idealism v pragmatism

[Belinda]

Or [once again] am I misconstruing what a proper "philosophical context" is?

You guys are nuts. I was just fucking with the crazy narcissist who thinks he is the greatest philosopher of all time but doesn't know the basic vocabulary of the subject.

You see that banal OP with no interesting content? He thinks that shit is the absolute best thihng you have ever read in your worthless little life. That's how mad Advocate is.

'Idealism' in its everyday sense is not basic vocabulary of philosophy, but 'pragmatism' is basic vocabulary of philosophy.

[Iwannaplato]

More to the point [mine] given how you have come to understanding the meaning of them philosophically, how would you encompass that technical understanding in an actual existential context in which some embrace idealism [right makes might] while others champion pragmatism [moderation, negotiation and compromise].

To quote FD...

Do you know what either of those words mean in a philosophical context?

Idealism does not entail right make might, though some idealists may believe this, nor need a pragmatist be moderate though some are. Pragmatic as an adjective in every day speech, talking about a politician might entail some kind of moderation, though their politics could be extreme and radical. Idealist in everyday language need not at all entail right makes might. So, philosophical context, nah, that's confused. Everyday use of those terms, not really either.

We'll need an "actual existential context" of course. Or, rather, I will.

So, we didn't need an actual existential context when you equated idealism with might makes right in your abstract post, but we suddenly needed one when I pointed out you were incorrect about idealism.

But I can do as you expect but don't do.

An idealist could have any belief under the sun morally, in either the political or philosphical senses of idealism. One could be an idealist in the political sense who believes in pacificism, that is one of your ideals, and you believe in no use of force by governments. So, you have have as part of your idealism being against might makes right practice. Then as a philosophical idealist

Idealism is the metaphysical view that associates reality to ideas in the mind rather than to material objects.

One is clearly not bound to any particular mode of justice or type of rights. IOW actually we don't need a specific example, a concrete example because you are making a category error - and, again did not provide a concrete example yourself.

But, let's see...how about Kant. Ontologically idealist, but his moral philosophy is based on respecting people and his categorical imperative which does not fit with might makes right.

[iambiguous]

To quote FD...
Idealism does not entail right make might, though some idealists may believe this, nor need a pragmatist be moderate though some are. Pragmatic as an adjective in every day speech, talking about a politician might entail some kind of moderation, though their politics could be extreme and radical. Idealist in everyday language need not at all entail right makes might. So, philosophical context, nah, that's confused. Everyday use of those terms, not really either.

We'll need an "actual existential context" of course. Or, rather, I will.

So, we didn't need an actual existential context when you equated idealism with might makes right in your abstract post, but we suddenly needed one when I pointed out you were incorrect about idealism.

Again, realism and idealism in regard to what? Objectivism and subjectivism with respect to what situation? Might makes right, right makes might, democracy and the rule of law pertaining to what context?

You choose it.

An idealist could have any belief under the sun morally, in either the political or philosphical senses of idealism. One could be an idealist in the political sense who believes in pacificism, that is one of your ideals, and you believe in no use of force by governments. So, you have have as part of your idealism being against might makes right practice. Then as a philosophical idealist

Idealism is the metaphysical view that associates reality to ideas in the mind rather than to material objects.

Actually, my point of view revolves instead around those who come to view pacifism in a particular way and then come into places like this and insist that others are obligated to view it as they do or they are wrong.

Also, that the manner in which one comes to believe in pacifism is rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein out in a particular world historically, culturally and personally, and does not appear able to be encompassed philosophically in the most rational argument for or against it.

Instead, in my view, you are more interested in taking the discussions here:

One is clearly not bound to any particular mode of justice or type of rights. IOW actually we don't need a specific example, a concrete example because you are making a category error - and, again did not provide a concrete example yourself.

But, let's see...how about Kant. Ontologically idealist, but his moral philosophy is based on respecting people and his categorical imperative which does not fit with might makes right.

Okay, I'll pick a context. The morality of government conscription. Having once been drafted against my will to fight in a war that I once supported but then came to oppose. Kant here. You here.

Moral Idealism and moral realism, objectivism and subjectivism etc., here.

And here's the thing.

We can either both respect each other's intelligence and keep the exchange "civil and intelligent", or one of us can decide they do not have any respect for the other's intelligence and go into what I call Stooge mode.

Me? As both an avid philosopher and a born-again polemicist in forums such as this, I can go either way.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The definition for Pragmatism is basically,

• Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.
  WIKI

But one has to be more careful with 'what is idealism'

• In philosophy, the term idealism identifies and describes metaphysical perspectives which assert that reality is indistinguishable and inseparable from perception and understanding; that reality is a mental construct closely connected to ideas.[1]
  
  Idealist perspectives are in two categories:
  subjective idealism, which proposes that a material object exists only to the extent that a human being perceives the object; and
  objective idealism, which proposes the existence of an objective consciousness that exists prior to and independently of human consciousness, thus the existence of the object is independent of human perception.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

• Objective idealism is a form of metaphysical idealism that accepts Naïve realism (the view that empirical objects exist objectively) ... wiki
  The naïve realist is typically also a Metaphysical [Philosophical] Realist, holding that these objects continue to obey the laws of physics and retain all of their properties regardless of whether or not there is anyone to observe them. -Wiki

In view of the above variation,
merely "idealism v pragmatism" without identify what type of 'idealism' therein is non-effective.

Pragmatism rejects mirroring reality therefore is anti-Philosophical Realism.

I believe pragmatism is a form of Idealism-in-general [like pragmatic idealism] in the sense that it is interdependent within the human conditions [i.e. not independent of it].

[Iwannaplato]

Pragmatism rejects mirroring reality therefore is anti-Philosophical Realism.

I believe pragmatism is a form of Idealism-in-general [like pragmatic idealism] in the sense that it is interdependent within the human conditions [i.e. not independent of it].

VA is right to note that pragmatism is complicate and so is idealism.

But I think it is better to say that pragmatism black boxes mirroring reality. It is shifting focus away from saying X mirrors reality. It is not rejecting that or accepting that. It's just saying, hey, I'm not going to focus on that. To take a stand on that issue is potentially counterproductive and unnecessary. Let's just see what works.