Pragmatism is Not the Opposite of Idealism

As I've implied before, 'real' and 'ideal' are related but not necessarily opposed. The truth is that 'ideal' is what we reason or imagine the perfect to be, while 'real' is what we actually have.

In between 'real' and 'ideal' is 'practical'; it is what we can successfully work towards. Similarly, pragmatism is somewhere between realism (this is what is) and idealism (this is what it would be in a perfect world) — it is the philosophy not of settling for second-best, but the philosophy of doing something towards an ideal and thus shifting 'what is' to 'what ought to be'.

This is because 'practical' and 'pragmatic' come from the Greek praxis, which simply means 'doing' or 'acting' (or if you like, engaging in some process). When we perceive something as 'real' and do something to shift it towards what we perceive as 'ideal', we are being practical.

Being practical or pragmatic therefore cannot mean being inert or deciding to do nothing. Pragmatism is an active philosophy.

Neither is pragmatism a cowardly, cynical, or defeatist position. It implicitly acknowledges that things can indeed be done, and goes out to do them. Pragmatism is always closer to idealism than realism is.

Real and Ideal

Well, here we are again. After several rounds of explaining to people that both 'ideal' and 'real' don't mean what they thought, I am moved to etymologise once more.

'Ideal', from Greek eidos = 'form' and then idea = 'archetype', refers to things that are not real. An ideal gas does not exist, and ideal option doesn't either. If you say something is 'Platonic', then it is archetypal, and hence ideal and not real.

Which brings us to 'real', from Latin res = 'thing' and then realis = 'actual'. This refers to things done or objects to which you can do things. A real gas is something you can trap and manipulate, a real option is something you can see and exercise.

You can think of 'ideal' as describing something that ought to be. As 'archetype' or 'first among forms', it is the desired shape of things. You can think of 'real' as that which is.

True contentment comes when you accept the real as something as close to ideal as you can get, or feel empowered to make it so.

Commencement

It was not so very long ago that one of my duties was to speak to young men and women and try to inspire them. I wasn't always very good at it, and it was difficult and painful and arduous and altogether quite a burden. Yet, at the same time, it was a burden which I thought was important, meaningful, worth bearing.

When I left my last job, I threw away all my notes. There was a time when I would have thought of keeping them and perhaps some day compiling them into a book about the fifteen years in which I had that duty. But I think I made this conscious decision in the knowledge that the basis for all those words remains the same, that what I might have thought was good could always be made better, and that whatever I said could always be said again.

If I still had that duty this year (and actually, it was to have been my duty the day after I left), I would have continued to speak about the pursuit of truth and about seeing with blinding sight. I would have noted that a positive outlook is based on St Paul's list in the letter to the Philippians: "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."

At the same time, I think I would have referred to the First Commission in Matthew's gospel. That passage has inspired me for ages; whether you are a Christian or not, the window of vision is enormous. It really says, "Go out and change society. Be a force for the division of good from evil, of justice from injustice. Be wise as serpents, harmless as doves. You will prevail."

I have sometimes likened the offspring of a school to arrows fired from a bow in the hands of a strong archer. This is an old view, most recently echoed by Stalin in his statement that education is like a weapon – it depends on who holds it and at whom it is aimed. Once an arrow has left the bow, it is the remorseless influence of anonymous forces that holds it to its course. The artistry is in the aiming and firing, the archer's control.

But students aren't inanimate. They have souls, they have spirits and emotions. They may resist or accept guidance, but never with exactitude and Newtonian compliance. They can be influenced, and they can influence. The only thing one can do is watch and pray, and hope with all one's heart that for each of them, the best is yet to be.

World Class

Today was not such a lousy day, but there was something lacking. Somehow, the whole day ticked by mechanically, almost like the huge mechanical clocks in German town squares where tin soldiers raise and lower their weapons on the hour, every hour. There is no real fire where I am. Only small sultry and indignant embers (or members) with a few sparks.

Have we gone wrong? Do we no longer dare to innovate with large visions? Keep it simple, stupid. Keep it down. Do not stick your neck out. Why do you think you are special? Why do you want to rock the boat? It's no point going ahead when nobody can keep up. I've heard all these things. And this is why the good is the enemy of the great. We're good. Sometimes, very good. But we're still amateurs with tiny dreams; the larger dreams are whittled down to size so that we can swallow them – which means that we never grow to meet the challenge unless we already know we can.

It's not that we haven't dreamt large before. We have dreamt big dreams. It's just that we've never dreamt world-class dreams. What's world-class? Being able to attract talent that is world-class. Being able to accept that world-class excellence is not national-level excellence, but something that is a totally different breed of animal.

We need to learn from the world. If you want to be world-class, you must see the world as your class. You need to sift through the silly and inane papers at cut-rate conferences and find the one major discovery. You need to realise that if people working on your national curriculum are starting to discover valuable gems, your rejection of such gems might be a mistake – and if not a mistake, at least know why you made your choice.

This is what a little island with a lot of money might become if it is not very perceptive, very careful, very encouraging of big dreams. It can become a Yahoo-land where inane and silly ideas are given space and time, and the whole shebang is called 'a balanced perspective'.

We can still be great. We need to remember why we want to be great. To be great, we have to be of service, of deepest usefulness to others, taking little for ourselves except that which is needed for institutional life. Then come the blessings of time and space, faith and grace – perhaps not really in our time, but some day. And when sic transit gloria mundi, we will at least have done our part to ensure that the glory has passed to the heirs who deserve it.

Today, the brightest spot was seeing god-daughter walking around like a normal human being. That was my first thought. Then I realised that it was a silly thing to think. She is a normal human being. It's the rest of us who are odd. Five hours later, I realised yet another thing. We're all odd, all peculiar. She's just more sensible than many.

Cynical

My grandfather, as I'm sure some of you have heard before, saw four phases in human life. These can be listed briefly as

• innocent idealism: as of a child


• ignorant cynicism: as of an adolescent


• knowledgeable cynicism: as of an adult


• enlightened idealism: as of an adult adult

Here, the adjectives used are not meant to be either complimentary or pejorative. Rather, they describe the literal state of mind: 'innocent' literally means 'without poison, toxin or venom'; 'ignorant' means 'lacking knowledge'; 'knowledgeable' means 'possessing useful information'; 'enlightened' means 'enhanced by the light of knowledge'.

However, regression is possible. It is possible, for example, for an otherwise fairly enlightened and idealistic man to write something like this:

=====

Education : A Cynical Science

Enclosed and numbered
Beasts in cages
They crouch awaiting the bell
The next lesson
The next trainer

This is our challenge:
Break their spirit
Teach them to perform instead
Make them unlearn
And learn again

Agile and restless
Their minds, their limbs
Undisciplined and incorrect
Train them fiercely
Work them harder

Elegant hunter
Now herd grazer
Where natural fire burnt
The light is quenched
The eyes are dull

Success now measured
Numbers written
Release the broken, see in them
A discipline
Now set in stone

=====

I don't believe educators ought to be this cynical though. We don't have to demolish our idealism just because some people say we are 'too idealistic'. That phrase alone is somewhat silly, perhaps oxymoronic; how can anyone be 'too idealistic' since idealism by its nature deals with extremes? It is always possible to be 'not idealistic enough', but oddly, it shouldn't be possible to be 'too idealistic'. In the 'real world' however, where 'idealism' is used as shorthand for 'extremism' or even 'terrorism', it might be true.

But for all you Bible-thumping types out there: what if I were to say, "You are too Christian!" bearing in mind that Christlikeness is one of your ideals? Is it possible to be 'too Christian'? Likewise, idealism.