Plato and Aristotle (Introduction to Greek Philosophy). Understanding how to compromise between idealism and realism is important in all areas of life, but becomes vital in the realm of politics where we must uphold ideals in the face of reality. Of course it is important to root our understanding in the empirical, but that doesn’t mean we can consider the physical as it is only and ignore ideals, metaphysics, and “what ought to be.”ĭiscussing the two concepts in tandem serves as an important reminder that what is ideal on paper, is often not best in practice and that just because something works in practice, it does not mean it’s ideal or even justifiable. One must generally start with a view of the world as it is, and then consider ethics and morals (what ought to be) and imagination (what could be), applying reason and logically “liberally” to both positions. Life is not either/or, and the scientific method essentially proves it (we don’t need either F=ma, or a blueprint, or workers to build the bridge, we need all of that). However, the above said, the comparison I am making is somewhat unfair, as it suggests there is an Either/Or choice. Political idealism looks at “what ought to be,” and political realism looks at “what is” (even if it isn’t pretty). In other words, political idealism is rooted in the world of ideas and feelings, and political realism is rooted in observations of the material world. Political Philosophy: The philosophy of politics from a metaphysic and reason-based perspective.Political Science: The science of politics, based on empirical evidence.Rooted in the external material world of empiricism. Realism: Dealing with things as they are.Rooted in the internal world of rationalism and ideas. Idealism: Dealing with things as they should be.When we start from that which we can know with the senses (with our five senses external AKA what we can see, touch, taste, smell, and hear directly), we are being realists (we are dealing with things they way they are), and when we start with moral virtues, ideas, and sentiments (including rationalized impressions from our “internal senses” AKA our thoughts and feelings), we are being idealists (we are dealing with things the way they could be, ought to be, or should be). realist debate, but generally we can say: There are many different ways to illustrate the idealist vs. Machiavelli (realism) vs., or Hegel (idealism) vs. Aristotle (realism), or Thomas More (idealism) vs. Hume’s skeptical empiricism (realism)… or we can discuss Plato (idealism) vs. This can also be equated with Plato’s theory of the forms style metaphysics (idealism) vs. This can be broadly equated to the debate over whether people are inherently good (idealism), or inherently flawed (realism). In other words, the dichotomy is: politics based on how things are vs. Political realism is dealing with politics as they are in reality, political idealism is dealing with politics as an ideal. How to Understand Political Realism and Political Idealism
0 kommentar(er)
