The Dark Side of Idealism

For starters, it seems I’ll have to define my terms, since people generally complain about my usage.
Pragmatism = making decisions based on expected benefit, for yourself and/or others (roughly akin to Mill’s utilitarianism)
Idealism = making decisions based on absolute principles, without regard to consequences (kind of like Kant’s categorical imperative… though I hate to foist Kant on anybody)

That said…

It seems that no one has trouble finding the problems with pragmatism. It generally has a very nasty name in Christian circles, being identified with hedonism and situational ethics. And they’re right. Those are forms of pragmatism. They are not, however, the end and be all. “Benefit” may be defined in many ways, depending on one’s worldview. And at least one of those ways is profoundly Christian. [Think Augustine and Piper and enjoying God…]

Against the so-called evil of pragmatism, we are then presented with the good of idealism. This allows for absolute duties, which are very appealing to your run-of-the-mill fundamentalist. It is black and white. It’s not like that (despicable, evil, insert-insult-here) fuzzy postmodern world out there.

But, as is the way with man, a shift from one side of the pendulum to the other does not necessarily go from wrong to right. Normally, it just shifts to a new wrong. What the current Christian culture does not understand is that there is a dark side to idealism as well.

As with pragmatism, the dark side comes in the definition of the absolutes. Just as “benefit” can be defined in many ways, so can an “absolute.” More often than not, people define absolutes more widely than they ought and condemn when it is not warranted. The Christian community is rife with little legalistic rules for this and that – drinking, dancing, pianos in church, smoking, and any number of other stigmas.

Idealism is not “tolerant” (to use a much loved word of our age), and rarely merciful. If someone crosses one of the absolutes, he is rejected. Similarly, in an idealistic war (jihad, for example), the purpose is to kill the bad people. What sort of face is this to present to a dying world that we’ve been commanded to love?

Badly defined idealism is no better than badly defined pragmatism. It is wrong. It is not how we’re supposed to live our lives. It is most certainly not holy.

Idealism, Pragmatism, and Faith

What a joy to be back in a place where philosophical blog posts flow directly from mealtime conversations :)… But it was a rather involved conversation, and this is a rather long blog post (to which a second part may follow). So bear with me :).

Recently, discussions of pragmatism have abounded in my general vicinity. Maybe this is because people are just getting ‘round to learning that I happen to have a pragmatic streak. I thought I may as well publish my views on the subject once for all.

For starters, I’ll reproduce a bit of a journal entry on the subject that I wrote over the summer, edited for general consumption :):
I'm something of a pragmatist at heart and I don't like the prevailing idea in our culture that the "good guys" or, perhaps, the "best guys" are idealists. The two are equally valid sides of the same coin. Neither can exist entirely without the other, and one is not morally better than the other. Human beings, in our finite, lopsided fashion, generally prefer one side or the other: some are, like me, more pragmatic, others idealistic... just as we prefer one season over another, the sea or the mountains, or this or that characteristic of God, etc. But even the full coin of idealism and pragmatism together is not sufficient to act rightly, either. There is something more...
The Christian is called neither to idealism nor to pragmatism. We are not supposed to "logic out" the most advantageous route. We are also not supposed to live by the categorical imperatives of the Law. We are told, rather, that the righteous live by faith. Both idealism and pragmatism rely on us and our determinations in the end. Only faith leaves us watching and waiting on God every moment. (Might I suggest Romans 4:13-25 for further, and better :), reading on this subject?)
Where, then, do idealism and pragmatism fall in here? Do we nullify the Law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the Law. And what about our self-interest? God's business in our life is making us more like Christ (and doing the same for others through us). Does that sound like it's not in our interest? To paraphrase, he who would save his idealism or pragmatism will lose it, but he who gives them up for faith will save them...

This is all very well and good philosophically, but how does it work? [Yes, I'm very fond of practicality too :).]

Let’s begin by looking at the example from Serenity. (I like it better than the classic Jew in the closet/Nazi at the door scenario, since it balances life and life, instead of life and lie.) For those you who haven’t seen the movie, it is as follows [those who have can skip to the next paragraph]: The captain and his crew have just robbed an imperial bank. Discovering that evil creatures are in the area, they tell everyone there to stay in the vault to be safe; they themselves run out to their hovercraft to get away. As they try to pull away, a man comes running out of the bank, wanting to come with them and grabbing onto the hovercraft. But the craft can’t take one more and still outrun the evil creatures. So the captain pushes the man off – and he is taken by the creatures and the crew gets away by the skin of their teeth. [There’s a mercy killing in there too… but that can be discussed some other time :).]

From an idealist’s standpoint: there is a categorical obligation to protect life; the man cannot be left to his death, you must bring him along, even if it would result in the death of all. From a pragmatist’s standpoint: the captain is responsible for the well-being of his crew most of all; you must protect them, even if it results in the death of an innocent stranger. In either situation, somebody’s going to die because of your decision, be it everybody or the stranger. So how do you decide?

At about this point in the discussion, Providence was brought up. Which is a good point. We do not live in a world of random chance. Nor do we live in a world in which the “inevitable” always happens. God can intervene (and does) – and in this case, it would have to be nothing short of a miracle.

So, then, have the idealists won? Take the risk, bring the guy aboard, and leave it to God to make sure you all get away? Not necessarily. Actually, no one has “won.” One could just as easily take the pragmatic route, and pray God’s miracle comes in saving the man you’ve just left behind. (After all, the pragmatists don’t want the man to die any more than the idealists all want to be eaten alive.)

You’re going to need faith – faith that God can make sure that everyone comes out alive on the other side and faith to decide which course of action to take. After all, the general equivalence I’ve been arguing for doesn’t necessarily mean that both choices are right in that one instance. God works in mysterious ways, and He sometimes calls us to use particularly one or the other of the two methods. There is Brother Andrew, who was called to one method of Bible smuggling. And there are the countless other Bible smugglers use a more “conventional” method. There is David facing Goliath… and then there’s Ehud facing Eglon.

Let us look to God and God alone for guidance and approval. The rest will fall into place.

Many Majors, One Body

My lunch conversation brought to mind an issue that, it seems, has recently been concerning me without me consciously realizing it. [And, no, you may not construe this as an indictment of anyone who was present. We ironed out the misunderstanding; I speak only of generalities.]

Many people on campus – CLA and GOV alike – seem to hold “It is my major that is the main mission. The rest of y’all are here to support that effort.”

This is, like most wrong ideas, correct in part. Yes, the world works in such a way that, separating out one major on campus, you can trace paths of service to it from the others. Only difficulty is, that works for all of them. The public policy majors are here to support the writers… and the historians are here to support the journalists… and the SI folks are supposed to keep everyone alive in the process.

Indeed, we are a body. The foot, I’m sure, could create an argument saying that all the other parts are there to let it do its foot-ish thing. And it would be right; they are. But that’s not their only purpose. Each member, by fulfilling its function, is to support the others and, thereby, the continued life of the body. No one member (except the Head) is the end in itself.

So, who takes precedence – journalism or lit? The hand or the eye? Tactics or strategy? One without the other is useless. Neither is the be all and end all. The ultimate mission belongs to neither. Rather, it belongs to both. Only in working together can they accomplish the mission and serve the will of the Head.

The space between ourselves sometimes
Is more than the distance between the stars.
By the fragile bridge of the servant’s bow,
We take up the basin and the towel.

The call is to community –
The impoverished power that sets the soul free,
In humility, to take the vow
That, day after day, we must take up the basin and the towel.
(Michael Card, Basin and the Towel)

For those with no prospects currently on the horizon...

We have recently been encouraged (by a certain someone's blog posts *ahemJonathan*) to wed early. That's great - but most of us are past that chance by now. Sure, we may want to get married sometime in the future.... But currently we're single. Very much so. Living in the future does not work, not any better than living in the past. Studying the past and planning for the future are good, but we can only live in the present. Which is, for us, singleness. To that end, I contribute to the discussion an excellent article on singleness, shamelessly ripped from Ashlea's blog :). May it be thought provoking and enjoyable.