idealism or realism?

Realistic idealism.

Idealism all the way. No one ever got anywhere by accepting the status quo or by saying “that’s just the way it is.”

I value the imagination over science.

Spot on what Emil the Manimal said.

@keri I don’t believe it to be the middle at all. I consider it an extreme of its own.

@keri Realism has lost its meaning. “Realism” now seems to mean “believe what the authorities tell you to,” which obviously isn’t realistic at all. It used to mean something good, now it’s just a word that dickheads use against eachother to flex their so called intellect.

Reality is also a lot more idealistic than most people seem to think.

Recently, I was finally able to properly define my definition of Hypocracy. “The deliberate creation of a difference between ideal and actual.” I don’t expect people to be able to achieve the ideal situation. In a lot of ways, that’s impossible. Still, everyone has an idea of what would make the world more ideal, and not working toward that direction is a cardinal sin in my book.

Reality is surreal.

We’re on a rock, floating around a giant fiery rock. Sky’s the limit.

I am an idealist. But I also realize that it isn’t for everyone. So all in all, do what makes you the happiest and helps you make your life better (:

Interesting quote there klo.

I do not entirely agree with him however.

In the ultimate sense it cannot be said that what we perceive to be reality, is reality. Our beliefs are in flux and change. The same cannot be said for reality, to me anything that can change, cannot be real. The changing phenomenon within reality only appears to change, yet in actuality it is an illusion.

I don’t believe in a reality beyond perception, but a line can be drawn between the objects of perception and perception itself. Perception in its most fundamental sense cannot change, but the objects it perceives can and do.

From what i’v studied of philosophies so far, idealism is the closest to the truth. It’s problem is it sees reality as being the product of “an observer” and not the process of observation (or perception) itself. The observer is produced by the process of perception/observation, not the other way around.

The problem with realism and materialism, is they rule perception right out as having no fundamental part in reality.

Idealism sees the reality as the outcome of the observer, and materialism sees the observer as the outcome of reality. The truth is in the middle.

I’m not sure if you meant your question in the superficial sense or not ? lol I could be going way too deep here…

I do suspect you meant your question the philosophical sense