THEORY OF REALISM AND IDEALISM

How to Understand Political Realism and Political Idealism
Political realism is dealing with politics as they are in reality, political idealism is dealing with politics as an ideal.[1][2][3][4]

This can be broadly equated to the debate over whether people are inherently good (idealism), or inherently flawed (realism).

This can also be equated with Plato’s theory of the forms style metaphysics (idealism) vs. Hume’s skeptical empiricism (realism)… or we can discuss Plato vs. Aristotle, or Thomas More (idealism) vs. Machiavelli (realism) vs., or Hegel (idealism) vs. Marx (realism), etc.

There are many different ways to illustrate the idealist vs. realist debate, but generally we can say:

When we start from that which we can know with the sense (with our five senses external), we are being realists, and when we start with moral virtues, ideas, and sentiments (including rationalized impressions from our “internal senses”), we are being idealists.

Or, in definition form:

Idealism: Dealing with things as they should be. Rooted in the internal world of rationalism and ideas.
Realism: Dealing with things as they are. Rooted in the external material world of empiricism.
Political Science: The science of politics, based on empirical evidence. See “can politics be a science?“
Political Philosophy: The philosophy of politics from a metaphysic and reason-based perspective.
In other words, either political idealism is rooted in ideas, and political realism is rooted in observations of the material world. Political idealism looks at “what ought to be,” and political realism looks at “what is” (even if it isn’t pretty).

However, the above said, the comparison I am making is somewhat unfair, as it suggests there is an Either/Or choice.

Life is not either/or, and the scientific method essentially proves it (we don’t need either F=ma, or a blue print, or workers to build the bridge, we need all of that).

One must generally start with a view of the world as it is, and then consider ethics and morals (what ought to be), applying reason and logically “liberally” to both positions.

Of course it is important to root our understanding in the empirical, but that doesn’t mean we can consider the physical as it is only and ignore ideals, metaphysics, and “what ought to be.”

Discussing the two concepts in tandem serves as an important reminder that what is ideal on paper, is often not best in practice; and that just because something works in practice, it does not mean it’s ideal or even justifiable.

Understanding how to compromise between idealism and realism is important in all areas of life, but becomes vital in the realm of politics where we must uphold ideals in the face of reality.

Plato and Aristotle (Introduction to Greek Philosophy). What better place to start than with the Greeks? The work of Plato and Aristotle can be read as a metaphors for political idealism (Plato) vs. political realism (Aristotle).
The average college kid idealistically wishes everybody could have ice cream and cake for every meal. But as he gets older and gives more thought to his and his fellow man’s responsibilities, he finds that it can’t work out that way—that some people just won’t carry their load. – John Wayne
TIP: If a person lacks morals, empathy, and ethics, they aren’t a realist; they are a sociopath. If someone knows how to compromise well, they can implement what one might call “criminal virtue” or the selective compromising of virtue in order to win the day and to obtain the most virtuous ends possible.

THOUGHT: An idealist walks into the bar and orders a “half full” glass, the realist orders a “half empty” glass. It is all semantics until the glass arrives 1/4 liquid and 3/4 empty. Now one must take either an idealistic or realistic approach in addressing the situation and taking up the matter with the bartender.

Theory in Action: Realism.
TIP: An idealistic relationship is like that of Romeo and Juliet, a romantic idealist venture with the.