Ideals are a very difficult subject for the philosopher. For one thing, an ideal should be something which is believed in. Another defining trait of an ideal is that ideals are believed to be perfect, or at least excellent. As soon as we try to expand on this, our difficulties begin. We may say the wise ought to measure excellence and perfection, but this leads to contradiction since wisdom is ultimately undefined, and therefore doesn't explicitly exist. If we concede that there is such a thing as wisdom, then we must acknowledge the objectivity and deny the subjectivity of ideals according to the above proposed definition. Personally, I believe there is such a thing as wisdom, although much of what passes as wisdom is ultimately and actually folly. My greatest uncertainty lies not in the existence of ideals, since I think curiosity and dialog will ultimately result in ultimate wisdom and therefore in agreement on the nature of perfection, but rather it lies in trying to comprehend which ideals are ideal. I have been told by many agnostics that reason is ideal and faith is terrible. I have been told by many socialists that socialism is ideal and capitalism is terrible. I have been told by many anarchists that anarchism is ideal and socialism is terrible. For the most part, my curiosity has led to doubtfulness. The only things which have survived my curious survey and my methodological doubt are these: one ought to be curious and peaceful, and one ought to teach others the value of these virtues. What do you guys think? What are your ideals? Why do you believe in them? Do you think you are wrong, or do you know that your ideals are ideal?
I feel the ideal I have always had, to some extent very strongly, is to know and manifest who I really am. In doing this, I put myself into alignment with the Universe that allows me to see and experience more of 'all that is'. Nothing else is needed really. Whatever my imagination can come up with, whatever my highest ideas or goals might have been over the years, they aren't held onto, other than having the intention to realise and express what most excites me, brings me joy, and to be the person i prefer to be. I'm not saying I'm there yet - but that's the beauty of existence. I exist, always have done, always will do. There's no hurry to do anything sooner than i'm able to.
in my opinion ideals are subjective.... one ideal cannot be "better" than another from a completely objective perspective...
This sounds like laziness and a lot of pensiveness brought about through getting high. You don't seem to have any profound ambitions. Hopefully this is not an insult. According to my line of argument, you can only vindicate your belief in the subjectivity of perfection by denying the existence of human wisdom.
Should madmen and murderers be allowed total freedom? Or can we justly refuse to tolerate those who antagonize the freedom of the majority?
It's hard for me to say.. I know their are objective facts, but I feel wisdom is mainly subjective opinion/interpretation of facts. I guess I'd say ideals are subjective also, unless we're talking about nature in its entirety because nature is objectively ideal in our favor to live.
More specifically Proprietarian libertarianism. If your actions breach the non-aggression principle then you should be punished accordingly. Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Noam Chomsky and Bertrand Russell taught me that only a system of anarchism which prevents tyrannies from tyrannizing its freedom is ideal.
I think nature is flawed and inflicts harm upon us. I believe we must stop aging and stop reproducing. We must leave planet Earth in peace until we have wisdom which we can bring to Earth's aid. I tend to think transhumanist principles of biological engineering are desirable on the grounds that they may alleviate natural suffering.
Nature is perfectly imperfect. Idealism is in the harmony. Flaws are left to human interpretation. Nature just flows. Perfectly.
this sounds like Hegel's contention that, whatever is is rational. I do not agree that nature is perfect judged from the human mind.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying nature's ideals are also a human construct? I suppose I'd agree, but that doesn't erase its objectivity.. which is why I think nature is the only objective source of wisdom. All other wisdom is subjective imo.
Whether or not freedom is systematically challenged by tyrants is irrelevant. It is up to the people to preserve and protect their freedoms. Though, I would like to hear you elaborate on your concept of anarchism.
I'm denying that nature has ideals. I do not perceive any unity of plan or grand purpose in the universe. What I'm asserting is that nature comes and mankind judges it. On the basis that the vast majority of mankind judges parts of nature to be evil, nature is fundamentally flawed by our standards. I think it is self-defeating to accept whatever natural events will occur and to take a passive attitude.
I'm not saying it has a grand purpose or plan.. I'm saying our perception relies on natures perfect laws, that are in unison consistently for us to keep experiencing it. To me, that is objectively ideal for all of our survival, but I realise that's just my subjective interpretation. I'm not sure where the passive attitude comment came from but I agree. I embrace natures properties as necessary for my survival. Not passive in the least.. I'm actually grateful for its consistentsy so I can keep experiencing it.
I would also assert everything everyone does is done to attain happiness. It's not so much an ideal as much as it is an unwavering fact of human life. With that being said there is then not "true" altruism- the zoological definition aside. I guess I view ideals as a way to achieve individual happiness (ie: ideals are indeed subjective and human wisdom is invariably true.) There is no objective way to attain collective individual happiness without imposing some extremely Utopian stipulations (ie: everyone was filthy rich.)
All citizens are also tyrants on a small scale. It is the duty of all people, including the corrupt and self-seeking, to uphold justice and promote freedom. If any of them succeed, so much the better. My first taste of anarchism came from reading a wikipedia page about Michel Bakunin. This curiosity about Bakunin was roused when I discovered his name and was induced by my stubborn 9th grade history teacher who refused to answer my difficult questions about the flaws and perfections of Marxian socialism. I had hoped that, in his 50s, his wisdom could dispel my doubts, but as I was to see, certainty was the most difficult thing to come by. In all my researches, I discovered certain principles which I was never able to refute. I'll share some of my insights, though, in no way do I wish to assert these insights are the ultimate political ideals. There are merely the things which I have come to regard as most reliable given I haven't found any evidence against them. I won't give them all away in their purest form because I have to publish books containing refined versions of these ideas one day.