(image courtesy of conniewonnie.com)
The idealist and the materialist
are somewhat distinct characters yet they are two sides of the same coin. They
often appear as contradictory characters and their approaches to certain
situations are quite distinct based on the progress of society and particular
stages of development. The idealist
character is one that believes that thoughts or ideas are the primary basis for
action and these thoughts are very influential in shaping the perception of the
objective reality. This perception of
the objective reality through ideas or thoughts then becomes the basis for how
we operate in the world and how the objective world operates around us. These
ideas or thoughts that we perceive then
becomes a distinct element that is known as an ideal or a set of
organizing principles that determine the
actions by particular groups or for society as a whole. The philosophical approach which says that
ideas shape the world we live in is known as idealism. This approach brings it
into conflict with the other side of the coin represented by materialists who
embody the values of materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which says that
the objective reality beyond the realm of our thoughts shapes how we perceive
the world. The material elements
represented by the objective world therefore have a significant bearing
on how we perceive the world. The
materialistic elements that are represented by the objective reality therefore shape how people respond.
Materialists state, therefore, that the
world exists independently of our thoughts. Materialism then allows for a constant
appreciation of the fundamental reasons for
movement or progress in human
society and in the natural world. It is not bound by a rigid set of
principles and has a greater appreciation for how various elements interact in
the objective world. The primary
differences between idealists and materialists
appear contradictory but they are a
part of the same coin. The
contradictions between these two groups
of individuals influence how society
functions and operates. In the end it
all depends on whether or not you stick
to your principles or if you go with the flow of progress regardless of how
your moral, ideated compass is altered.
I am focusing primarily on how these characters interact in the social
sphere and how they collide.
The Idealist
The idealist in society is one
that sticks firmly to his or her principles. The idealists share the belief
that our world functions based on a set of organizing principles that shape how
we interact with the objective reality or the material world beyond our
perceptions or thoughts. We function based on how we perceive the world based
on our level of consciousness. There has to be an object to perceive and that
would explain why as human societies began to develop and mature into settled
civilizations religion was very important in allowing individuals to understand
the world. Instead of a scientific basis for the examination of certain
elements humans were decidedly influenced by our beliefs that were not based on
the examination of empirical data. From the beginning nature was not seen as a
chaotic force that brought about a certain order to how the world operated. It
was seen as a creation of the gods who had enhanced human qualities. Nature
appeared as if by design or ordained by the creation of supernatural forces.
Most of the concepts learned in the early stages of human societal development
were organized by these religious principles. These religious principles were
based on ideas about the nature of the earth and the wider universe that was
created by the gods of various religions.
These gods laid the basis for the classification of various elements in
nature and the objective reality that involved how human beings interacted.
Each group believing in their right to rule based on their religion. All the
laws of society were laid down by the
gods instead of seeing it as a means of ensuring a certain level of social
bonding amongst humans that would guarantee a certain level of cooperation
based on various class distinctions. Then there were the philosophers,
particularly the Greeks, that offered a
challenge to the religious dogma by offering various fantastic interpretations
of the world around us. They might have challenged religious dogma but they did
so by fantastic idealistic reasoning. Plato was one of the top idealistic
philosophers of Ancient Greece. Language
was created based on our conceptual understanding of our environment and our
ability to identify and classify certain elements. Language also reinforced the
cultural basis for interaction amongst a particular group of individuals. This
is why in order to identify a particular group of individuals one must identify
the cultural principles that bind them together. These cultural principles are
based on the ideas that shape how a group of people perceive the objective
reality. This is why many cultures are similar but they identify the natural
world in superficially different ways or based on the various natural elements
that they encounter or the shared experiences of particular peoples. In some cases they give the same thing
different names. It is still important
to embrace idealism in such a regard because based on our means of
communication through language we are able to identify and classify these
elements. If you want to communicate an idea to another human being then
language is important. Language is based on the symbolic interaction between
humans and the perception of the world we inhabit. It is still an idealistic
notion that we live in a world shaped by how we classify certain elements or
other human beings. It is effective for those people that believe strongly in
the cultural values that shape their perception of the objective world. This
world can be classified because of the regularity of certain elements. Once
there is not enough occurrence of a particular element then it is difficult to
classify. It is the regular occurrence of living beings, natural cycles and the
mode of operation of societies etc that give rise to the notion that this
world was designed in a particular way according to certain thoughts.
Ideals are important in shaping
not just how we communicate and see the world but the structure of society
along class lines. The political structure
of society becomes reinforced by
idealistic principles. Those that adhere strictly to these principles are
clearly idealists. From a political point of view what is reinforced is the
right to rule by a particular group and those that are subject to their rule.
Every political principle is organized along idealistic lines and this puts it
on par with the idealistic influence of religion. When it comes to the history
of the two dominant world religions,
Islam and Christianity, politics is closely aligned with religion. Many rulers have to convince their supporters
of their right to rule whether by conquest and subjugation, using the moral
high ground (trace their descent to the gods) or by making promises that can’t
be kept. This is an idealistic element
because there has to be some means of convincing others that your way is the
best. The destruction of a particular way is normally as a result
of a new nation, group, association or
party that is able to tear down or significantly challenge the ideals of the incumbent. When the
legitimacy of a particular group,
association or party is smashed by a new group their ideas become dated or old
fashioned. The people will eventually adopt the principles of the new group
based on the influence of their organizing principles which are primarily
idealistic although there is a materialistic basis for this; it is called
conquest. A lot of the major shifts
throughout human history have occurred strictly along idealistic lines. The
challenge posed by some Greek philosophers to religious dogma, Jesus Christ vs. Mohammed, the pharaohs, Buddha, The Roman Catholic Church replacing the so
called pagan religions, the challenge Islam made to Christianity, the role
played by Christianity in the colonizing and conquering missions of the European powers, the
justification used by the white race to subjugate those of other races and how
these subjugated races fought back etc. Obviously there is also Capitalism vs.
communism. In a lot of cases the material destruction of an ideal comes in the
form of conquest by certain means. With this material destruction also comes
the destruction of the organizing principles. The destruction of the organizing
principles means that new principles will have to emerge in order to effectively challenge again. This cannot be
done without the material backing however. The ability to challenge effectively
comes because the material foundation allows for it. If the new challenge is
effective then a new set of organizing principles is required.
The organizing principles bind
people in particular ways. This occurs through various alliances such as
marriage, the family code, peer socialization. This is all done along class and
racial lines because each race and class exist according to various cultural
and natural experiences. In such a situation these factors affect how people
interact. The bourgeoisie/capitalist class has to create idealistic principles
that justify its rule over the oppressed working classes. It is these
organizing principles that ossify the various class and racial distinctions over
time. People then adhere to them in
order to maintain the functions of the state/nation, group or association. This
is enforced through various laws that are based on primarily idealistic
principles that regulate how people should interact in society. Law abiding
citizens are hailed as upstanding individuals even though the law may reinforce
the oppression of particular groups in society for the benefit of others. It is
in the interest of those that benefit from the law to be upstanding citizens.
The rule of law therefore does not guarantee prosperity in such an instance
hence why new laws are constantly updated or revised to accommodate those
oppressed groups that challenge the status/static quo.
The history of science also
suggests that it was highly influenced by ideals. One can see this with various
pronouncements made about the earth
being at the centre of the universe or that it was flat at one point. These
pronouncements seem comical or quixotic now but back then they were taken very
seriously until they were actually disproved. This does demonstrate how
effective an ideal can be although it is faulty or has no bearing on reality.
It can shape how men interact with the objective environment although it does
not affect this objective reality. Even some of Einstein’s theories had to be
proven and a lot of his work was theoretical in nature. Some of it still yet to
be proven by empirical data. Any work that is theoretical in nature is
idealistic or informed by a certain idea of the world. Some elements of these
theories may be verified by certain empirical data but this means that it was
not idealistic but based on an objective assessment of the objective reality. There
are some theories that do go beyond the data to make some pronouncements that
still await confirmation. Until then they remain utopias in the mind of many.
Most organizations, business,
scientific or professional, are reinforced by organizing principles. These
principles remain the basis for how they function until the material basis for
their ideals are shattered.
As a result of these organizing
principles throughout a particular nation, group, or association there emerges
a grand ideal that becomes the basis for unity. All these organizing principles
are supposed to lead to something grand or major that represents the supposed
outcome that is as a result of adhering to these principles. For instance in religion adhering to certain
principles will lead you to the home of the gods and those that do not adhere
to said principles are sentenced to eternal damnation or torture. The
principles of philosophy lead to absolute knowledge. In business the organizing
principles of the company are supposed to lead to profits and in school
adhering to the principles lead to a pass or a certificate of completion based
on the requirements. Man and woman relationships aspire to the ideal of love.
The idealist character of society
is very principled. These people
normally adhere to a rigid mode of operation that is dictated by the demands of
the organizing principles of the nation or particular organization. One basis
for idealism is its ability to classify various elements based on their
regularity or frequent occurrence. The individual eventually realizes that he
or she belongs with a particular group or the various groups that form the
basis for the nation. This goes back to the original basis for idealism based
on how we conceptualize the world through language. This expression comes to
make us identifiable as groups or individuals and then we realize that we are
not as unique when we stand alone. If we were all so unique then we would not
need each other. We are social beings and so there are idealistic principles
that bind some people together. A man and woman come together because they want
to build a family unit; on social media
outlets like facebook or twitter you must have friends or followers or those
that support you in some way no matter how small. Each individual fits in somewhere and this is
determined by shared experiences, perceptions, beliefs, physical makeup
etc. Idealists like to believe that the
‘fundamentals still apply as time goes by’ or ‘the more things change the more
they remain the same’. This rigid approach can make them intransigent or intolerant
because they have to stick to the organizing principles that decidedly
influences how they interact with the objective reality and the grand ideal
that they want to achieve.
The Materialist
The materialist is decidedly
influenced by the precepts of materialism. As stated before the materialist
philosophy means that everything is determined by the activity in the
surrounding material world. Therefore they are in direct opposition to the
idealists that believe that it is our thoughts that shape the world we live in.
Materialism, therefore, cannot adhere to
the absolute principles that is cherished by idealism. Materialism adheres to a
more relative conception of the world because nothing is eternal. Adhering to
something that is eternal can lead to stagnation and a rotten core because
there are movements in objective reality that are taking place and are
constantly challenging the organizing principles or concepts of a particular
nation, organization, group or association. For materialism change is constant
as opposed to things remaining the same.
Materialism assumes a more
empirical and scientific basis for the examination of particular elements or
spheres of influence. This makes a
strict materialist unwilling to assign a theoretical basis for the examination
of a particular subject because the facts constantly erode the basis for
ideology. Materialism dictates that everything
must be judged on its own merit. Everything is unique and must be examined on
such grounds. It is difficult to extrapolate using a particular element or
sphere of influence and apply it on a general basis unless it applies to all
the elements that comprise a particular sphere of influence. Therefore if you
discuss all the elements of the earth then it does comprise the whole that is
the earth. But one cannot apply studies related to the earth and its
inhabitants to Mars or Jupiter.
Similarly if you study all the elements that comprise capitalism one
cannot apply these elements to another system of economy such as feudalism, the
plantation economy, colonial economy, peasant economy, slave economy, petty
bourgeois economy etc. Only when you
study all the parts that comprise a particular whole can you then generalize
about it. If you only study a ½ then how will you know that it can apply to the
other half. There does not necessarily have to be another planet exactly like
earth that we can look on but it is clear that for life to form or thrive fresh
water must be present. Because water means that there is a hospitable
atmosphere for life. The planet does not have to be another earth. The earth is
not absolute. If there are other life forms out there in the universe they
don’t necessarily have to look like the life forms on earth. Basically there are many different parts in a
particular whole. There is never just one way
or that whole will be or become very small. Meaning there are many
diverse elements. There are different life forms and the object is life. A
developed capitalist system is characterized by the production and sale of
various commodities in the market. A capitalist economy that is not developed
sufficiently is characterized by a limited amount of commodities produced for
sale in the market. A developed peasant
economy is characterized by a large number of peasant holdings. Basic examples
that there can be many parts to a particular whole. Those nations,
organizations, groups or associations that do not have much diversity are quite
small and insignificant. It is a fact and does not require a theoretical
justification.
This diversity means that it is
difficult for a materialist to assign a set of principles to a particular whole
without coming to terms with its diversity. In another case it is also
difficult to create a set of organizing principles on the basis of one whole
while not accounting for other wholes. Who is to tell which one is absolute in
its conception? Particularly as a absolute conception reveals a very limited or
finite base in the long run. The absolute normally paves the way for a more
relative conception.
The materialist character is a
character that tries to be all encompassing or someone that moves with the
tide. They are against idealists because they frown on making arbitrary
judgments. They detest a absolute conception of the world or the belief that
things are eternal. This is because they subscribe to the position that
everything is relative up to a certain point because most things are finite in
nature. There are fundamentals for every element but not every element is the
same because from the base each element becomes something distinct. The
resources of the earth and the labour of humans are the original basis of
economy for humankind but these fundamental elements become the basis for
different modes of social organization along class lines with capitalism being
the most advanced. The earth’s resources and the labour of humans is utilized
in all forms of economy but on top of these fundamentals are built various structures
that add to the diversity of economy. Therefore while the resources of the
earth and the labour of humans are fundamental they do not remain in the same
shape when utilized by different economic structures. The capitalist mode of development is the
most advanced form of economy because humans become divorced from the land
which is the original source of wealth in the other forms of economy. No longer
do humans live off the land as if bound by mother earth. The wealth of nations
which was previously tied to having a agricultural surplus is now replaced by
industry with all its technical requirements. Even agriculture is taken over by
the industry and its precepts. The development of a wage labour force (those
that only sell their labour) that exists only to provide surplus value/profit
for the capitalist or the owners of the means of production. Money is now more
important than owning a piece of land because money is the equivalent of all
commodities produced in the market or the universal equivalent.
Materialists acknowledge the
influence of the objective reality on their actions. They do not see thoughts
as being the basis for their action but rather how they respond to the demands
of an external objective reality. Materialists can be prone to very selfish
behavior because their refutation of idealism can preclude a sense of general
unity particularly as everything is relative. The materialists therefore cannot
prescribe a general set of principles that will preserve the integrity of a
particular system because everything is constantly moving and changing. Empires
rise and fall. This approach can make them appear to be negative and their
approach can also seem to be demeaning because they are motivated by naked self
interest and the betterment of self. They are also more likely to believe in
heaven or hell on earth because they acknowledge the drive to accumulate wealth
which can determine who falls into a particular class. The haves and the have
nots.
They are very empirical in how
they structure their research. They do not make any claims unless they have the
evidence. They are very weak when it
comes to providing a theoretical justification for their research and they act
more like data collectors. This makes them incapable of influencing general
trends in society because they are incapable of mobilizing groups under a
general heading. This is ever more pertinent because they subscribe to a more relative conception of the world. An
ever changing world. Nothing set in stone. They are more willing to adapt to
change than the idealists and are more tolerant as a result of their
position.
The Idealist vs. the Materialist
How do these two groups of
individuals interact in the social sphere? It makes for some interesting drama
and a comedy of errors. This is because
the distinction between the two can get blurred no matter how distinct their
approaches might seem. Which one came first, the chicken or the egg? The history of the world has shown that the
great organizers of states/nations, various organizations, groups or
associations have very idealistic qualities. In order to do this they made an
impact in the social sphere by some material means. This means that the
objective reality influenced them in a certain way in order for them to bring about
their ideal. You cannot be distinct if you don’t measure yourself against what
is already there or you would not have much diversity. The material form of
conquest has been used by most idealistic groups to improve their position.
Where would the glory of Rome be without its military conquests? How would
colonization take place if there was not land to be claimed for the glory of
the European countries? Even the likes of Jesus, Buddha and Mahatma Ghandi had
to reject the material world in order to live like holy figures. In order to have an ideal an external object
must be present in order to influence your thoughts on a particular issue. You
cannot have thoughts in a vacuum.
The idealists like to look at
their ideals as eternal and this position is always challenged by the
materialists who like to demonstrate the reality of a situation. In order for a
grand ideal to be achieved then there had to be trial and error. This is a
historical fact. No matter the state, organization or group most of these entities
are there by trial and error. What they stood for has always been subject to
change. History teaches us this with the many tales of unification. For most
entities there was a process of unification that required some form of violence,
struggle or antagonism in order to unite the individuals under a particular
umbrella. The main way to convince people to follow you is by making them believe
that by following you they will reap some reward either on earth or in heaven. Unification does not come ready made. Someone
has to be convinced by some means be it violent or more peaceful logical
argumentation. This antagonism is
reflective of a materialist process whereby everything is relative. America
today is not the same America before the passage of the Civil rights law or
before the civil war. Jamaica is not the same as the one before independence
from colonial rule. The idealists,
however, will have none of it and this is why a lot of them fall in the
conservative ranks. They always try to go back to the fundamentals of a
particular entity as justification for their actions. They are normally
resistant to change and it can make them look ridiculous, backward or out of
touch with the movements taking place in the objective reality that is external
to them. Although in society they are
mocked for their ironic embrace of modernity. They don’t like to throw away the
junk VCR but will buy the latest DVD or Blu Ray player. They embrace diversity
only if they will not be affected by it. This means that they withdraw from the
world to live in fantasies of a time long dead. They are more likely to embrace
the classics yet frown on the present material as inadequate. Nothing can
measure up to the great past works which represent a particular ideal because
of how influential they are. The fundamentals still apply and in some cases
they are right because particular elements may become diverse over time but the
core principles remain the same. A standard procedure is still adhered to
although the form may change or become diverse.
At the end of the day all the diverse elements are just a branch of the
same tree but there is only one tree rooted in the ground. If you cut off all
the branches and leave the root then it’s possible that the tree can grow
again.
The idealists are not always
conservative because they embrace creative impetus. Even if we are influenced
by the objective reality, according to the materialists, a significant thought
process must occur in order to create a particular object. In this sense the creative
impetus shapes our reality because things have to be created in order to
function. The original qualitative element required a significant thought
process. This is why idealists will embrace material progress on the basis of
human ingenuity and, for the more religious, is done for the glory of god or
some sort of ideal. For instance made in Jamaica, made in America, made in
China enhances the glory of a particular state.
In a lot of cases the materialists
also become idealists because by challenging the basis for idealism they do so
with another idea about how the world should work or how it is. A lot of progress in humanity is due to the
clash of ideas. Ideas that were established years ago still have an enormous
influence on the present generation and how they think. The idea about white
supremacy, for instance, is still effective as evidenced by the deranged white
man that killed 9 black people in a Charleston church or the numerous fatal
killings of young black males. The idea of white supremacy has been so
effective that white people are still given the edge when it comes to certain
areas. The other racial groups, particularly blacks, are still labeled as
inferior in certain circles because of the history of denigration that took
place as a result of the dominant ideology related to white supremacy. This
denigration took the material form of enslavement or physical brutalization and
colonialism. Even the Haitian Revolution was seen as a challenge to the
ideology of white supremacy. The ideas of white supremacy have been challenged
in various societies but it is ironic that the poor countries that have a lot
of ideas about challenging this ideology still run to the nations of
predominantly white people for material assistance. They can challenge the idea
with another idea but not from a strictly materialist basis. A lot of the
leaders of the poor world with populations that are largely made up of
non-white racial groups have also adopted the culture of the white nations in terms
of their approach to economic development. The only difference is that a black
man or an Indian is in power. The racial groups in Asia have been the most
successful at challenging the concept of white supremacy from a strictly
materialist basis, particularly Japan, China, South Korea and Singapore. The majority of countries with mostly black
populations remain in a state of gross poverty. In academia certain people from
these countries did assume the materialist approach by opening up the field and
exposing the arguments related to white supremacy but it still only remained
another idea particularly as the leaders adopted white culture while relegating
their own indigenous culture to stage show entertainment or the tourism product
in order to attract money from the investors and spenders primarily from the
white nations. Hmmm. These ideas, however, were very important in motivating
people to think about the issues and perhaps make a change by promoting their
culture. In a lot of cases the culture is seen as exotic or part of a tourism
product but not the dominant cultural position in the world because the
countries or groups that promote them are materially poor. In America and other countries blacks have
found ways to disprove white supremacy from a strictly materialist point of
view. We see that with the great sport and entertainment personalities that
have had a considerable influence in their respective fields. Still need more
black billionaires like the man from Nigeria.
As Oprah found out in Switzerland, however, it is still a difficult
thing to dislodge white supremacy from a strictly materialist basis if they
don’t know who you are. The election
of the first black president of the
United States is ironic considering his white heritage. Makes you wonder
sometimes.
That was just an example of how the significant influence of white supremacy as
an ideology has permeated several societies and is still difficult to dislodge.
The same could be said of capitalism but I won’t be going down that road.
The idealists are very effective
in terms of developing principles that can unify people in a particular sphere
whereas the materialists look very ineffective.
The materialists come across as very disinterested, ineffective and
aloof and their only purpose, at times, seem to be the act of criticism. The
idealists seem more willing to engage materially with the world in order to put
forth their ideas about something while
the materialist ironically casts
judgment by saying things like ‘if you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all’ or
‘don’t buy into the propaganda’. Some materialists
cannot seem to engage effectively in the creative sphere because the evidence
is not available or they risk becoming idealists themselves. Some are very good at criticizing the ideas
of others but are unwilling or unable to put forward their own without sounding
fantastic or pedantic. If they do put
forward their own it’s based on a refutation of some deluded idealist. But this
is done by putting forward another relative idea. On the flip side even in
creative endeavours the materialists are seen as not being very creative and
only seeking to attract money. They produce things distinctly for the demands
of the market. A lot of the criticism aimed at some films are that they are
derivative cash cows. They make a lot of money but do not seem to have much
originality in terms of creativity. Just spin offs looking to milk the cow of
the original. The spin off and sequel element is strictly a materialist
position although some efforts are very creative and are a success both
critically and at the box office The
Dark Knight, Star Wars Episode 4 etc. In the creative sphere the
materialist approach can be very effective and this is seen in the approach
taken by Marvel comics. In the end however the blockbuster era is here to stay
and the more dramatic works recede in the background in terms of box office
numbers although they still dominate in the awards season. In terms of strictly
materialist goals for making money a majority of films will be released that
are very successful in terms of money but not so in terms of creativity. This
is because they are extremely targeted but not so concerned with the abstract
idealism with its grand message or very dramatic performances.
The idealists have been very
effective at branding some materialists as cowards and criminals. The cowards
are those unwilling to come forward in the public sphere and challenge the
idealists because they won’t have much supporters. The idealists are good at
galvanizing support around an idea through their organizing principles even if
they don’t correspond to reality. You can’t become a politician without some
idealist position because you won’t be alone in your endeavour. You will need
support because we’re social beings. Humans are motivated a lot about ideas of
themselves and the world around them.
The materialists cannot win much support unless they use their thoughts
to influence social perception about a particular issue. Some people can only
relate to what you’re saying unless it’s ideated. They won’t be able to relate
to the objective reality unless it can be shown to them in some ideated
form. This goes against the materialist position
that is based on empiricism. A lot of materialists seem to defeat themselves by
becoming idealists. The materialists that are branded as criminals are
portrayed as individuals that do not want to unite around the unifying banner
and so they bypass all that it stands for by creating mayhem from a material
point of view. It’s ironic that crime is seen as a social disease when in some
instances it only reflects a group of people that do not subscribe to the
idealistic principles of a nation such as the respect for private property. If
they don’t subscribe to such organizing principles, are they to be considered a
social disease? What if they have their own way of doing things that
corresponds to a particular objective reality? Who is right, the ganja farmers
or the state police that confiscate their produce? It depends because one can see the
effectiveness of having a organizing principle or a idea of how things should
operate because it does lead to a more orderly
way of doing things. If the materialists have their way it can be seen
as chaotic because they don’t abide by ideals laid down by the organizers and
are motivated strictly by naked self- interest ‘To hell with you’. In some cases they don’t seem to have control
of what they’re doing because they have no ideal that can check them. They just
go with the flow and who are you to judge because it’s their life. This can
only be prevented and enforced through rules or laws or just outright conquest. Check the recent global economic recession
and the aftermath.
‘Isn’t it ironic’ that the rules
that protect the sanctity of private property try to control the drive of
others to accumulate at all costs especially at the expense of others? Isn’t it
ironic that the drive to attain an ideal can be considered chaotic because one
has to engage materially with the world? In the case of profit one has to go
all out by using the material means and the idealistic principles at your
disposal in order to attain it. If you don’t have the money then you can’t
invest but if you don’t have a set of principles to guide you you won’t know
where to put it. There is a certain
established method to gain profit. When this becomes established it is referred
to as idealistic, because it influences how people operate, but it is still an
ongoing materialistic process. The ideal feeds the material drive and the material
drive feeds the ideal. In the end you’re just ‘running on empty’. In order to
attain knowledge you have to clash with a lot of people who have opposing
views, different ideas. You have to engage in the sphere of profanity.
Once crucial element in all this
is competition and crisis and this gives the materialists the edge. There are
always several competing interests. In the sphere of competition everyone has
their own way of doing things and this leads to conflict. Competition is a
materialistic element because it reflects the diversity in a particular sphere
or whole. This diversity means that there is no real absolute or monopoly, only
winners and losers particularly as each entity has its own idea of how
something should be produced or how something operate. Each entity, therefore,
has its own ideas about a particular thing. In some cases monopoly is
entertained and the monopoly exerts considerable influence on how the people in
the society operate. Crisis is another element that gives the materialists the
edge. In terms of crisis there is a major disruption of a particular system.
This system normally operated in a particular way but its principles ignored
the happenings in the objective reality and then that ideal is shattered.
Capitalists tend to overproduce because the market is unable to absorb all the
goods for sale. This leads to some form of destruction of what a particular
company stood for originally especially if there emerges from the crisis new
ways to do things. After a major crisis most people have to alter how they do
things because a crisis leads to destruction in some form. They cannot take the
same approach as they did before the crisis. With a crisis people tend to come
to terms with the objective reality and how it shaped their response to a
particular issue. In some cases they did not acknowledge the reality and the
crisis forced them to come to terms with it even if they lived in a great
fantasy about how they thought the world should operate. If there was no such
thing as crisis or competition then the idealists would be right to believe
that their ideals are eternal. The crisis lets them realize that they can be
absolute up until a certain point.
Idealists tend to predominate in
very poor countries and those countries that embrace the materialist ways tend
to be the rich ones. The rich nations understand how to get the most out of
their objective reality and this is why conquest or investment in profitable
areas reaps rewards in a lot of cases. In order to be rich materially you have
to know how to engage with the external elements. One cannot simply just
imagine or think that this is how it should be. One must be able to engage with
the objective world in order to see what it can do for you materially. The idealists
in the poor countries do a lot of thinking and discussion about the world but
do not necessarily have the means to engage with the material world. So a lot
of policy formulating takes place, a lot of discussions on the verandah or in
parliament etc but little in terms of action or engagement with the material
world.
Idealists can normally be
caricatured as crazy individuals that are out of touch. Insane people represent
idealism gone wild.
In the end the materialists and the
idealists are both sides of the same coin. They do have somewhat distinct
approaches but there is a coming together. Your thoughts can shape the world
you live in but that can only be done by coming to terms with the material
world. Similarly for the materialists they have to understand that for the
world to be understood it has to be transformed into an idea or theory that
explains the world as opposed to mere data collection. One must have an idea
that connects all the dots. At their most extremes however these types are
normally considered very different but they do reside in the same sphere.
No comments:
Post a Comment