Idealism: Man's Greatest Threat

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi

I have wanted to read mein kempf,, i have heard it is quite brilliant,,, and not all about barbarically wanting to kill jews.,.,,.,.,.

it wasnt about comparing to one jew he held in his mind,, are you serious,, thats you generalizing,.,.he really just didnt like them,, or want them to exist,,, he was being the lion of his jungle of germany,.,.,. he was acting out the will of nature ( his nature),.,. you have some idealism that all humans should get along and live in peace?

his aims were materialistic as well,, he thought the jews were taking away jobs and money,, he promised the german people, that germanies germans would prosper with all the jews gone,..,,.
i am not sympathizing,,, throughout history groups of people have held other groups of people in lower regard,,, from slaves,, to caste systems,, to class systems,,.,

But why didn't he like them? Read the link I posted about his views of the Jews, which he didn't derive from his own experience, but from the abstract ideas of others. His idea about the jews grew into hate, which is completely idealistic. It makes me wonder if he ever approached a real Jew at all.

I found Mein Kempf the ramblings of an insane idealist.

ok,, yea yea,,, he was crazy, an idiot,, he didnt need to do what he did or wanted to do,, and neither does anyone else ever..,...,.

but for me to ask you and expect an answer,.,.,. how should the world be? what should and shouldnt man be allowed to do? why should we do what we should do? your answer will be your own ideal no?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi

I have wanted to read mein kempf,, i have heard it is quite brilliant,,, and not all about barbarically wanting to kill jews.,.,,.,.,.

it wasnt about comparing to one jew he held in his mind,, are you serious,, thats you generalizing,.,.he really just didnt like them,, or want them to exist,,, he was being the lion of his jungle of germany,.,.,. he was acting out the will of nature ( his nature),.,. you have some idealism that all humans should get along and live in peace?

his aims were materialistic as well,, he thought the jews were taking away jobs and money,, he promised the german people, that germanies germans would prosper with all the jews gone,..,,.
i am not sympathizing,,, throughout history groups of people have held other groups of people in lower regard,,, from slaves,, to caste systems,, to class systems,,.,

But why didn't he like them? Read the link I posted about his views of the Jews, which he didn't derive from his own experience, but from the abstract ideas of others. His idea about the jews grew into hate, which is completely idealistic. It makes me wonder if he ever approached a real Jew at all.

I found Mein Kempf the ramblings of an insane idealist.

ok,, yea yea,,, he was crazy, an idiot,, he didnt need to do what he did or wanted to do,, and neither does anyone else ever..,...,.

but for me to ask you and expect an answer,.,.,. how should the world be? what should and shouldnt man be allowed to do? why should we do what we should do? your answer will be your own ideal no?

Yes it would. And I'm glad you point that out. I can't tell others how to live. I can only relay my own experiences, point to real examples and provide my own insight on the topic. If anyone heeds my warnings, they will consider my doctrines such an ideal, and will hopefully realize that my abstractions of reality have nothing to do with their own. Thus they should form their own ideal based on their own experiences, not mine or anyone else's.

I must run. I will be back later to reply further. Thank you for your insights Fungi.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi

I have wanted to read mein kempf,, i have heard it is quite brilliant,,, and not all about barbarically wanting to kill jews.,.,,.,.,.

it wasnt about comparing to one jew he held in his mind,, are you serious,, thats you generalizing,.,.he really just didnt like them,, or want them to exist,,, he was being the lion of his jungle of germany,.,.,. he was acting out the will of nature ( his nature),.,. you have some idealism that all humans should get along and live in peace?

his aims were materialistic as well,, he thought the jews were taking away jobs and money,, he promised the german people, that germanies germans would prosper with all the jews gone,..,,.
i am not sympathizing,,, throughout history groups of people have held other groups of people in lower regard,,, from slaves,, to caste systems,, to class systems,,.,

But why didn't he like them? Read the link I posted about his views of the Jews, which he didn't derive from his own experience, but from the abstract ideas of others. His idea about the jews grew into hate, which is completely idealistic. It makes me wonder if he ever approached a real Jew at all.

I found Mein Kempf the ramblings of an insane idealist.

ok,, yea yea,,, he was crazy, an idiot,, he didnt need to do what he did or wanted to do,, and neither does anyone else ever..,...,.

but for me to ask you and expect an answer,.,.,. how should the world be? what should and shouldnt man be allowed to do? why should we do what we should do? your answer will be your own ideal no?

Yes it would. And I'm glad you point that out. I can't tell others how to live. I can only relay my own experiences, point to real examples and provide my own insight on the topic. If anyone heeds my warnings, they will consider my doctrines such an ideal, and will hopefully realize that my abstractions of reality have nothing to do with their own. Thus they should form their own ideal based on their own experiences, not mine or anyone else's.

I must run. I will be back later to reply further. Thank you for your insights Fungi.

no prob,, thanks for the chat!

" If anyone heeds my warnings, they will consider my doctrines such an ideal, and will hopefully realize that my abstractions of reality have nothing to do with their own. Thus they should form their own ideal based on their own experiences, not mine or anyone else's."

now that you realized this,,.,. you can also realize that between humans there are many similarities,,,, all humans do live on the same earth in the same universe,,, and it is true,,, there is one reality we share,,,, so it makes sense that there can be specific ideals which resonate or are obvious to all people,,,,, so you dont have to go to the extreme of everyone being skeptical of everyone else,, although that is a good thing to do,, and one should do this,,,, but there are compromises we can accept such as the law for millennia has been do not kill,.,. this is intuitive,, and an ideal any rational man will see no problem with agreeing with and obeying,.,.
and then this leads back to humanity constructing a specific idealism,, which you dislike,..,,.,

that was quite insightful and eerily intriguing as i just finished writing a rough draft that presents all of the ideals that seem "good" for humanity that i have felt and heard from myself and my peers. i dont think it is the greatest threat, however, to mankind. it really depends on the individual. if they have "evil" ideals, even if they don't try to push them on others then that is not good. if they have "good" ideals, but fervently push them upon others or use them as an excuse to commit "evil" acts than that is even worse. the worst threat to mankind is cruelty, and the second worse is lack of compassion or empathy.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


ok another point i think i picked up from your initial idea,.,.,. triggered with your homeless man statement,,

basically why you feel strong against idealism,, is the irrationality of subjective, superficial, biased, beliefs,..,.,

you believe things like racism,, or religious battles,,, or hitleresqueness,, or class battles,,, can be avoided by understanding that those words that describe differences in people,, are created concepts,,, the differences exist,,, but how people perceive the differences are up to the person,,, and there is nothing stopping a person from being a racist,, but nothing really causing that person to be a racist either,.,.,.

it kind of has to do with stepping in another shoes,,, and seeing that human beings always have more in common then differences,,, but since we are all on the same playing field,, of playing as human,.,.,. then it is easy to pick out the differences,,, and have an outlook on life that guides one by this perception of different humans.,,.,. but then again there is a difference in humans and a large difference in what a human can do with their time,, and life is not easy, and life doesnt happen for you ,,,, people spend every day of their lives working their butts off to make a difference in the world and their lives,,, and if they have to point to the heroin addict on the street as motivation,,, and if there is a difference between those two humans,,, it is acceptable to note it and use it.,,..

when i went to get my cat a treat,,,, he recognizes when i open the jar the treats are in,, that hes getting a treat,,, and his eyes grow wide, and his day is now being made,.,.,. by observing this,, i realize that getting an occasional treat is the high point of this cats life,..,,. it hangs around,, has no idea what anything is,,, deals with it,,., eats, sleeps, lounges,, gets petted,.,. i have no idea whats going through its head at any moment,,, but when i open that jar,,, i know it is a great big deal to him,., ,.,. this reminded me of putting yourself in anothers shoes.,.,. about the homeless scenario,.,.,.,. if you see a homeless kid on the street,,, you dont know what that kid went through,,, the dollar you give him could be a high point in his week,.,.,. while your life has many high points every day,,, all significantly greater and of different standards and value then receiving a dollar.,,. and then this leads to nesscity,,, and an agreement on whats most important to all people ,.,. it is a waste of time and energy fighting over whose idealized religion is right,,, when both parties are human,, and there are other humans who are homeless and starving on the street.,.,,.

this is what i got out of it at least.,.,,.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


I agree with most of what you said. I can't add anything to that with which I agree; You have described the situation well.

What I don't agree with is this: I don't see Idealism and Spirituality linked. In fact I hold the opposite point of view. I see Spirituality as the counter to the dangers of Idealism, in my case at least. You see I have never succumbed to an Idealistic point of view. Idealists like to believe that everything they do is for a greater purpose. In fact the truth is what they do only benefits them self and their faction. True Spirituality takes a course of action that is without bias, without preconceived goals and strives to be beneficial to a great majority of circumstances. This is in direct opposition to the tenants of an Ideal which seeks to benefit only the Ideal that is being expressed. Idealism could be said to be selfishness at its finest.

That is all I have to add right now. Once again, fine post. It does speak to many ugly truths at the core of an Idealistic point of view. Sadly, the Idealists will never see it this way.

This is somewhat true, but to the extent that spirituality is linked with idealism, not so much. Religion linked idealism, yes so much. Spiritualism is constantly evolving and changing, it is not something that has a fixed ideal. Something like religion which has a fixed ideal on how to get here and there. Agreed to the fact upon that idealism is certainly very harmful to mankind's natural way of thought and life. When we program these ideals into our minds and daily life. We continue to create unhappiness in our selves. Taking a look at a child or a baby, we see that they have no ideals about anything. They just freely play and laugh with each other, we have a lot to learn or shall I say unlearn with a child. Becoming a child once again, we can definitely allow a more happy humanity. For they have no ideals at all.

Originally posted by My_Reality
What I don't agree with is this: I don't see Idealism and Spirituality linked. In fact I hold the opposite point of view. I see Spirituality as the counter to the dangers of Idealism, in my case at least. You see I have never succumbed to an Idealistic point of view. Idealists like to believe that everything they do is for a greater purpose. In fact the truth is what they do only benefits them self and their faction. True Spirituality takes a course of action that is without bias, without preconceived goals and strives to be beneficial to a great majority of circumstances. This is in direct opposition to the tenants of an Ideal which seeks to benefit only the Ideal that is being expressed. Idealism could be said to be selfishness at its finest.

spiritualism |ˈspiri ch oōəˌlizəm|
noun
1 a system of belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead, esp. through mediums.
2 Philosophy the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

spiritual |ˈspiri ch oōəl|
adjective
1 of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things : I'm responsible for his spiritual welfare | the spiritual values of life.
• (of a person) not concerned with material values or pursuits.
2 of or relating to religion or religious belief : Iran's spiritual leader.

I did lump spirituality in with idealism as it is indeed a form of self-idealism. Once our thoughts, or memory—what others call their spirit or their soul, mere ideals of oneself—takes precedence over the physical aspects of ourselves and our real existence, it becomes a form of self-tyranny. It is self-abstraction. It is a playground for our minds while our bodies sit there waiting for us to return.

I think these days, spiritually gets mistaken for contemplation, which is very important. Through contemplation, one can realize many things, that his ideals and abstractions are just that—ideals and abstractions. Once this honesty with oneself is achieved, spirituality no longer becomes spirituality, but self-mastery and self-betterment, merely by including not only the mindful parts of the body, but the physical parts as well.

Thanks for the great reply.

Originally posted by SparkOfSparks6
This is somewhat true, but to the extent that spirituality is linked with idealism, not so much. Religion linked idealism, yes so much. Spiritualism is constantly evolving and changing, it is not something that has a fixed ideal. Something like religion which has a fixed ideal on how to get here and there. Agreed to the fact upon that idealism is certainly very harmful to mankind's natural way of thought and life. When we program these ideals into our minds and daily life. We continue to create unhappiness in our selves. Taking a look at a child or a baby, we see that they have no ideals about anything. They just freely play and laugh with each other, we have a lot to learn or shall I say unlearn with a child. Becoming a child once again, we can definitely allow a more happy humanity. For they have no ideals at all.

Refer to the philosophical definition of idealism I originally posted. Spirituality is indeed idealistic if it concerns itself solely with the betterment of self-abstractions such as the soul or spirit, usually at the expense of the physical aspects of the body. The soul and spirit are abstract ideals of our own selves. It is indeed against the grain of me to mention spirituality in such a negative light, but only because we've been taught to respect such forms of idealism.

On the other hand, thinking and contemplation are an important part of life; and if one thinks deep enough and reaches fundamental truths about himself in his entirety and not just his 'soul' or 'spirit', he goes beyond spiritualism and enters a realm few have reached.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
basically why you feel strong against idealism,, is the irrationality of subjective, superficial, biased, beliefs,..,.,

Yes, that is the crux of the problem, and idealism in a nutshell.

you believe things like racism,, or religious battles,,, or hitleresqueness,, or class battles,,, can be avoided by understanding that those words that describe differences in people,, are created concepts,,, the differences exist,,, but how people perceive the differences are up to the person,,, and there is nothing stopping a person from being a racist,, but nothing really causing that person to be a racist either,.,.,.

In a sense. Their ideals and the ideals of others are causing them to be racist. If a white supremacist grows up in a strictly white area, and is taught and indoctrinated into racism, the very first black man he comes across will be instantly abstracted not into a real person, but into the ideal he's held onto about black people. His conclusions are not derived from his own experiences, which are real, but the idealisms of his parents and culture, which are not real. But if he was to have countless bad experiences with black people, and learned that whenever he comes across a black person he usually had a bad experience, he may have reason to logically judge black people. If he's really smart however, he won't blame the color of their skin, which is superficial, but he'd blame their idealistic tendencies.

it kind of has to do with stepping in another shoes,,, and seeing that human beings always have more in common then differences,,, but since we are all on the same playing field,, of playing as human,.,.,. then it is easy to pick out the differences,,, and have an outlook on life that guides one by this perception of different humans.,,.,. but then again there is a difference in humans and a large difference in what a human can do with their time,, and life is not easy, and life doesnt happen for you ,,,, people spend every day of their lives working their butts off to make a difference in the world and their lives,,, and if they have to point to the heroin addict on the street as motivation,,, and if there is a difference between those two humans,,, it is acceptable to note it and use it.,,..

You are right, but those conclusions are based on experience. The experience, which is real, takes precedence in that case. The ideal, which is an abstraction, is used as a meaningful tool rather than fact.

when i went to get my cat a treat,,,, he recognizes when i open the jar the treats are in,, that hes getting a treat,,, and his eyes grow wide, and his day is now being made,.,.,. by observing this,, i realize that getting an occasional treat is the high point of this cats life,..,,. it hangs around,, has no idea what anything is,,, deals with it,,., eats, sleeps, lounges,, gets petted,.,. i have no idea whats going through its head at any moment,,, but when i open that jar,,, i know it is a great big deal to him,., ,.,. this reminded me of putting yourself in anothers shoes.,.,. about the homeless scenario,.,.,.,. if you see a homeless kid on the street,,, you dont know what that kid went through,,, the dollar you give him could be a high point in his week,.,.,. while your life has many high points every day,,, all significantly greater and of different standards and value then receiving a dollar.,,. and then this leads to nesscity,,, and an agreement on whats most important to all people ,.,. it is a waste of time and energy fighting over whose idealized religion is right,,, when both parties are human,, and there are other humans who are homeless and starving on the street.,.,,.

this is what i got out of it at least.,.,,.

Yes sir.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
We get a paradoxical and dangerous philosophical outlook of reality—Idealism.

Danger? Yes please. After all, what is life without danger?

"Nothing short of everything will really do" -Aldous Huxley

Paradox? Sure! Why shouldn't paradox be? No reason to sweep paradox under the rug. Dance with it!

"The truth often sounds paradoxical" -Lao Tzu

I think I fundamentally agree with you OP however I would like to ask with regards to spirituality that gets more than a mention in your OP. It seems to me that you are some what biased against spirituality in this question. What about mentioning those who idealizes science, their country, them selves, logic or any other thing.

I personally do not believe that spiritualism is the problem but rather the idea that something has to be superior to another as supposed to just different and we ourselves as individuals might perhaps need to learn to make the judgement based on what outcome we wish to achieve as opposed to what someone else tells us we should want.

Personally I hold fast to that it is all about context some context might call for a more spiritual approach some for a more practical and so on. Not everything warrants a scientific study to back it up in order for it to have it's uses in a person or several persons lives.

But maybe I am getting you wrong and you are in fact saying that placing yourself above another based on a disagreement of fundamental believes regardless of what those believes are is not OK and that that idea itself is the greatest threat to man, In which case I am in agreement that it causes a lot of unnecessary conflict and harm.

I wonder where you place persons who are convinced that the mind can heal the body, or those who believe love is the fundamental principle of life, or those who believe your mind entirely determines your experience in all of this . Are they the idealists that you feel are threatening man kind? Or is there another criteria that one have to full fill in order to be of the offending mindset?

Look forward to your response and apologize if the questions have already been answered.

love and light

Originally posted by IAmD1
I think I fundamentally agree with you OP however I would like to ask with regards to spirituality that gets more than a mention in your OP. It seems to me that you are some what biased against spirituality in this question. What about mentioning those who idealizes science, their country, them selves, logic or any other thing.

I personally do not believe that spiritualism is the problem but rather the idea that something has to be superior to another as supposed to just different and we ourselves as individuals might perhaps need to learn to make the judgement based on what outcome we wish to achieve as opposed to what someone else tells us we should want.

Personally I hold fast to that it is all about context some context might call for a more spiritual approach some for a more practical and so on. Not everything warrants a scientific study to back it up in order for it to have it's uses in a person or several persons lives.

But maybe I am getting you wrong and you are in fact saying that placing yourself above another based on a disagreement of fundamental believes regardless of what those believes are is not OK and that that idea itself is the greatest threat to man, In which case I am in agreement that it causes a lot of unnecessary conflict and harm.

I wonder where you place persons who are convinced that the mind can heal the body, or those who believe love is the fundamental principle of life, or those who believe your mind entirely determines your experience in all of this . Are they the idealists that you feel are threatening man kind? Or is there another criteria that one have to full fill in order to be of the offending mindset?

Look forward to your response and apologize if the questions have already been answered.

love and light

I am indeed being biased against all idealism, which spirituality is a part of, hence the title of this thread.

I mentioned spirituality merely because it concerns one too much with the spirit or soul rather than the entirety of the body. The spirit or soul is an ideal or abstraction of the self. I mentioned earlier it is a form of self-tyranny. I don't say this to be rude, as I used to be spiritual myself, and it was a key part of my philosophical development.

This is the definition I am referring to:

spiritual |ˈspiri ch oōəl|
adjective
1 of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things : I'm responsible for his spiritual welfare | the spiritual values of life.
• (of a person) not concerned with material values or pursuits.
2 of or relating to religion or religious belief : Iran's spiritual leader.

Now whether the soul or spirit exists or not is a debate for another thread, but concerning oneself with these rather than the 'material' world, is dangerous.

For example: Ghandi was purported to sleep naked with his pre-teen grand-niece to 'test his spirituality.' This to me seems dangerous, and no one questioned his motives any further out of respect for his spirituality—or in other words, out of respect for his pondering the spiritual world. This is not a good enough reason to put a young child in this position. He said this:

''If I don't let Manu (his grand-niece) sleep with me, though I regard it as essential that she should, wouldn't that be a sign of weakness in me?''
From My Days with Ghandi

Mother Teresa, blinded by her own spirituality, thought suffering would bring people closer to Jesus. This shows that her spirituality, which she should have kept to herself, affected the health and well-being of others.

People can self-tyrannize over their own bodies as much as they want, but when it breaches the mind and starts to affect people or things in the physical world, ie. Ghandi's grand-neice and the suffering patients dying under Mother Teresa's care, it becomes overly dangerous.

Science can be idealized, ie. for political reasons, religious reasons etc. but science itself is a tool and it is concerned with real things rather than contrived planes of existence such as the spirit world or pure consciousness or what have you.

Logic is a tool. It's only purpose is to police language and mathematics (both tools) by pointing out contradictions, fallacies etc. I'm not sure if it can become idealized and manifest itself negatively, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Thanks for the questions.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
I am indeed being biased against all idealism, which spirituality is a part of, hence the title of this thread.

I mentioned spirituality merely because it concerns one too much with the spirit or soul rather than the entirety of the body. The spirit or soul is an ideal or abstraction of the self. I mentioned earlier it is a form of self-tyranny. I don't say this to be rude, as I used to be spiritual myself, and it was a key part of my philosophical development.

This is the definition I am referring to:

spiritual |ˈspiri ch oōəl|
adjective
1 of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things : I'm responsible for his spiritual welfare | the spiritual values of life.
• (of a person) not concerned with material values or pursuits.
2 of or relating to religion or religious belief : Iran's spiritual leader.

Now whether the soul or spirit exists or not is a debate for another thread, but concerning oneself with these rather than the 'material' world, is dangerous.

For example: Ghandi was purported to sleep naked with his pre-teen grand-niece to 'test his spirituality.' This to me seems dangerous, and no one questioned his motives any further out of respect for his spirituality—or in other words, out of respect for his pondering the spiritual world. This is not a good enough reason to put a young child in this position. He said this:

''If I don't let Manu (his grand-niece) sleep with me, though I regard it as essential that she should, wouldn't that be a sign of weakness in me?''
From My Days with Ghandi

Mother Teresa, blinded by her own spirituality, thought suffering would bring people closer to Jesus. This shows that her spirituality, which she should have kept to herself, affected the health and well-being of others.

People can self-tyrannize over their own bodies as much as they want, but when it breaches the mind and starts to affect people or things in the physical world, ie. Ghandi's grand-neice and the suffering patients dying under Mother Teresa's care, it becomes overly dangerous.

Science can be idealized, ie. for political reasons, religious reasons etc. but science itself is a tool and it is concerned with real things rather than contrived planes of existence such as the spirit world or pure consciousness or what have you.

Logic is a tool. It's only purpose is to police language and mathematics (both tools) by pointing out contradictions, fallacies etc. I'm not sure if it can become idealized and manifest itself negatively, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Thanks for the questions.

I just want to remind you that there are more than a number of atrocious things that have been done in the name of being scientific. Some which have harmed more than a few people too and we are still seeing the effects of today. I am sure I don't have to literally point those out to you.

Whilst i agree with you that some of the conducts listed above in the name of spirituality can be questioned. I personally reserve any judgement on either mother Theresa's beliefs or Ghandi's idea about testing his spiritualism. Since I have no way of asking them or interacting with them in person I can only take someone elses word for what they actually ment by what they said and did.

Spiritualism fundamentally is also a tool first and foremost. It is a tool to quieten the active mind down both as a means of reducing stress on the over all system but also as a way of letting the mind digest, sort and store experiences without the interference of our conscious ego judgement.

The 'ego' as i hope you will agree is the part of the mind being the most prone to idealize rather than accept.

Which ever spiritualism one chooses to read on the central message seems to be one of allowing for unknowns to be as is, taking to heart that we can not steer all events and instead should accept reality.

The problem in my opinion is that this message is gravely misunderstood by those who follow, and equally gravely misused by those in power. So I maintain that to my understanding the problem is not whether one is spiritual or scientific but rather the way in which these tools are misunderstood and idealized. My preference is for a balance in all things so that we use these tools within their correct context. I.e spirituality to balance the spirit/emotional part of mind, scientific to balance the reason/thinking part of mind and indeed physical movement to balance the physical body part of mind.

If we can do this and discard of ideas that doing one or the other excessively even if it is well forfeiting the others in the process somehow makes us superior beings then perhaps we have reached a point where humanity can advance beyond mindless acts of violence.

What are your thoughts?

And you are welcome I love understanding how people reason

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


"Science can be idealized, ie. for political reasons, religious reasons etc. but science itself is a tool and it is concerned with real things rather than contrived planes of existence such as the spirit world or pure consciousness or what have you. "


this just stood out to me,,.,. is there are way of looking at scientific progression in the light of idealism?

the world man hopes and seeks to create,, to progress towards,,, in order to escape the basic nature and material world we and our fathers have found ourselves in?

it is also the ideal side of the mind which decides what science should be used for,,,

by using the mind and ideas ( the less physical side of existence,,and the harbinger of ideals) this is how it is determined what science can do,.,.,. by silencing the contemplation of ideals,,,, the world becomes idealess,, or as opposites of idealism call them self, realists,, the world becomes "real",.,., and then there is nothing we can do but be slaves to the market,,. how dare a single mind or many push their ideals onto others,,,. the world is real,,, therefor more and more money and energy must be spent on building greater and greater and more destructive weapons,,, bigger and bigger armies,.., im sure there are other examples of items technology through science has helped conveniently create at an ever faster rate,, which do more harm then good for humans,,.,

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Science can be idealized, ie. for political reasons, religious reasons etc. but science itself is a tool and it is concerned with real things rather than contrived planes of existence such as the spirit world or pure consciousness or what have you.

Science can't test the claim that there is a spiritual plane of existence or pure consciousness or what have you. That doesn't mean the claim is untestable. It just means that you have to test it yourself using a different tool. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

"To test the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build your own telescope" -Sam Harris

I don't know why I'm bothering with you... your blind-spots are too large to fill in in a post or two. You have too much unlearning to do.

Originally posted by SparkOfSparks6
This is somewhat true, but to the extent that spirituality is linked with idealism, not so much. Religion linked idealism, yes so much. Spiritualism is constantly evolving and changing, it is not something that has a fixed ideal. Something like religion which has a fixed ideal on how to get here and there. Agreed to the fact upon that idealism is certainly very harmful to mankind's natural way of thought and life. When we program these ideals into our minds and daily life. We continue to create unhappiness in our selves. Taking a look at a child or a baby, we see that they have no ideals about anything. They just freely play and laugh with each other, we have a lot to learn or shall I say unlearn with a child. Becoming a child once again, we can definitely allow a more happy humanity. For they have no ideals at all.

Yes, children behave spontaneously. They look at things with new eyes, they are amazed by everything they see. This is what we have forgotten and what we have to remember as adults : to look at things with new, fresh eyes. We have too much expectations about things because our definitions of things are fixated. We have come to believe that A always equals A, whatever the context may be. If we can look at things with the eyes of a child, with minimum expectations, and put aside our definitions of things for a moment, we can start to see that a rhinoceros, a giraffe, a whale, ourselves and our own existence, we can see that all those things are totally improbable, uncanny, strange and a source of permanent amazement. We don't need fiction because reality is already so strange, but we don't look at it like we should.

We live in a universe of infinite (quantum) possibilities, but because we have too many expectations, we force ourselves to function on a binary mode : if we expect something, we have to be prepared to be proven wrong. If we expect the minimum, we will accept what is coming without any disappointment.

as far as I can tell you're confusing idealism with fanaticism.

lumping all idealists into some notion that they collectively are humanities greatest threat is simply not a sound reason.

idealists are both the creators and destructors of social structures.

focusing just on the destruction...not so cool.

Originally posted by IAmD1
I just want to remind you that there are more than a number of atrocious things that have been done in the name of being scientific. Some which have harmed more than a few people too and we are still seeing the effects of today. I am sure I don't have to literally point those out to you.

Whilst i agree with you that some of the conducts listed above in the name of spirituality can be questioned. I personally reserve any judgement on either mother Theresa's beliefs or Ghandi's idea about testing his spiritualism. Since I have no way of asking them or interacting with them in person I can only take someone elses word for what they actually ment by what they said and did.

Spiritualism fundamentally is also a tool first and foremost. It is a tool to quieten the active mind down both as a means of reducing stress on the over all system but also as a way of letting the mind digest, sort and store experiences without the interference of our conscious ego judgement.

The 'ego' as i hope you will agree is the part of the mind being the most prone to idealize rather than accept.

Which ever spiritualism one chooses to read on the central message seems to be one of allowing for unknowns to be as is, taking to heart that we can not steer all events and instead should accept reality.

The problem in my opinion is that this message is gravely misunderstood by those who follow, and equally gravely misused by those in power. So I maintain that to my understanding the problem is not whether one is spiritual or scientific but rather the way in which these tools are misunderstood and idealized. My preference is for a balance in all things so that we use these tools within their correct context. I.e spirituality to balance the spirit/emotional part of mind, scientific to balance the reason/thinking part of mind and indeed physical movement to balance the physical body part of mind.

If we can do this and discard of ideas that doing one or the other excessively even if it is well forfeiting the others in the process somehow makes us superior beings then perhaps we have reached a point where humanity can advance beyond mindless acts of violence.

What are your thoughts?

I agree that science has been used to commit atrocities. But we can't blame the hammer for when we hit our own thumbs. What's to blame in those instances is the idealism, not science. If something is done in the 'name of Science,' it is in actuality being done in the name of their own idealsim. When the nazi's practiced eugenics, they didn't do it in the name of science, they did it to attempt to create a master race, which is a ridiculous idealistic thought, and they used living human beings for testing. Science would have also told them that those poor Jewish people were just as human as the Germans were, but they refused to even consider that notion to attain the the goals of their idealsim.

I am not questioning Mother Teresa or Ghandi's motives or intent. They may have or may not have believed they were doing good. Either way, the result of their idealistic intentions spilled out into the physical world and harmed others. That is tyranny, and that is seen in the evidence.

Spiritualism fundamentally is also a tool first and foremost. It is a tool to quieten the active mind down both as a means of reducing stress on the over all system but also as a way of letting the mind digest, sort and store experiences without the interference of our conscious ego judgement.

I agree in a sense, but this is not spiritualism. Meditation is not spiritualism. Thinking is not spiritualism. These are real, physical and material acts committed by a body. Your definition is not being concerned with the spiritual planes and the soul as fundamental principles, it's concerned with overal bodily health and well-being. If this is your spiritual practice, you no longer need to call yourself spiritual, as you seemed to have moved beyond that. You appear to be no longer shackled to your ideals, but take the full you into consideration. If it were me, I would be proud of such emancipation.

But if for some reason you still clutch onto the ideals of others, for instance that your body is just a suit for your spirit, and you disregard the body because of it, then you are doing yourself a great injustice. You would most definitely be spiritual, and, soon enough, only a spirit. That is the danger of spirituality: concerning oneself strictly with the spirit world over the the physical world.

I agree about everything you said about balance, and that is indeed what I'm getting. Abstracting oneself into spirit and body is dangerous; hence the reason I used spirituality as an example of dangerous idealsim.

Great points and discussion.

Originally posted by moniesisfun
as far as I can tell you're confusing idealism with fanaticism.

lumping all idealists into some notion that they collectively are humanities greatest threat is simply not a sound reason.

idealists are both the creators and destructors of social structures.

focusing just on the destruction...not so cool.

I said idealism is the greatest threat, not idealists themselves.

I'm adhering to the original definition I posted. If you disagree with the definition, you can provide another and we can discuss it. I'm talking about philosophical idealism.

ETA: added link above.