, and the effect of believing something someone else can handle it. In the man-saves-child story I just made up, there are some factors that explain this away- first off, there was presumably nobody else there/ trying to do something, and also the fact that it's a child. People have a tendency to be kinder/more sympathetic towards children. I guess 'cuz they're cute.), I can give you somebody killing off people they think are stains on society (idealism run amok, see above) or somebody not pausing to help someone because they're in a rush (lack of virtuous action) or a madman getting popular support for his insane ideas (people can be easily manipulated, I'm sure we can all agree that's a rather cynical concept). However, I also hold another concept that stems from this- that the virtuous thing is not always the right thing. The right thing is the logical thing, the choice that has the highest probability of doing the best thing for the largest amount of people.
To illustrate this, let me give you a scenario: You're Biff Bukinshins, fantasy hero extraordinare (sp? Doesn't seem to be in the dictionary...). Why? Because fantasy/sci fi is where this kind of illogical idealism seems to occur the most. Anyway, your lovely female companion has been kidnapped by the evil something-or-other and you can either save her or prevent the evil army from raping and pillaging several highly populated towns. Now, what's the logical thing? Clearly, the second one. But you can't just leave her! That'd be callous. So, you save her. And then you have enough time to stop the evil army, too. Now, this is all well and good in fantasy, but real life doesn't work like that. In real life, the best thing to do is to put stopping thousands from being slaughtered above saving your girlfriend. Yet, authors seem to have this crazy idea that you should save her. In fact, many believe this so much that if someone suggests they do the thing that actually makes sense, they're portrayed as a callous monster, or at least an unfeeling Vulcan. What's up with that? Sewioushly. Anyway, that's what I mean when I say that the virtuous thing is not always the right thing.
So, what am I getting at with this? Well, basically, I wanted to explain my ideals so people can have a better idea of where I"m coming from and because I think there's a great deal of discussion to be had on the topic, although that's kind of stupid of me because nobody reads this.
Currently listening to: Radiohead/Pablo Honey/Creep
I like to think of myself coming between the two. I consider myself a cynic (when we're talking about the sliding scale of idealism vs. cynicism, I come in very strongly on the latter with some more idealistic points... oh, just read on, I'll explain it), and I like to think of it as the in-between of optimism and pessimism, albeit with some leaning. I'm not optimistic, but I'm not pessimistic to the point of being unreal about it. I judge things based upon their value; if logic dictates that something should work, I assume it will (but prepare for it to not; even though I know it will probably work, I steel myself up for it to not- that way, if it doesn't work I won't be dissapointed, but if it does I get to be pleasantly surprised), and the same applies for something that shouldn't.
So, there's that. What of idealism and cynicism, then? Well, I have a good deal of contempt for the doe-eyed kind of idealism, the 'if only we could all work together' kind of thing. Well, yes, if we all got along, there would be no fighting. But that's irrelevant because people will never get along like that. You can't get rid of prejudice or hate, you can only beat it back for a bit. Here's the thing, though, where some idealism shines through in my beliefs: Just because you can't stop it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Yes, there will always be racists, but that doesn't mean you should just let the KKK be. Yes, there will always be war, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't advocate pacifism. People will always have misunderstandings and fights, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't at least try to be diplomatic. That is where I hold idealism: In the belief that if something is bad, you should try to do something about it even though you can't really eliminate it.
Now, on another note, what I hold in even more contempt then the 'getting together' thing is the darker, more sinister kind- the "If everything was the way I want it to be, the world would be perfect." The idealism of hate, as it were. Now, this is kind of an odd concept, is it not? "There's nothing idealistic about hate!" But... is there?
Let us all accept that idealism is the belief that the world is a generally good place. My point does not shine through here, so let us carry it along a bit. Let us say that you believe the world is a generally good place. Now, unless you're a delusional nutjob, you know that bad things happen, because that's not really something that can be denied. So, the idealist I speak of now, the hateful idealist- not all idealistic people, mind you- believes that all that's wrong with the otherwise good world comes from people being different. You see? I'm speaking not of people who think that the world is a generally good place, I'm speaking of people who think that the world is a generally good place aside from what they hate. I think you see the danger in idealism I'm attempting to portray. Now, obviously, there are cons to cynicism, and done improperly cynicism can lead to atrocities, too. That's something I could figure out but don't really want to right now; I'll get back to that some other time.
Now, cynicism: Cynicism in current understanding (let's not get into ancient Greek philosophies) is the belief that people don't act out of virtue. I hold this as a general principle; I don't assume that people do things because it's the right thing. Sometimes they do, yeah, but it's a general principle. For every tale of a man saving a drowning child (I can even justify that as a mere survival instinct- it's natural to save other humans from dying so the species doesn't die off. Now, here's an interesting topic- when people don't help others. Here it comes down to people being self-centered- the effect of being in a rush, due to society's constant nagging about being on time, and the effect of believing something someone else can handle it. In the man-saves-child story I just made up, there are some factors that explain this away- first off, there was presumably nobody else there/ trying to do something, and also the fact that it's a child. People have a tendency to be kinder/more sympathetic towards children. I guess 'cuz they're cute.), I can give you somebody killing off people they think are stains on society (idealism run amok, see above) or somebody not pausing to help someone because they're in a rush (lack of virtuous action) or a madman getting popular support for his insane ideas (people can be easily manipulated, I'm sure we can all agree that's a rather cynical concept). However, I also hold another concept that stems from this- that the virtuous thing is not always the right thing. The right thing is the logical thing, the choice that has the highest probability of doing the best thing for the largest amount of people.
To illustrate this, let me give you a scenario: You're Biff Bukinshins, fantasy hero extraordinare (sp? Doesn't seem to be in the dictionary...). Why? Because fantasy/sci fi is where this kind of illogical idealism seems to occur the most. Anyway, your lovely female companion has been kidnapped by the evil something-or-other and you can either save her or prevent the evil army from raping and pillaging several highly populated towns. Now, what's the logical thing? Clearly, the second one. But you can't just leave her! That'd be callous. So, you save her. And then you have enough time to stop the evil army, too. Now, this is all well and good in fantasy, but real life doesn't work like that. In real life, the best thing to do is to put stopping thousands from being slaughtered above saving your girlfriend. Yet, authors seem to have this crazy idea that you should save her. In fact, many believe this so much that if someone suggests they do the thing that actually makes sense, they're portrayed as a callous monster, or at least an unfeeling Vulcan. What's up with that? Sewioushly. Anyway, that's what I mean when I say that the virtuous thing is not always the right thing.
So, what am I getting at with this? Well, basically, I wanted to explain my ideals so people can have a better idea of where I"m coming from and because I think there's a great deal of discussion to be had on the topic, although that's kind of stupid of me because nobody reads this.
Currently listening to: Radiohead/Pablo Honey/Creep
