Idealism Vs. Realism

"Idealism" and "realism" are an ambiguous couple of labels, and yet many people are very passionate about being one or the other. I happen to be one of those people. I am a die-hard idealist.

Now before an epic battle breaks out between the Idealists and Realists (I entertain myself by imagining I have just enough readers to form a couple very small armies), I think I should explain the value I see in idealism. And heck, realism too, while I'm at it.

To me, idealistic thinking means seeing the potential all around. It's seeing how things could be improved. It's seeing where things are being done inefficiently, incorrectly, cruelly or immorally and saying, "Hey, we don't have to take this any more, we can change things!" And yes, sometimes it's seeing the big picture as it could be, even if that's something very different from the way it is.


My original definitions were that realism is "going with the flow" and aiming only for the things that can be accomplished in the short-term (one lifetime, at the most), whereas idealism is aiming for something that could take a lifetime or many lifetimes to accomplish or get close to. Personally, I'd rather spend my whole life trying for something important and failing, a few times, many times, maybe even go my whole life and never get there, than I would only thinking about and accomplishing things that mean little to me.

For me, I would feel empty inside if I gave up on my ideals. If I said to myself, for example, "Oh well, there will always be war. Not much I can do about that. Might as well not worry about it if it's not affecting me directly." I'd rather say, "One day there may be peace." Even if it often feels like a lost cause and like the human race seems to only want to speed the process of destroying itself. I really am prepared to dedicate my life, not to some physical task or to a predetermined set of externally measurable accomplishments, but to an idea. The idea that the world has so much potential, and that as individuals and as a whole we can reach it.


Then it occurred to me that maybe I was being a bit hard on realism. After all, it's always good to know what one can do in the here and now. With such large scale goals derived from idealism, it can be overwhelming sometimes, seeing the disconnect between the current reality and the "ideal" and trying to figure out how on Earth to go from one to the other. Seen in that light, realism means being able to tell what can be done now, and therefore can be useful in encouraging people to act rather than simply think about it. What I was wrong about was assuming that short-term actions necessarily reinforce "the way things are". In fact, if those short-term actions are in the spirit of an ideal, peace for example, then they are inherently valuable in and of themselves.

Perhaps both idealism and realism are needed in life. Too little realism, and one winds up living completely in their head, too confused to move towards their goals. Too little idealism, and one loses imagination and can only see a tiny portion of the possibilities. So, if I set my goals high as an idealist, then use a healthy dose of realism to figure out the more immediate steps to take, I guess that would make me a realistic idealist! That's something I'd like to work towards, I think.


How do other people define or think of realism and idealism? Which would you rather be, a realistic idealist, or an idealistic realist?