Choose one of the two lesser evils.

[QuickTwist]

You are put in the situation where you have to choose between being a universal realist or a pragmatic idealist.

What do you choose to identify yourself as?

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Please expand on what exactly you mean by these two things.

 

[QuickTwist]

Universal - grand, overarching, ultimate
Realist - rational, logical

Universal Realist - believe in absolute truth: there is/are a single law that governs the universe

Pragmatic - practical, sensible
idealist - potential, best, uncompromising

Pragmatic Idealist - believing in perfection of functionality: striving for the perfect way

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

How are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[QuickTwist]

How are the two mutually exclusive?

Someone has a gun to your head and demands that you are honest or they will blow your head to kingdom come.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

What if you believe you are both equally? Neither?

What if you being honest means calling out the gunman on the fact that he's actually just holding a water gun filled to the brim with the fallacy of false dichotomy?

 

[QuickTwist]

What if you believe you are both equally? Neither?

What if you being honest means calling out the gunman on the fact that he's actually just holding a water gun filled to the brim with the fallacy of false dichotomy?

You have to answer or God in all his glory will come down from heaven and cause death, destruction and pain in a way the universe has never known.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

That doesn't actually answer my question, you've just changed the "gunman".

The point still stands that being one of those things doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of being the other as well.

Besides the fact that god is holding a bazooka loaded with pestilence and strife to the world's head, why must I be no more or less than one and exactly only one of those things?

 

[QuickTwist]

That doesn't actually answer my question, you've just changed the "gunman".

You changed the gunman first.

Rules of conduct state that if there is an alteration in a specific of the hypothetical, more things regarding that may also change.

The point still stands that being one of those things doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of being the other as well.

One characteristic is dominant in your personality out of the two. Universal Realist only doesn't hold sway unless the way the Pragmatic Idealist has more than one law for the universe. Pragmatic Idealist only holds sway if the Universal Realist is wrong about more than one law governing the universe.

Besides the fact that god is holding a bazooka loaded with pestilence and strife to the world's head, why must I be no more or less than one and exactly only one of those things?

Correction: the gun is held to your head and when it goes off it means all these bad things will happen to life on this planet, which you will be responsible for, meaning you would be going to hell.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

You changed the gunman first.

No, I just told him I think his gun isn't loaded.

One characteristic is dominant in your personality out of the two. Universal Realist only doesn't hold sway unless the way the Pragmatic Idealist has more than one law for the universe. Pragmatic Idealist only holds sway if the Universal Realist is wrong about more than one law governing the universe.

How is it not possible to believe in absolute truth and also strive for perfection? These seem to me like two concepts which deal with things on entirely different scales.

Correction: the gun is held to your head and when it goes off it means all these bad things will happen to life on this planet, which you will be responsible for, meaning you would be going to hell.

Heaven seemed boring anyway. Shoot me. I dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker.

 

[QuickTwist]

No, I just told him I think his gun isn't loaded.



How is it not possible to believe in absolute truth and also strive for perfection? These seem to me like two concepts which deal with things on entirely different scales.



Heaven seemed boring anyway. Shoot me. I dare you, I double dare you, motherfucker.

If you ask for a clause and are given one, don't you think you should answer the question?

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

don't you think you should answer the question?

No, I hadn't planned on it.

I don't necessarily see myself as either of those two things.

Besides, I'm not sure what you mean by "ask for a clause and are given one." I don't feel like I've been given anything besides increasingly extreme ultimatums from god.

 

[QuickTwist]

No, I hadn't planned on it.

I don't necessarily see myself as either of those two things.

Besides, I'm not sure what you mean by "ask for a clause and are given one." I don't feel like I've been given anything besides increasingly extreme ultimatums from god.

Its a hypothetical. Are you saying you only inquire about any given hypothetical without participating?

clause
klôz/Submit
noun
1.
a unit of grammatical organization next below the sentence in rank and in traditional grammar said to consist of a subject and predicate.
2.
a particular and separate article, stipulation, or proviso in a treaty, bill, or contract.
synonyms: section, paragraph, article, subsection; More

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

Its a hypothetical. Are you saying you only inquire about any given hypothetical without participating?

I inquire about things that confuse/perturb me. I participate in things I find interesting/engaging.

I began confused and am now perturbed, so I have continued inquiring. I do not follow or fully understand the decision as it has been presented to me thus it doesn't engage me and I have refrained from participating. It is my hope that I can come to understand it and find it engaging, but up to now it feels a lot like I've been given very little reason to choose between two things I neither am nor find to be all that different (in the sense that neither one excludes the other).

Thanks for posting the definition of clause, it was a massive help. That said, I don't believed I ever asked for any sort of addendum to your hypothetical, merely to understand your line of thinking which led you to ponder these two concepts as being opposed to each other.

 

[QuickTwist]

I inquire about things that confuse/perturb me. I participate in things I find interesting/engaging.

I began confused and am now perturbed, so I have continued inquiring. I do not follow or fully understand the decision as it has been presented to me thus it doesn't engage me and I have refrained from participating. It is my hope that I can come to understand it and find it engaging, but up to now it feels a lot like I've been given very little reason to choose between two things I neither am nor find to be all that different (in the sense that neither one excludes the other).

Thanks for posting the definition of clause, it was a massive help. That said, I don't believed I ever asked for any sort of addendum to your hypothetical, merely to understand your line of thinking which led you to ponder these two concepts as being opposed to each other.

If I don't know why or why not you would or wouldn't do something, yet you inquire about a premise, giving the impression you were interested in a discussion resulting from a choice I can only think reasonably that you are looking to gain information in answering the hypothetical, or in the case you don't make a choice, it leaves no meaningful conversation transpiring between yourself and me since the structure of stipulations may have/had changed given that a different person answer or at least inquire about the premise. If you wish not to participate, stop participating.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

I didn't ask about a premise. I wasn't trying to ask for a motivation to make this choice, I was asking for you to explain why you find these to be distinct, exclusive choices.

So far (from my perspective, of course) it seems like the question you've posed makes just as much sense as if I were to ask you "Are you a christian or a states' rights advocate? Choose quickly and choose only one, or I'll blow your head off." To which you would be very justified in asking "why does one preclude the other?"

Granted, this is from my perspective. I really do feel like you know what you mean and are trying to say and we just seem to be having an error in communication.

 

[NewInternet]

I feel like someone is asking me if I like more to eat cherry pie or take power naps.

 

[kora]

I am a pragmatic idealist, my idealism includes universal realism , as in, this is the best possible outcome that the world be entirely explainable and I strive towards explaining it perfectly.

 

[Seteleechete]

Both "idealist" and "universal" have the idea of absolutes in them something I don't really agree with. It really is trying to choose the lesser of two evils, sigh. Mind you also I wonder if not "universal" and "realist" is contradictory.

 

[Jennywocky]

The fundamental language of the question is a problem here.

I think I'm going to eat some cherry pie and take a power nap while we figure this out.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I'll be a pragmatic realist and I'll daydream about taking a power nap and eating cherry pie. This will be the most idealised universally evil non-event ever.

 

[QuickTwist]

Both "idealist" and "universal" have the idea of absolutes in them something I don't really agree with. It really is trying to choose the lesser of two evils, sigh. Mind you also I wonder if not "universal" and "realist" is contradictory.

Perhaps so, but one has to do with how one conducts one's like while the other sacrifices that for something bigger than themselves so to speak.

I also might be so bold as to say I took part of the idea of Universal Realist from the book psychological types by Jung.

 

[Cipher]

The pragmatic idealist type seems to more closely resemble myself. And I like being myself.

However, I do believe in absolute truth. I just wouldn't rub it in everyone's face.

 

[QuickTwist]

The pragmatic idealist type seems to more closely resemble myself. And I like being myself.

you will still be yourself if you choose Universal Idealism, its just that you will not be striving toward perfection so to speak.

 

[QuickTwist]

The fundamental language of the question is a problem here.

I think I'm going to eat some cherry pie and take a power nap while we figure this out.

You mean English? I don't get what you mean.

 

[Nofriends]

So 5 of the voters should be killed.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Universal realism works best, but only in theory...

 

[gilliatt]

First thing, there is a matter of terminology that needs to be explained. The form and the real?
Now, where does knowledge come from? Its a epistemological problem. Maybe like Gilbert and Sullivan Englishman who is born either a Liberal or a Conservative, one has remarked that everyone is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian. It is two different attitudes toward the world. Some want an utopian/perfect solution that can never be realized in the world. Aristotle was practical and empirical. To Aristotle, the forms are abstractions and this is individual things-particular men, plants, rocks and animals, "substances." Individual substances. And all these particular things in reality share properties with other particulars/objects.
Let's say 'Universal realism'. What is it? Can you name the things individuality? No, it is not a horse or man. What class is it in? Its 'whatness', thisness.'
My interest is not with things as they are, but with things as they might be and ought to be. And recognize the principle that man possesses the faculty of volition.
Evil: Objectivist ethics- the standard by which one judges what is good or evil--is man's life, or that which is required for man's survival qua man. Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good, that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.
Objective Reality: 'Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.' 'Wishing won't make it so.'
There is a sense of apparent dishonesty to the question. The question needs to be something that can be talked about, substance.

 

[Seteleechete]

I could choose to identify as either of them but both choices would be lies, making the use of the answer as a point of reference towards myself a moot(not to mention false) point.

And I would see God strike the world down before I adopted a forcible personality change towards either of those choices.

And in the off case that I had to choose to have my personality forcibly changed to either of those I would pick pragmatic idealist because it would have the least of what I see as a "negative" affect on my personality. A pragmatic choice if I say so myself.

Also, the answer as to which choice currently most closely resembles me is close enough that the exact details of how the ramifications of both statements on a host of issues matter enough for a closest choice to be made, one way or another.(I need much more detail for a choice to be accurately made).

 

[Terran]

You mean English? I don't get what you mean.

*S*he means it is a confusing and vague question due to both linguistic ambiguity and the lack of context. You can be either where appropriate. I mean just because you think communism, for example, is the best political system, doesn't mean it is best for a first world, tertiary job based country in Europe for instance.
Besides, it doesn't really matter what you believe in, if you follow logic you don't need to have any fixed ideology or outlook.

And most importantly, the extent of which you can follow the two is enormous, it can be the difference between being incredibly single minded and extremist, and a full fledged conservative.

 

[Frankie]

I wonder what practical value the answer would have in everyday life...

 

[Seteleechete]

I wonder what practical value the answer would have in everyday life...

It depends on how seriously you take the question, obviously if you don't consider the question and it's implications while comparing to yourself it's not going to do anything. Because the purpose off these types of questions is rarely the answer, the purpose is commiting to the process of reasoning that gets you an answer. I.e a tool to facilitate self-reflection and critical thinking.


Now the question of how self reflection is beneficial is also an interesting topic but one I am to tired to explore adequately atm.

 

[QuickTwist]

He means it is a confusing and vague question due to both linguistic ambiguity and the lack of context. You can be either where appropriate. I mean just because you think communism, for example, is the best political system, doesn't mean it is best for a first world, tertiary job based country in Europe for instance.
Besides, it doesn't really matter what you believe in, if you follow logic you don't need to have any fixed ideology or outlook.

And most importantly, the extent of which you can follow the two is enormous, it can be the difference between being incredibly single minded and extremist, and a full fledged conservative.

Jenny is a woman..

Unfortunately no one is such a robot that they have no irrational beliefs.

 

[Terran]

Unfortunately no one is such a robot that they have no irrational beliefs.

Ahem

No but my point is that although some may hold beliefs, you don't really have to pick between the two options you offered, you could be very much in the middle, or practice both where appropriate. I mean I get what you mean, but I just don't agree with picking and living by a fixed ideology.

 

[gilliatt]

Let's say reason versus mysticism or freedom versus slavery or progress versus stagnant or consciousness versus unconsciousness.
Reason, the method which reason employs in the process of logic-logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. Now mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason.
Pragmatism, Logical Positivism and all these other neo-mystics philosophies grew out of Kant. 'You cannot prove that you exist.' Such nonsense. Kant was a religious fanatic. Kant is the whole altruist morality of Soviet Russia. Kant-'self-interest is evil'. I don't agree! with Kant.
To this day, people still do not understand the Industrial Revolution, of the United States and of capitalism. The creative energy, the abundance, the wealth, the rising of the standard of living for every level of the population, like the 1900's century. Like a Utopia, a burst of sunlight in human history.

 

[Terran]

Let's say reason versus mysticism or freedom versus slavery or progress versus stagnant or consciousness versus unconsciousness.
Reason, the method which reason employs in the process of logic-logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. Now mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason.
Pragmatism, Logical Positivism and all these other neo-mystics philosophies grew out of Kant. 'You cannot prove that you exist.' Such nonsense. Kant was a religious fanatic. Kant is the whole altruist morality of Soviet Russia. Kant-'self-interest is evil'. I don't agree! with Kant.
To this day, people still do not understand the Industrial Revolution, of the United States and of capitalism. The creative energy, the abundance, the wealth, the rising of the standard of living for every level of the population, like the 1900's century. Like a Utopia, a burst of sunlight in human history.

Hmm, ironically the rise of major commerce and industrialization in England was one of the best things that ever happened to class division, establishing a middle class and creating thousands of what would later be fair pay jobs.
I certainly wouldn't call it utopian or 'a burst of sunlight' though, maybe objectively, but not if you were a cripple, or just born into poverty. Fortunately what later happened in the UK with the rise of unions, workers rights, and social democracy meant that that was no longer the case.

 

[Brontosaurie]

How are the two mutually exclusive?

Ordering two main courses will have you perceived as a glutton. It's inappropriate. You'll have to choose one.

I'm a pragmatic idealist, so it'd be dishonest of me to pick universal realism. That's not to say universal realism is wrong. Just not my thing.