It has always been nice to find someone who will engage in a philosophical type of discussion, but sometimes it becomes an argument over misunderstanding. One thing that I have noticed is that the flips and flops of idealism and realism create barriers to someone accepting a fact or claim or idea. Someone who is really idealistic about what is real will not accept an idea that is realistic about what is ideal. In the former that a value or ethic underlies the right course of action or the latter that the right course of action is about conditions, effects, desires, or a tangible material referent. In the first case work ethic tells us that we must work to make work, and in the second could be various observations or feelings that negate the ideal.

That is one: idealistic about real and realistic about ideals.
Then there are sources of of ideal and real. Ideal can be something 'good', or an idea, or a value, or an ethic, an evaluation, or a realm of thought, a new thought, a transcendant thought, indirect realism etc. Real can be nature/natural, material, the prevailing zietgiest/ ethos/ ideals, an objective or scientific fact, direct realism, etc. Any one of those can flip and flop, flip if I say indirect realism is an ideal because it relates to the simulation the brain makes of the world, and flop if a direct realist argues that simulations can only be real or else the ideal is false, not an 'idea'. This can continue in a discussion argument, but is exasperating, so people like to be fixed in certain ideals, and realisms.

One common ideal is being liked or popular, and it makes a real of people who like the same/ popular things. People tend to think the construction that results from an ideal is real. On the other hand something that is real is often not in a complex of ideal, such as it is troubling to think about, people will not like it, and it is not a conventional ideal, however it is still ideal, in that it is completely apprended as idea and not as a direct perceptual observation. There is even further complexity in this domain.

The purest form of ideal from my perspective as a mortal who is not divine is nonsense to a certain realist. An ideal should be completely seperate from anything that substantiates or gives it meaning in a network of referents that are taken as real based on a certain set of values. In fact nonsense is the best irrational method of actualizing philosophical understanding in a personal struggle from a real point of accepted complete ignorance through an idealist phase of gibberish, to becoming 1) reformed by interventionists who impart their ideals and realisms, 2) understanding 3) any other possible outcome.

This was a short discussion of the flips and flops off idealism and realism, which is really basic, but is a starting point for anyone interested in philosophy.