Is it better to be idealist or realist?

Question

I know its hard to make generalizations, but nonetheless, whats your opinion?

Answer 1

To be extreme in either is not very sensible. And in any case, anything that ends in "ist" needs caution, and to be thought about in a practical sense.

Most labels we fix on ourselves or on others are not true all the time. Most people drift between one extreme and another. But for the sake of the arguement, let's look at both.

Idealists are most happy when their environment, situation and circumstances come very close to what they hold in their mind to be best. They feel comfortable with the word SHOULD. They create a mental image of how things should be, and enjoy the abstract preception of a number of things in life.

An example of these things are:

How things should be in the home
How things should be in a relationship
How things should be at school
How things should be at work
How things should be in love

Idealists aim for the SHOULDs in their minds, and when the dial is too far away, they do not feel comfortable. We find idealists among politicians, teachers, authors, mothers, shopkeepers, bankers, fathers, students... they are everywhere.

On the other hand, realists do not very often use the word SHOULD. They use words like DOES, or ARE, or IS. They understand that the world works in certain ways at certain times in certain places, and waiting for it all to reach some level is not terribly practical.

Aha! That 's it - realists are practical. They think "This is the way things ARE - let's work around the way it IS." Realists do not feel disappointed when things do not go exactly as they expect, because they have no SHOULD barometer. They try to put up with - or manage, or fix - things that have not gone exactly to plan. They take the world as it is, not as they have decided it SHOULD be.

Realists handle

How things ARE in the home
How things arein a relationship
How things are at school
How things are at work
How things are in love

You will find realists everywhere - some are politicians, teachers, authors, mothers, shopkeepers, bankers, fathers, students... !

The problem (or the fun) is when you have a committee or a group, or a family, where you have some realists and some idealists. The idealists will tell the group how things SHOULD go, and hopefully work towards that aim. The realists will put up with things as they turn out, and hopefully work towards managing the outcome.

So it's impossible to say what's better - some people can shift and change according to the circumstances in which they are, and this is called adaptability, which is great for survival. If you feel you can manage and work towards an outcome that will feel like it should, you can.

In my opinion, a bit of both never hurt anybody.

Hope this helps

Answer 2

People who are idealist are generally ineffective and unproductive. And it has been my experience idealist are almost always very unhappy people.

On the other hand realist tend to be skeptical and some times even cynical. So the answer is from a purely personal point of view I don't want to be either.

I consider myself a pragmatist. What ever works is the flow I go with. And my motto is "If ain't broke don't fix it".

To me it is noteworthy that this question appears in the Philosophy section rather than the Psychology section. Philosophers are almost always idealists. Psychologists at least in theory are open minded and generally avoid trying to characterise any subject as being either/or. In your question you leave no room for anything other than idealist or realist with no other options. There are always other options for the human mind is very ingenious and quite capable of sorting things out and finding acceptable alternatives

Answer 3

people who're idealist are many circumstances ineffective and unproductive. And it fairly is been my journey idealist are tremendously plenty consistently very unhappy human beings. at different hand realist tend to be skeptical and a few circumstances even cynical. So the respond is from a in common words very own attitude i do now not prefer to be the two. I evaluate myself a pragmatist. What ever works is the bypass i bypass with. And my motto is "If ain't broke do now not restoration it". To me it fairly is noteworthy that this question seems indoors the Philosophy section fairly than the Psychology section. Philosophers are tremendously plenty consistently idealists. Psychologists a minimum of in concept are open minded and in lots of circumstances save far flung from attempting to characterise any concern as being the two/or. on your question you go away no room for something distinctive than idealist or realist with out distinctive strategies. There are consistently distinctive strategies for the human concepts interior reason ingenious and extremely able to sorting subjects out and sorting out acceptable opportunities

Answer 4

I think it's great to be an idealist because it keeps an open mind, and it's where you get creativity for goals. It's also great to be a realist so that your goals can be ones you are able to achieve. IE: If you are allergic to nuts then you really shouldn't work at a peanutbutter factory.

Answer 5

To be a realist is to follow others, to be an idealist is to break away for change. Society must change in order to survive, thus it is in need of idealists.

Answer 6

Idealistically speaking, an idealist.
Realistically speaking, a realist.

Edx

Answer 7

It is better to be an idealist, because if you just accept things as the way they are, then the world will never get better. However, it is also harder on a person, because they have more of a chance of being disappointed.

I fall somewhere between the two.

Answer 8

I think having a little bit of both is best. I prefer to be an idealist.

Answer 9

Realist, without a doubt.

An idealist, when wrong, is bitterly disappointed.
A realist, when wrong, is pleasantly surprised.

Answer 10

A realist, because you will always be disappointed as an idealist