Journeyman Philosopher

The more I hear this statement the more I realize just exactly how little people know about themselves.

The concept of being a realist is a strange one, yet many of us have been in situations when individuals turned to us and in a degrading manner stated “Well…. I’m a realist.” as if this statement alone would prove your views invalid. But what is it to be a realist and is it really even possible?

A realist would be someone who took the situational information and knowledge as is, adding no emotional content, and acting on it (assuming it needed acting on). First this is questionable if this is even possible. Perhaps one could be a realist in things like mathematics but generally most views that people hold that make them considered an optimist pessimist or realist are of a human nature. And views of a human nature are filled with emotional content.

But perhaps this is possible. A realist would see a cup and say “There’s a cup.” an optimist would say “That’s a nice cup, I bet its good quality.” and a pessimist would say “What an ugly cup, it’s probably made in China.”; the question is what good are either of these judgements to us? The observation should be made that in situations in which optimism or pessimism are found there is a three step process in which it modifies the observation.

Step One: The individual sees the object.

Step Two: The individual makes a proposition about the object.

Step Three: The individual modifies what they see of the object in light of this proposition.

At least I think this is how it works. It wouldn’t make sense if the pessimist or optimist actually saw a different object than the realist. They would all first see the same object but then modify it with their views.

But what if any is better? And is it even possible to be a realist? This needs further examination. 

Trackback URI | Comments RSS