Difference Between Idealism and Realism

• Categorized under Miscellaneous

Idealism vs. Realism

In order for us to be able to differentiate between idealism and realism, we must first have a
thorough understanding of the two terms. Idealism is when you envision or see things in an ideal
or perfect manner. Realism, on the other hand, tends toward a more pragmatic and actual view of
a situation. The two concepts can, in layman’s terms, be deemed different in perspectives; with
idealism focusing on ‘what could be’, and realism focusing on ‘what actually is.’

These commonly accepted definitions of the words are rooted in the philosophical uses of the
terms. In philosophy, when discussing the issues of perception, idealism is a theory that states
that our reality is shaped by our thoughts and ideas. Realism, on the other hand, deals with the
fact that reality has an absolute existence independent from our thoughts, ideas and even
consciousness.

Using the classic test of whether the glass is half empty or half full as an example, we see that
idealists tend to be positive thinkers – i.e. those who see the glass as being half full. Realists
many not hold the opposite or negative point of view, but they do view a situation through less
hopeful eyes. Realists are stereotypically seen as people who are very rational, who think
carefully, and weight their options before making a choice. In this sense, realists make safer and
more practical choices when compared to idealists, who may be willing to make more risky
decisions.

These perspectives also have an impact on how individuals deal with success or failure in their
lives. An idealist who is always in search of the ‘good’, might be less affected by setbacks than a
realist. However, being lost in a world of fantasy and unachievable goals may not always be a
good thing, as an idealist may set goals that are impossible or grandiose. A realist, on the other
hand, is more likely to set achievable goals, and follow their pursuit in a planned manner.

Overall, idealism and realism can be understood as two different perspectives. Some of the key
differences between them include:

1. Idealism causes you to see things in a very hopeful manner, shaping situations with your own
ideas. Realism, on the other hand, causes one to assess a situation as it is, without overt
emotional involvement.
2. Idealists tend to be more positive when compared to realists, in how they perceive things and
carry out tasks.

3. When making decisions, realists are more goal oriented and thorough than idealists, who may
have lofty ambitions, but lack the clarity and focus to put them into action in an achievable way.

Read more: Difference Between Idealism and Realism | Difference Between | Idealism vs
Realism http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-idealism-and-
realism/#ixzz1G7e2AEgC

This article is about the philosophical notion of idealism. For other uses,
Idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that the ultimate nature of reality is based
on the mind or ideas. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism in
which the external world is said to have an apparent absolute existence. Epistemological idealists
(such as Kant) claim that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just ideas
(abstraction).

In the philosophy of mind, idealism is the opposite of materialism, in which the ultimate nature
of reality is based on physical substances. Idealism and materialism are both theories of monism
as opposed to dualism and pluralism. Idealism sometimes refers to a tradition in thought that
represents things of a perfect form, as in the fields of ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. In
this way, it represents a human perfect being or circumstance.

Idealism is a philosophical movement in Western thought, and names a number of philosophical

positions with sometimes quite different tendencies and implications in politics and ethics; for
instance, at least in popular culture, philosophical idealism is associated with Plato and the
school of platonism.
REALISM
The question of the nature and plausibility of realism arises with respect to a large number of
subject matters, including ethics, aesthetics, causation, modality, science, mathematics,
semantics, and the everyday world of macroscopic material objects and their properties.
Although it would be possible to accept (or reject) realism across the board, it is more common
for philosophers to be selectively realist or non-realist about various topics: thus it would be
perfectly possible to be a realist about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their
properties, but a non-realist about aesthetic and moral value. In addition, it is misleading to think
that there is a straightforward and clear-cut choice between being a realist and a non-realist about
a particular subject matter. It is rather the case that one can be more-or-less realist about a
particular subject matter. Also, there are many different forms that realism and non-realism can
take.

The question of the nature and plausibility of realism is so controversial that no brief account of
it will satisfy all those with a stake in the debates between realists and non-realists. This article
offers a broad brush characterisation of realism, and then fills out some of the detail by looking
at a few canonical examples of opposition to realism. The discussion of forms of opposition to
realism is far from exhaustive and is designed only to illustrate a few paradigm examples of the
form such opposition can take.

There are two general aspects to realism, illustrated by looking at realism about the everyday
world of macroscopic objects and their properties. First, there is a claim about existence. Tables,
rocks, the moon, and so on, all exist, as do the following facts: the table's being square, the rock's
being made of granite, and the moon's being spherical and yellow. The second aspect of realism
about the everyday world of macroscopic objects and their properties concerns independence.
The fact that the moon exists and is spherical is independent of anything anyone happens to say
or think about the matter. Likewise, although there is a clear sense in which the table's being
square is dependent on us (it was designed and constructed by human beings after all), this is not
the type of dependence that the realist wishes to deny. The realist wishes to claim that apart from
the mundane sort of empirical dependence of objects and their properties familiar to us from
everyday life, there is no further sense in which everyday objects and their properties can be said
to be dependent on anyone's linguistic practices, conceptual schemes, or whatever

 7 months ago