Idealism, Dogmatism and Other Action-Blockers

****

1

We've been hearing a lot these days about a whole variety of public issues that need action to address them. "Obstructionists," "the party of No," "dysfunctional government": these are only three of the many catch phrases recently invented to provoke outrage at the apparent inability or unwillingness of our elected representatives to take the relevant actions we need.

What we would seem to need is a government consisting of Pragmatists, those who understand what Count Bismarck apparently said, that "Politics is the art of the possible." A pure pragmatist - if we can conceive of such an individual - has no values, no goals, no ideals... other than the goal of avoiding elements preventing action.  We need more Pragmatists in government.

We can see right away, I think, that a Pragmatist differs significantly from an Idealist, who is focused on determining and pursuing the best (or even "the best possible," allowing for a certain amount of realism in order to avoid what we call mere "pie in the sky") but with little or no concern about how to achieve this ideal. Pragmatists - in their pursuit of action - must be in touch with reality; they must be Realists. Idealists, on the other hand, often seem to be pursuing an unrealistic end: nothing short of perfection. Is Pragmatism, then, the very opposite of Idealism?

We'll return to this question a bit later.

2

Between two conceptual opposites are varying degrees of each contrasting quality along a spectrum, such as the gradations between black and white, between altruism and selfishness, and between time of birth and time of death.

Such a spectrum has one extreme of the first quality at one end and the other extreme quality at the other end.  Midway between (of course) is the spot at which the two qualities exist in exactly equal proportions.

Such as -

                        Blue..................................Green.................................Yellow

or


  Too Hot.......................Just Right...........................Too Cold

or

                        Slavery..............................?....................................Freedom

or

                        Hedonism.........................?......................................Stoicism

or

 Starting Line............The Halfway Mark...............Finish Line

 3

In some cases, we have no word to identify the point on the spectrum where the two opposites are in equal balance, only words to mark points just shy of or just beyond the mid-point.

Such as:

                       Pleased.............Satisfied...............Dissatisfied............Angry

or

                       Here..................Close........................Far.....................There


or

Pleasure............Comfort.................Discomfort..............Pain

4

It is sometimes useful to consider two different spectrums laid out at 90^o to each other. In this type of figure, a circle can be drawn around the ends of the spectrums, with the center of this circle being the balance point on each spectrum.   Midway on the one spectrum is exactly midway on the perpendicular spectrum, at the center of the circle thus created.

Imagine, for example, a figure with two spectrums crossing at 90^o to each other, such as this one, representing (1) Responsible to Innocent, crossing with (2) Free to Enslaved:

The midpoint (M-1) between Responsible on the first spectrum and Free on the second spectrum lies on the circumference of the circle.  There are three other such midpoints (M-2, M-3, M-4) in the additional three "new" spectrums created in this circular structure.  The same distance from the midpoint to each end of the spectrum is the same in all six continuums:  Free vs Enslaved, Free vs Innocent, Innocent vs Enslaved, and Enslaved vs Responsible.  One would expect to find spectrums crossing the diagram diagonally:  (1) from M-2 midway between Free and Responsible to M-3 midway between Enslaved and Innocent, and (2) from midway M-2 between Innocent and Free to M-4 midway between Responsible and Enslaved.

And this is interesting to contemplate, isn't it? Freedom and Responsibility are indeed related in this way: A person "with a moral conscience," as it used to be common to say, is not absolutely free but constrained by his or her sense of responsibility toward others: i.e. at M-1.  Also, it is an accepted legal principle that a person who is forced to commit a crime is not responsible legally for that crime. Such a person would be positioned at the midpoint (M-3) between Innocence and Bondage (or "enslavement").  This would lie across the circle from M-1.   Such a person would have done something regrettable but would have been forced to do it.

And at the same time, an individual who is free can be (and should be) responsible for how her or his action affect others.  Such an ideal individual we might think of as equally free and responsible.  So, freedom and responsibility are not at opposite extremes of the same single spectrum; they can co-exist in one person.  An individual who is both free and responsible (at M-1), on the other hand, is at the opposite end of a spectrum between an individual (at M-3) who is both responsible ("not innocent") and enslaved ("not free") such as a person who has committed a murder but was forced by another to do it.

Thoughtfully constructing a diagram like this one can therefore lead to insights about the concepts under consideration themselves.

5

To return, then, to our question whether Idealism and Pragmatism are exact opposites:

Though the two do contrast, I'd say they are not exact opposites that we could correctly position at opposite ends of a spectrum like those we have been imagining.  The Pragmatist is devoted to action, to what is practical, realistic to do.  The Pragmatist, that is, is not entirely without values, what we might call "ideals"; even the pure Pragmatist is limited to only one ideal, but ideal it is.  So, pragmatism is not the exact opposite of Idealism even though the two concepts do contrast significantly.

So, what is the opposite of Pragmatism, and what is the opposite of Idealism?

6 

Let's start with Pragmatism: what is its exact opposite?

The central feature of the extreme Pragmatist (or, as I would prefer to say, the pure Pragmatist) is her or his desire to get things done, to deal with the practical details of doing something.  The "less pure" Pragmatist might say her or his central preoccupation is "to move ahead" or "to make progress."  Moving toward what? or What is progress rather than regression? might be the questions of an Idealistic Pragmatist.  To the pure Pragmatist, on the other hand, it is the "moving" part that matters most: Let's get going! she might say.

So, what is it that most directly opposes change?  Opposition to change is as contrary to Pragmatism as anything could be.

If everything is already clear, settled, fixed, - well - change would not only be unnecessary: it would be downright bad.  The exact opposite of Pragmatism, then, is Dogmatism! 

And also: we will have to acknowledge from our own experience, I believe, that nothing prevents progress - or possibly even change of any kind - more surely than a person who believes that he or she knows - the Dogmatist often says, "all of us" know - what's right or true or even ideal, so trying out something new and different, non-traditional, and especially contradictory to preconceived convictions... is just plain wrong. 

The Dogmatist would say the Idealist should stop striving for an ideal not revealed in Dogma, and the Pragmatist should stop taking actions toward someone's "ideals."  On the other hand, the Pragmatist frequently finds himself or herself fighting precisely such obstacles to action as preconceived attitudes, values, taboos, and beliefs that emerge from tradition rather than experience.

So, we can imagine a spectrum with Pragmatism at one extreme and Dogmatism at the other end:

                               Pragmatism..........(M)..........Dogmatism.

Nothing blocks action more effectively than Dogma - whether it is the dogmatic opposition to more taxes or to same-sex marriage, opposition to trust in even the most democratic and balanced of governments, or opposition to war or to capital punishment.

 5

By the way, we have seen that Idealism is significantly different from Pragmatism, since the pure Idealist does not consider how the ideal can be achieved, pondering only what the ideal is.  But we have also imagined a Pragmatist trying to find ways to make progress toward something better, an individual whom we called an "Idealistic Pragmatist."  Such an individual is mostly pragmatic, but also cares about the purpose of the action she or he is facilitating.

Likewise, we might imagine someone similar who cares about taking action moving us toward some goal but who cares less about how such "progress" will be made.  "Just get it done" might be the attitude of such a Pragmatic Idealist.

But what is the relationship between Idealism and Dogmatism?  Are dogmas the same as ideals ("dogmas" just being a pejorative term for "ideals")?

No.  Far from opposing change, the Idealist - who recognizes that perfection is never fully achieved - is always seeking change.  On the other hand, a key feature of dogmatism is resistance to change:  we already know the one real truth, the dogmatist seems to say, so why pursue change which can only make things worse!

Although in this important respect the dogmatist is significantly different from the Idealist, neither is primarily committed to figuring out how to take action.  On the other hand, the Idealist is glad to have the ideal actually pursued, and we could imagine someone as a Pragmatic Idealist.

But we could not imagine a Dogmatic Pragmatist; the concept is self-contradictory.  But we do recognize that an Idealist may be wholly committed to her or his ideas supported not by experience or by actions taken (as in the trial and error method that most pragmatists use), but by tradition, preconceived ideas, or faith alone.  Such an individual might be thought of as a Dogmatic Idealist.



6

If Idealism is neither the same thing nor the exact opposite of Dogmatism, what is Idealism's opposite.

What is most important for an Idealist, of course, is perfection of one sort or another or in one area or another.  What if an individual does not believe that achieving perfection is possible and therefore is not worth pursuing?  In fact, such an individual might think ideals themselves are not even worth thinking about.  Such a person, we might want to say, is Cynical.

I think, then, we can conceive another spectrum transecting that contrasting Pragmatism and Dogmatism; this one has at one end Idealism and at the other end its opposite Cynicism.

                      Idealism.......................(M).....................Cynicism.

The four ends of the two spectrums at right angles to each other would look therefore like this:

7



So what's the difference between a Pragmatic Idealist and an Idealistic Pragmatist?

...And should we care?

To the latter question: Probably not, unless it may affect how we vote in one election or another.  As to the first question: a Pragmatic Idealist cares about taking real, concrete actions toward her or his ideals but cares even more about learning and educating about what the ideal (in a particular issue) is.  An Idealistic Pragmatist, on the other hand, has less interest in the details of Idealists' discussions about what the ideals are, and is more impatient to get on with the effort to make progress in that direction.

But that's a subtle distinction, and it's often difficult to determine in real life.  But just think how great it would be to have to decide which of these two - either the Pragmatic Idealist or the Idealistic Pragmatist - should lead us at any particular time!  Both Pragmatic Idealists and Idealistic Pragmatists care about long-range goals and basic values, and both recognize the importance of making progress in the right direction sooner rather later.  Half a loaf is indeed better than none... but only if you get the right half!

8

And a final two questions are likewise relatively unimportant in the bigger picture:  What is the difference between a Dogmatic Idealist and an Idealistic Dogmatist? and does it matter?

A person who values preconceived ideals and values above all else, but cares (secondarily) that the the preconceptions are unquestionably true would be an Idealistic Dogmatist.  And a person who thinks what is of primary importance is to understand and to convince others that her or his ideals are true, but who also feels (secondarily) that those ideals are already well-known to "us all" would be a Dogmatic Idealist.  But does such a subtle distinction matter?

No.  It doesn't really matter; both are bad... 


At least they are bad for our country today, when as a nation we can't get anything done because we lack enough leaders who could be placed on our chart somewhere between Idealism and Pragmatism. 






****