Is idealism a crime?

[Joan Marie]

This discussion started elsewhere, but I'm bringing it here to it's own thread now.

I'd like to start with this though from the previous discussion:

My first question to the Tarot : what is dodalisque meaning by this? Why would idealism even be considered a crime?

Well, you probably should consult the tarot itself if you want to find genuinely reliable answers to these questions. But, taking a stab in the dark, I would say that idealism might be considered a crime by anyone who thinks that a rosy, optimistic view of the world and of human nature is merely irresponsible wishful thinking. They would say, along with the gloomy English novelist Thomas Hardy, that "if a better way there be, it exacts a full look at the worst". It's not really such a strange question. Don't all we dreamy tarot types annoy hard-headed scientist types? We would say that idealism is a dream we are striving to to manifest in the material world? But they see lots of dreaming and very little manifesting.

First let me school y'all on something that I learned 5 MINUTES AGO!

Actually, I've been looking at this since yesterday, but nothing like getting a lesson from someone who learned what they know from youtube videos in the last 24 hours, is there?

I think there is some confusion between idealism, which is a philosophy largely attributed to George Berkeley, and being an idealist, which is different.

I think what Diana and dodalisque are talking about is being an idealist, however the question is about idealism.

I also think, and here is the really clever part on my side, I see a connection!

But, first let me draw a tarot card because that's how this is supposed to work.

7 of Wands from Thoth Tarot

According to Mr. Crowley, this card signals a loss of confidence, weakness, a departure from balance. The weapon in front, is a crude uneven blunt instrument, relegating the finer weapons to the background. Those weapons see their power dispersed without direction or meaning.

The philosophy of idealism is basically the idea that nothing can exist unless it is perceived. You cannot imagine a banana, for example, without understanding it's properties. It's yellow, a certain size and shape. You have to know that in order for the banana to exist. Don't believe me? Try imagining a banana without imagining any of its properties. Not really do-able. And what is "yellow" anyway? It's just the colour we all agree bananas are even though we have no way of knowing what each other are really seeing.

But it's easy to see where this particular logic runs into problems. Does my house disappear when I leave it because I am not observing it? Or what about the car that I did not observe at all that ran over me and put me in the hospital? Did it not exist even though I didn't observe it?

Berkeley had a very convenient answer for those kinds of challenges to his theory, which in a word was "God." He was a priest or a monk or something so, it made sense to him. God was the underlying base of perception, he was keeping things in order for the the driver of the car who did see you but couldn't stop in time. Otherwise the car would have driven right through you as if you were a ghost, freaking the driver out and God wouldn't do that to the driver. (Putting me in the hospital though, totally okay.)

I could keep trying to explain this, but really, this is the basic idea of idealism: there is no fixed reality, only personal perceptions of it.

Idealism really a close cousin of solipsism. A solipsist sees themselves as the center of reality. A solipsist doesn't trust in or believe in anything outside of their own mind. And if Idealism is a cousin of solipsism, I would also say that solipsism is a sibling of narcissism.

So to answer the original question, is idealism a crime, in context of the Thoth 7 of Wands, I would answer YES! because it disregards everything not in the mind of the individual and that is a severely limiting and dangerous way to perceive the world.

What does this have to do with the idealist?
An idealist tends to have a fixed view of How Things Should Be and wishes to impose that on everyone. Like idealism, an idealist tends to disregard all views, no matter how valid, that don't align with their world-view. It is wrong to assume that one person's ideal world or situation is the same as another's. A racist, for example, would have a certain "ideal" for the world, than say, a normal person. A misogynist may have a very different "ideal" of marriage than say, a normal person.

But even when an idealist imagines wonderful things, the rosy optimistic view dodalisque spoke of, they can be a very ineffective agent of change because s/he isn't able to perceive the sources or background of opposing opinions in any objective way.

But, the question was about idealism, the philosophy which, like the Thoth 7 of Wands, is a blunt instrument that disregards nuance and other points of view and is therefore a CRIME!

No one is more self-assured than someone who just learned something.
Also, I am pretty sure the Great Barrier Reef existed before I saw it even though I could have never imagined it in a million years. And no idealised picture of it that I had in my head even came remotely close to the true wonder of it. Even the imaginings of an idealist can be, ultimately, far less "ideal" than the truth and as a "goal" can be a disappointment.

[chiscotheque]

idealism as a philosophical idea (which means "to see") argues that reality is experiential. on the face of it, humans have to experience reality to "see" it, since just as we see with our eyes we "know" through the mind. idealism is solipsism by (de)fault, then, although another name might be empiricism.

what a banana is is a set of criteria we as humans arbitrarily ascribe something. if a thing doesn't meet those criteria, well, it's apples and oranges. if an apple tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it - they're all too busy listening for the sound of one hand clapping - it doesn't mean that the tree doesn't fall. just as we have organs which allow our experience of the world while at the same time limiting it, we have ways to experience the world perhaps not dreamed of in our philosophies - things beyond the ken of those who set the criteria; things, in other words, which science or law or the eyeball don't allow. further, humans are not the only things with perception - the experience and so the "reality" of the tree falling is very real for the sparrow living in the tree, just as it is for the tree itself - a living entity. taken further, the movement of matter has its own experience and reality, whether we ascribe it life and so give it credit so to speak, or not. (to what degree inorganic matter can experience reality is a discussion for another day, but for our purposes here imagine the fallen apple tree rolls down a hill into a river which floats into a log jam. our apple tree is the final straw which breaks the log jam and the dammed-up waters burst out, flooding the township below and everyone in it dies. how's that for idealism?)

this force majeur highlights that which humans experience but have yet no clear set of criteria for - or, rather, their criteria is the catch-all criteria, "god". just as telescopes allow us to see greater distances and microscopes smaller, science, technology, and the accumulation of knowledge has broadened our understanding, encroaching on the domain of god. this, in effect, is the movement man's fall from Eden symbolizes: the movement from god, where man lived in god as it were, outwards into the world where - to paraphrase Yeats - the world is too much with us. in this way, especially as Crowley was a golden dawn member, the loss and departure from balance of the 7 of wands could also signify Man's deprivation - the sense of equanimity and naturalness of being we had "before the fall", when humanity was more like the animals (and bananas) we named.

idealism as a philosophical idea, being epistemological, is almost hard-wired into philosophy. it could be said a school antithetical to it is/were the cynics. they believed that humans, with all their delusions of grandeur and honour and sophistication - in short, their solipsism - were liars and phonies and as such made themselves worse than what at core they were: animals. it was better to live honestly as such, they argued, than live falsely in a false world. this idea ties in with Dodalisque's original question, which I believe concerned idealism in the optimistic, Pollyanna, rose-coloured, silver-lining, Candide way of thinking. is this kind of thinking not only pretentious and annoying but dangerous? technically, Dodalisque asked if it was a crime, and a crime is something which violates the laws of a state, begging the question: what state? and when? antebellum Georgia? 2nd Century Rome? certainly, idealism has been and can be a crime by these strict definitions, such as seen in civil disobedience. and even when the "law" is tacit, such as taking the knee during football games - but this is a whole different kind of idealism.

on that note, I would just point out that, as strange as it might seem to us with our (cynical?) criteria of cynicism, Jesus and his followers were described in their time as cynics. why? because they eschewed material wealth and earthly things in favour of the spiritual and their idea of god.

"all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."


.

[Joan Marie]

Is it a crime?

I get your questioning of the word "crime" as in "against what state." That would be a strict definition.
I took it a little more loosely though, as in a general affront to nature or to human progress.

I will add a little tidbit I picked up a while back.

We see, and I think agree on the connection between idealism and solipsism. I extended that to include narcissism.

A while back I was looking online for advice about how to help a narcissist.
Every other kind of problem, i.e. depression, bi-polar disorder, PTSD, OCD, etc, you will find TONS of websites with information about how to live with these problems, how to work toward overcoming them, how to support a person who is dealing with them, etc. etc.

But narcissism? All I could find was how to identify a narcissist and how to get away from them or work around them.
I could not find a single word about how to help one or how to help oneself if you think you are a narcissist and don't want to be. Or even how to recognise and correct narcissistic tendencies. Nothing. Nada.

There is, as far as I could see, zero empathy for a narcissist. I'm pretty sure not every narcissist is a totally hopeless case. I think a lot of people upon realising it would want to change, to improve. But good luck finding any help out there.

There is nothing but compassion and advice on the internet about every other personality or mental disorder.
But Narcissists can go jump off a bridge for all anyone cares. And good riddance seems to be the message.

This makes me think that the general consensus (fair or unfair) is that this is the only disorder considered by all as a "crime" and does not deserve help, only punishment and shunning. So is idealism a crime? Apparently, because insofar as it resembles narcissism, the jury has already decided.

Walk the plank.

[chiscotheque]

A while back I was looking online for advice about how to help a narcissist... All I could find was how to identify a narcissist and how to get away from them or work around them.
I could not find a single word about how to help one or how to help oneself if you think you are a narcissist and don't want to be. Or even how to recognise and correct narcissistic tendencies. Nothing. Nada.

I decided to do my own Google search and I found numerous sites instantly - how to help a narcissistic husband, how to diagnose narcissism, treatment and cure, 9 types of narcisists, can a narcissist change for love?, 10 stages in the treatment of narcissistic disorders, 6 keys for narcissists to change to a higher self, etc etc.

this suggests to me that the algorithms used by Google to tailor searches to an individual hid certain results from you, Joan Marie, and/or showed those results to me. perhaps because Google thinks I am more likely a person with narcissist disorder and you a person more likely dealing with a narcissist. either way, one of the planks of your premise is erroneous.

further, I think it's important to point out that it is a contentious issue within the mental health community whether or no narcissism can be treated. many personality disorders, including NPD, do not respond to medication. one of the few treatments available is psychotherapy, but it's effectiveness is limited and highly reliant on the individual and the nature of his NPD.

as for narcissists being social pariahs, that is a lost cause too far. narcissists usually do quite well in our society, indeed they often excel and become CEOs, doctors, lawyers, celebrities, policemen, military officers, and politicians. Trump is the perfect example of how narcissism is rewarded in our society. whats more, a narcissist himself doesn't care if s/he is or isn't cared about - indeed, by their lights, anyone who cared about them would just be displaying what stupid and weak creatures they are and proving their inferiority to the narcissist. narcissists do not struggle with who they are and rarely have any desire to change their behaviour - it is the people around them and society as a whole who suffer, not the narcissist. on a personal level, like covid 19, the best way for a person to protect themselves from the baleful effects of a narcissist is by self-quarantine.

In summation, I respect the nature of your concern, Joan Marie, but I'm afraid it's misguided and, as it happens, idealistic.


.

[Joan Marie]

I suppose basing a theory on the results of a google search is an ill-advised method.

However, I still stand by my results because even though your algorithm brought up some aid and comfort to the narcissist, I think it would still be safe to say that (pulling number out of air) at least 70 to 80% of results are still about how to avoid or work-around one. In other words, there ain't much sympathy for these people. Compare that to something like depression for example where the advice is all about how to help and how to cope, not how to get away from and avoid those suffering from it.

And I say "these people" as if we aren't all prone to a touch of the old narcissism from time to time. We are of course. We may even go through phases of it, only to grow out of it or self-correct through some introspection resulting from failed or troubled relationships that we actually do care about.

I also think using Trump as an example is a bit fraught because again the question is about the "criminal" nature of certain behaviour and clearly he commits crimes of all sorts all the time and gets away with them. Always has. He gets away with things you or I never would. So just because he gets away with being a narcissist isn't surprising. He is not the only one, the examples you named, CEOs, doctors, lawyers, celebrities, policemen, military officers, and politicians, are legendary at getting away with crimes.

Getting away with a crime doesn't negate the fact it was a crime. Although try and convince a narcissist of THAT!

[Diana]

I don't think it's the narcissists fault if he's a narcissist. It must be hardwired into his brain. Like Mozart had music hardwired into his.

There is apparently as I read some theories that maybe upbringing has an aggravating influence, but there's nothing really of substance to uphold this possible cause or aggravation. From what I saw, the first signs start at about 7 or 8 years old.

There's nothing much one can do apparently. They're a sort of a fixture of the human species. There are saints and there are narcisssists.

[dodalisque]

Is it a crime?

Here's a subsidiary question, which sounds like it should have a joke punchline:

What is the difference between a narcissist and an artist?

Aren't artists trying to be as true to their own voice as possible, despite what everybody else has to say about a particular subject. Both artists and narcissists seem awfully fixated on the self. Is art a sort of radical narcissism, or is it something else entirely? I hope so.

"Borderline" patients were also thought by Freud to be untreatable by psychiatry, which relies on the mechanism of transference, whereby the psychologist remains passive so as to encourage the patient to project his attitude towards life and society in general onto the psychologist, thus allowing both to identify unproductive behavior patterns in the patient. Their "relationship" becomes a test-tube microcosm of the patient's life. Transference supposedly cannot happen with a borderline patient because someone with that condition has no real self but takes his cues from whoever he is with and like a chameleon adopts protective coloration in any situation to fit in with what is expected or desired. If the psychologist adopts his strategy of remaining passive, then the borderline has nothing to react to and will mirror his silence. But if the psychologist adopts a more directive role and offers suggestions, the borderline will instantly accept them and behave in such a way as to justify what the psychologist is suggesting. A borderline patient seems the diametric opposite of a narcissist. They are both pretty horrible to be around. But I think they might make a lovely couple for each other. It would be like a masochist and a sadist finding each other.

[dodalisque]

From what I saw, the first signs start at about 7 or 8 years old.

Jeez, that's why kids drive you crazy. Your thumb can be severed and hanging by a thread and they'll be throwing things at you because their porridge is cold. I don't know anything about clinical psychology but it seems to me that narcissism is a developmental stage. We learn to moderate it as we leave home and the reality and counter-claims of the outside world are forced upon us. But I think narcissism is a necessary stage of development. A good thing. We need to create a durable ego-shell so that we have something that will survive the rigors of adult life. It gives us confidence and self-belief. Even spurious unfounded confidence is better than none at all. But if we don't grow out of that developmental stage and remain focused neurotically on our own concerns, then it becomes (large N) Narcissism, a debilitating psychological condition.

[Diana]

This reminded me of this thread. It's a sketch by Foils Arms and Hog, an Irish comedian trio. They're very funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y30sHbkt9ts

One of my favourite videos of theirs is one of their recent ones : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSxM6_zEw2k. I think I've watched it already about 10 times and each time I burst out laughing. Never gets stale.

[Joan Marie]

What is the difference between a narcissist and an artist?

This had me going nuts all morning. I thought up a lot of punchlines but they weren't that funny. I'm still working on this. It's like an earworm, I can't get it out of my head. However, I did come up with this:

A Rabbi, a Priest, an Artist and a Narcissist all walk into a bar.

The Rabbi says, "I give all I have in pursuit of the greatest wisdom."
The Priest says, "I worship and give all I have to the one true god."
The Artist says, "I give everything I have in search of the greatest beauty."

The Narcissist puts his wallet back in his pocket and says, "Looks like my lucky night!"

--
Be nice, that took me all day.

I'm still working on the other one.

Aren't artists trying to be as true to their own voice as possible, despite what everybody else has to say about a particular subject. Both artists and narcissists seem awfully fixated on the self. Is art a sort of radical narcissism, or is it something else entirely? I hope so.

This is a good question for sure. At the risk of sounding like I know What Artists & Narcissists Are, I will take a stab at this.
Putting aside the notion of a narcissistic artist, (a truly insufferable beast) I think that for most artists the focus on self is a search for an individual truth that naturally resonates with universal truths. Connections are found in that truth. An artist seeks to communicate with others on a deep level and has to dig deep within themselves to do that, to find those nuggets of realness and honesty and then to have the courage (and talent) to express them. It's a lot of hard work.

A Narcissist is not digging that deep. They are much more superficial. The approval they seek is more banal, fleeting and meaningless. Their emotional needs are quite simple.

I also think a narcissist is a much more fragile person than an artist.

So, though they may be both focusing on the self, the motivation is very different as are the results, and although there may be moments of crossover, I think they are two very different things.

A borderline patient seems the diametric opposite of a narcissist. They are both pretty horrible to be around. But I think they might make a lovely couple for each other. It would be like a masochist and a sadist finding each other.

I think there are a lot of couples like this. But unlike the masochist and sadist whose opposition is oddly complementary, I think the narcissist and borderline person bring out the worst in each other and eventually it ends in tears as they say.

[dodalisque]

I think that for most artists the focus on self is a search for an individual truth that naturally resonates with universal truths. Connections are found in that truth. An artist seeks to communicate with others on a deep level and has to dig deep within themselves to do that, to find those nuggets of realness and honesty and then to have the courage (and talent) to express them. It's a lot of hard work.

A Narcissist is not digging that deep. They are much more superficial. The approval they seek is more banal, fleeting and meaningless. Their emotional needs are quite simple.

Yep, I think you nailed it, JM. And the joke works too! The narcissist is serving his ego, in spades, whereas the artist is trying to transcend it. The artist's attention is on her own faithful service to a project, something outside herself, something which seems bizarrely to already exist fully-formed in her imagination but which she doesn't recognise until it is completed to her satisfaction, whereas the narcissist has no project other than the glorification of himself. I suppose I should have drawn a card to come to this conclusion, but if it hadn't agreed with what you said I would probably have drawn a different card until I got the card I needed. Which would have instantly tagged me as a narcissist! Consulting tarot cards should be an artistic pursuit, surrendering to forces, including coincidence, which are not controlled by the human will.

The difference between an artist and a narcissist is that when the artist chops his ear off, the narcissist simply moves his chair and talks into his other ear...or something. I had to give it a try after you spent so much time on your joke.

[dodalisque]

This reminded me of this thread. It's a sketch by Foils Arms and Hog, an Irish comedian trio. They're very funny.

The English have a reputation for humor - John Cleese has called it an affliction - but it's the Irish who make me laugh. Here in Canada stage comedians can't go to Newfoundland, which is mostly inhabited by a bunch of people from Ireland who once upon a time got lost on the way home from the pub, because everyone in the audience is funnier than they are. Texas humor, perhaps surprisingly, can be superbly dry and metaphysical. The dear old time-traveller joke for example.

[Diana]

The English have a reputation for humor - John Cleese has called it an affliction - but it's the Irish who make me laugh. Here in Canada stage comedians can't go to Newfoundland, which is mostly inhabited by a bunch of people from Ireland who once upon a time got lost on the way home from the pub, because everyone in the audience is funnier than they are. Texas humor, perhaps surprisingly, can be superbly dry and metaphysical. The dear old time-traveller joke for example.

dodalisque, why don't you tell the time-traveller joke again? I think few people saw it at the time and new members have joined since then. And also maybe this time chiscotheque may laugh too. He is not irremediable.

I would have told it, but you'd tell it much better than me. Your timing is better. And timing is everything in a joke.

[dodalisque]

dodalisque, why don't you tell the time-traveller joke again?

Thanks, Diana, but I don't take requests , not even from the only person in the auditorium. I'm sure the great joke is still hiding somewhere in a dark corner of Plato's Cave, probably in the "What is humor?" thread. Man, I must have told chiscotheque that joke, and a select selection of my ripest anecdotes, a hundred times and he still somehow manages to maintain the stony impassivity of a poker-playing mandarin. He's like the stone that Sisyphus has to push uphill every day. I'm the Fool to his King Lear, and that play is not exactly a laugh a minute. BTW, Greta Thunberg as Little Dorrit is wonderful. Here are some possible questions for you if you feel like it. Not the best but one of them might appeal to you:
What do you do if you have a vocation but no talent?
Is art simply a method of correcting your own image?
Is it wrong to like answers but hate questions?

[dodalisque]

Is it a crime?

Sorry, JM, I promise I won't make a habit of this, but I am having a question-writing moment. Some people have haiku moments. This one (as if you don't have enough problems already) is a real brain-twister tailored specifically for you, and may need its own thread if you feel like pulling a card or two for it. It's inspired by a passage in one of Lon Milo Duquette's books. But please totally ignore it if you are not in the mood.:

Why is "projection" regarded as an unfortunate tendency in psychiatry, but as a vital necessity in religion?

[Joan Marie]

Why is "projection" regarded as an unfortunate tendency in psychiatry, but as a vital necessity in religion?

I will have a go at this. Thanks!