Why is idealism condemned?

Idealism is condemned the same reason cynicism is praised by those who partake in it's methods of thought. When you select a philosophical stance as a target as a collective group of people, it enables a certain feeling of happiness over that victory (Indeed, present in all things, perhaps some would say) It's not just condemned for the mainly obvious, albeit moot, reasons, that are too evident to explain here; you did a fine job in your post. The primary reason is perhaps the simple pleasure derived from self-righteousness.

To go further, the gap between cynicism and idealism is quite like this genius article* I've read, which makes prominent similarities between many, many, things.

Funnily enough, I'm part of that evil cynic mass. I'm just so cynical I can be cynical of cynicism, to be perfectly narcissistic**. Oh, and no problem.

Idealism is not necessarily condemned. However, the Guardians in Society (45% of people) follow the dictates of authority and idealists are often counter to the establishment. Rationals (5%) do not like ideals either because they work within the system. Even Idealists are selective as well and may not like the ideals of a rival group. The Crazies (5%) do not like ideals because they are two idiotic to understand.But it still leaves a % of the population that will follow ideals. However, some of these people are flighty and their support will not be sustained. Artisans (25%) are too busy on their own projects to bother about the Ideals of another. So the thinking of other personalities do not fit in.

It gets worse as even the most sensible people, or probably the sensible people, just suspect a vested interest. An agenda and an ulterior motive. This does communicate very well.

Hello friend radiowwww, seems you are radio wave radiating nice queries to make others alert. Good.

Idealism is condemned only because of ignorance. Idea is the very basic one. In music we have the fundamental note and with that fundamental we have harmonics. As the fundamental is given the firm position then music comes out so pleased. Same way idea is the very basis which has to be given the firm position to which our activities have to be structured. One, just by producing fundamental, cannot bring out pleasing music. That would be only one frequency. Same way, idealism has been understood in a wrong way and because of such ignorance it has been avoided by all of us. In case of physics we talk about ideal transformer. The transformer which would transfer cent percent electrical energy or power right from primary to secondary coil. This is possible only when there will not be any power loss. But in practical situation there will be unavoidable power losses due to various factors.Hence ideal Vs practical. Same way, because of naturally existing opposing factors we come to the conclusion in hasty manner that idealism is not at all possible and so it would be so intelligent as we be more practical in all walks of life. So idea, of course, thought which comes right from the source of thoughts would have certainly the firm position which would be just like the fundamental note for music. Hence idealism is to be understood in a proper way and is to be given due importance. In Hindu mythology four yugas are there. Sathya Yuga (ideal) Golden, Draetha (silver), Dwabara (bronze) and Kali (iron). Now we are living in Kali yuga. In this yuga almost all of us (maximum percentage) would be far away from idealism (Golden mentality) and dwell with iron mentality. Heart would become so hard as iron. No love towards any one even to own self. Such a hard heart! Ignorant state! Out of ignorance we have fear, uncertainty, deceiving others, immoral acts, hasty decisions etc etc. The only remedy is to give an opportunity to dive within and realize the self within. So enlivening thoughts (ideas) would lead to live in an ideal world. This is quite possible and then we make an entry back to Sathya Yuga. So we can say that we are in Sangama Yuga. That is on the bridge way connecting Kali yuga and Sathya yuga. You may feel that this approach is something entirely different from other friends of ours.

I am going to over simplify things. Idealism is the act or practice of envisioning things in an ideal form.

My thoughts are that as a Christian I should try to practice the ideals of Jesus Christ, e.g. Forgiveness, unconditional love, (of all people), avoidance of sin, practising good deeds. ET C. All these things are ideals. Some people think that the ideals are hard to put into practice therefore if the majority of people do not practice them it will vindicate their own lax attitude to the practice of the ideals.

Idealism means that the premises, the preconditions of your goal are seen as unachievable. The idea is not practical.

If you want an idea to be perceived as meaningful, and not subject to the charge of idealism, just stress that, while there are obstacles to be overcome and the goal may seem extreme or too-good-to-be-true to some people, the preconditions are actually realistic, and they may be overestimating the difficulty. This is why some people say it's not idealistic, it's just "out-of-the-box" thinking.

Good god.

Four paragraphs worth of "Additional Details" ????

This was not a well though out question, was it?

I mean, you start off with a false premise, or at least one that you do not support, then have to go back and prop up your thesis under "and oh by the way."

Maybe your opinion of your readers is "idealistic."

Try again. You may have a good question if it is presented a little more concise.

Idealism is condemned because it believes that all of its notions come from the mind only, so an idealistic philosophy, for example hegal's, believes that world history is driven by competing ideas. Materialistic philosophies believe that ideas originate from the real world through the five senses that ideas arise socially.

It is known as Plato's theory of Ideas, but more commonly called Plato's theory of Forms. Don't be misled by the word "Ideas"--it has nothing to do with the type of idea you seem to be thinking of. The problem is one of interpretation, I believe. The word "Form" in the Greek translates more properly to our english word "Idea". Again, don't be misled by that word, because it isn't something we are thinking of or up. The "Form" of a given thing is its essential natue--this holds true for any classical realist. However, Plato, and his philosophy of the essential nature of a given thing or object (often called "Extreme Realism") differs much from others, like those who will follow Aristotle or St. Thomas Aquinas. This is not important right now though. Plato divided reality: (1) The World of Being--the Transcendent world of "Forms" where the true things were immaterial, immutable (never changing). perfect, archetypal (meaning the model of something--we will so what in a second), and as I said transcendent (meaning that which goes beyond--here the sensible, material world we are presently in). (2) The World of Becoming--this is the world around us, constantly changing, and realtive. Plato called the sensible things in the sensible world (world of becoming) "Shadows", for they merely "imitated" the TRUE things in the transcendent world of Form (world of Being). This one of Plato's major problems, if not his major problem--his inability to explain what he meant by "imitate" and how the sensible things imitate the Forms (true, real things) if indeed that are transcendent (beyond the sensible world). This leads Plato to believe that objects of real knowledge are the Forms, and the sensible world provides us with no real knowledge of things, but is ever changing and relative. Plato's problem was the sophists (an group of "wise men" who believed they could make weaker arguments stronger by fallacious methods) claims that there is no "real" knowledge. Things are relative. "Man is the measure" of himself, that is he determines what is true or false, right or wrong. Plato despised this doctrine, but accepted that the sensible world was this way. However, how did we have knowledge? Plato's answer is the Transcendent world of Forms. Where things don't change, are not relaitve, but perfect in there nature. This is all very simplified and concise. I apologize. I hope this does help though. By the way, it's not Plato's "idealism". Plato was a "realist". This is known as "Extreme Realism". Look it up for more information: "Plato's Extreme Realism" on Goodle or Yahoo!

Peculiar are the ways of people. Philosophically nobody cares. There is no respect or value system I think.