Why be sorry?Sorry, but this is my take:
ISIS: Idealists
Gun Lobby: Idealists
Christian Right: Idealists
Skin Heads: Idealists
GOP: Idealists
I'm sorry, but the greatest threat to democracy is idealism... as that always... ALWAYS leads to a totalitarianism via a surrender of the mind to a 'great ideal'. — Mayor of Simpleton
Why be sorry?
A lot of people will agree with you, that idealism is a threat to democracy and ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism. They just have a different "Idealists" in their mind: Leftist socialists (Idealists), environmentalists (Idealists), Gay right activists (Idealists), Occupy Wall Street activists (Idealists), Democrats: Idealists, whatever, you name it. But for many people it is totally inconcievable and utterly incomprehensible to even think that the loony dangerous other side could ever reason anything or have in common any values. That's what I have learned for example following Philosophy Forums and other US forums.
I personally think that idealism isn't a threat to democracy. What is only dangerous when people resort to outright violence. And any political ideology that starts from the idea that violence is necessary, is a threat to democracy and will lead to totalitarianism. It's as simple as that. — ssu
That's what I think is the biggest problem in our time: 20th Century collective ideologies (with examples from the left and right) were so bloody and ruinous that we now have difficulties to find any kind of collective ideal for such big constructions as modern states. If you do have such large entities as nation states (or even larger constructs like the EU), there should be something in common with the people inside these constructs, some kind of collective thinking. Otherwise it's a road to disaster.Funny thing is, I really don't support any collective idealistic efforts. I find Leftist socialist just as totalitarian and the Right Wing conservatives. — Mayor of Simpleton
The problem with fully fledged idealism is that the supporters of any ideology seldom accept a compromise, to gain some kind of consensus with people having totally different opinions, which means that some things have to be dropped and some things not wanted have to be implemented. Making compromises "with the enemy", as it can be seen, is something that goes against idealism.Perhaps I have simply seen too many movements that seemed to be 'harmless idealistic mantras' that have later proven to become totalitarian rules of a power driven megalomaniac sitting on the throne of that power. The potential destructive powers of idealism just puts me off that track. I cannot think of any notion of idealism that is immune to this potential of becoming a totalitarian rule that surrenders the mind by negating adaptation of notion and disallows (or tries to disallow) accumulation of new information/experience/knowledge. — Mayor of Simpleton
...but funny thing is if they dropped the idealism we'd have very little to fight about in the first place. — Mayor of Simpleton
Now, now, you're just being silly. I hope. — Bitter Crank
Idealism isn't the same thing as fanaticism.*** Fanatics have an odor of mania and possession about them (smells like burning electric insulation), whereas idealists reference a standard of perfection; a principle to be aimed at: tolerance and freedom, the liberal ideals. Idealism smells like lily of the valley. — Bitter Crank
Realism, on the other hand, is neither fanaticism or idealism. Is there such a thing as being "too realistic"? No. Real is real. Reality doesn't get more real. (It can get less real, however, as when someone exclaims in exasperation, "Unreal!") — Bitter Crank
Ideals (Christ-like love, abolition, anti-war/peace, universal suffrage, organic farming, direct democracy, elimination of poverty...) become the subject of fanaticism when some narrow aspect of the ideal becomes the object of a very narrow focus. Christ-like love can be perverted into a life-denying obsession of self-denial which is no benefit to anyone. Political ideals about the rights and obligations of the people can be perverted into the "get government off our backs" obsession which boils down to 'no government except when I want something from it'. — Bitter Crank
Idealism is, I think, an essential leaven in societies which do (and must) run mostly on realism. Yes, idealists like Henry David Thoreau (check out his essay, Civil Disobedience) can be a nuisance. Massachusetts threw him in jail for not paying his taxes (Emerson paid them for him). His refusal wasn't libertarian tax avoidance, it was on behalf of either abolition of slavery or opposition to the Mexican American War (sorry, can't remember which. Probably the MA war...). — Bitter Crank
We really need idealists to challenge the status quo. (Leaven, as you know, changes a brick into a loaf.) Change-agents need their ideals, which we might not like. One of the most-loathed groups working for black civil rights in the south during the 1940s and 50s was the Communist Party, USA. They were on the side of the angels in their efforts. That was before they were effectively neutralized, along with much of the left by ruthless Republican realists like J. Edgar Hoover, et al. — Bitter Crank
***[ORIGIN mid 16th cent. (as an adjective): from French fanatique or Latin fanaticus ‘of a temple, inspired by a god,’ from fanum ‘temple.’ The adjective originally described behavior or speech that might result from possession by a god or demon, hence the earliest sense of the noun ‘a religious maniac’ (mid 17th cent).] [1 the practice of forming or pursuing ideals, esp. unrealistically: the idealism of youth. Compare with realism... a standard of perfection; a principle to be aimed at: tolerance and freedom, the liberal ideals. — Bitter Crank
Herbert Marcuse coined the phrase "repressive tolerance", which is what you are probably thinking of, MOS. — Bitter Crank
A lot of people will agree with you, that idealism is a threat to democracy and ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism. They just have a different "Idealists" in their mind: Leftist socialists (Idealists), environmentalists (Idealists), Gay right activists (Idealists), Occupy Wall Street activists (Idealists), Democrats: Idealists, whatever, you name it. But for many people it is totally inconcievable and utterly incomprehensible to even think that the loony dangerous other side could ever reason anything or have in common any values. That's what I have learned for example following Philosophy Forums and other US forums. — ssu
I don't think Bundy-militia has much support as you intend to portray. It's a small cabal of people that actually aren't so much in touch with reality, who then are closely viewed by the police.But of course leftists aren't occupying public land with guns trying to get free stuff. Rightwing knownothing ranchers are. And the same is true about gun rights weirdos and anti-gay weirdos and the religious right - all intent on imposing their views on others. — Landru Guide Us
Actually here (in Lapland) the biggest land ownership problem has been with the government and the Sami people, Europe's only indigenous people. There's been a problem for Finland to ratify ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. The basic problem is how to define someone to be Sami. From the 16th Century onwards, as the ownership of (Finnish) Lapland was with Sweden, the Government hadn't made any separation of people to being either Sami or Finns. And as you might guess, the Sami people have disagreements on the government land ownership in the North, for instance with grazing rights. What land is the government and what belong to the Sami is an issue. Sound familiar?The larger question you raise about central government "interference" in rural affairs is probably the real issue here. Needless to say, I don't think it is interference. I think it's rational policy relating to land use. I frankly don't want rural people to control large portions of land - history indicates they abuse it and history indicates it results in land oligarchs arising. — Landru Guide Us
Well, this is quite universal. If you are a cattle herder or a reindeer herder, yep, you will likely want to have those grazing rights. Reindeer don't know just where they legally are permitted to graze and where not.They wanted to abuse land for their own profit through resource extraction, mostly through abusive mining and cattle grazing, and resented national policies against that. — Landru Guide Us
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.