Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:13 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:13 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:55 pm
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:13 pmAn 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:
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 05, 2023 1:13 pmOne 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.