I almost downvoted, but didn’t because this isn’t on the frontpage. Reasons I wanted to downvote:
weird writing style that was hard for me to parse what you were trying to say
when i figured it out you didn’t really say much
you used the terms idealism, realism, and pragmatism, which are jargon in philosophy, but it took me a bit to realize you didn’t mean to use them in that way
this post is kind of like advice, but you don’t really justify that advice or give me a reason to think it’s worth following
Basically this post felt like a nothing burger, and I come to Less Wrong to read things that are substantive. In my mind this might have been better as shortform, and probably even better if you had posted it on Twitter instead of Less Wrong.
I will give an explanation, hoping it can be understood.
Sometimes we pursue idealism without trying to adjust our approach. We focus solely on one method based on principles, stubbornly afraid to deviate from the dream we’ve planned.
Yet, we can change our approach to achieving our dreams in a more realistic way. However, sometimes what is considered realistic turns out to be futile because, despite being within our capabilities, it is misplaced in terms of timing.
The key here is that sometimes we don’t simply understand what is realistic, pragmatic, and idealistic, as if they overlap.
Here, I try to emphasize the boundaries of their meanings so that we don’t get trapped in stubbornness or futility, thinking we have done it all (idealism that is realistic and pragmatic) when, in fact, each has hidden limits.
By understanding these boundaries more clearly, we can self-correct and assess how far we have met the requirements to achieve our dreams.
I almost downvoted, but didn’t because this isn’t on the frontpage. Reasons I wanted to downvote:
weird writing style that was hard for me to parse what you were trying to say
when i figured it out you didn’t really say much
you used the terms idealism, realism, and pragmatism, which are jargon in philosophy, but it took me a bit to realize you didn’t mean to use them in that way
this post is kind of like advice, but you don’t really justify that advice or give me a reason to think it’s worth following
Basically this post felt like a nothing burger, and I come to Less Wrong to read things that are substantive. In my mind this might have been better as shortform, and probably even better if you had posted it on Twitter instead of Less Wrong.
Thank you for your courage in providing reasons.
I will give an explanation, hoping it can be understood.
Sometimes we pursue idealism without trying to adjust our approach. We focus solely on one method based on principles, stubbornly afraid to deviate from the dream we’ve planned.
Yet, we can change our approach to achieving our dreams in a more realistic way. However, sometimes what is considered realistic turns out to be futile because, despite being within our capabilities, it is misplaced in terms of timing.
The key here is that sometimes we don’t simply understand what is realistic, pragmatic, and idealistic, as if they overlap.
Here, I try to emphasize the boundaries of their meanings so that we don’t get trapped in stubbornness or futility, thinking we have done it all (idealism that is realistic and pragmatic) when, in fact, each has hidden limits.
By understanding these boundaries more clearly, we can self-correct and assess how far we have met the requirements to achieve our dreams.