Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't know. Would you define them?
from dictionary.com
prag•ma•tism P Pronunciation Key (pr g m -t z m)
n.
1. Philosophy. A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
2. A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.
i•de•al•ism P Pronunciation Key ( -d -l z m)
n.
1. The act or practice of envisioning things in an ideal form.
2. Pursuit of one's ideals.
3. Idealized treatment of a subject in literature or art.
4. Philosophy. The theory that the object of external perception, in itself or as perceived, consists of ideas.
What I'm trying to get across is whether either one of these can be used in life ALL THE TIME. I would say no. IMO, the two are like night and day, in that they are opposites, but we need both in our lives. Maybe that's not a good analogy, but I think its gets the point across.
I would like to hear from especially those on these forums (if there are any) who are exclusive to one group or the other, and how they see it from their point of view.
I would say I'm a pragmatist in theory, but in practice support a certain amount of idealism.
It's all about what you intend to achieve. If you specify your aims completely, then any means are justified, and you should try to do what is best for actually achieving your aims.
Of course this is easier said than done, and people keep getting it wrong. "All industry should belong to the state" is a bad aim, even if you're a socialist or communist, as it isn't good in itself by any stretch of the imagination - things which are done in the hope of bringing about some other effect are means, not ends. "People should be happy" is better, but it's not a complete specification of aims: what if the best way to keep people happy is to lobotomise them so that they cannot have negative thoughts? People who have arbitrary aims, or become obsessed with satisfying a limited set of aims, are called idealists, but if they actually strive to achieve these aims in a rational manner they become tyrants or terrorists, or at best they unwittingly take everyone farther from other things they hold dear.
In short, it's quite hard to specify your aims fully, and it's then extremely hard to fathom what the best way of achieving them is. So what happens is that people develop the notion of 'acting in the spirit of' an aim, as an approximation to acting towards that aim. Thus if you want people to be free, you are reluctant to lock them up as that is contrary to the spirit of the aim, even though it's possible that locking someone up will increase overall freedom. It's not perfect, but this system works well enough, and it does become a kind of idealism, as the vague 'spirit of' ideas behave like actual aims. So I'd say I support this kind of idealism to simplify things, but we must always beware of over-simplification and jumping to conclusions (such as the belief that nationalised industry is always better/always worse run than private enterprise).