To be completely honest, the realist/idealist discussion threw me for a loop. I have always thought of myself as a realist. I like to see things as they are. Dreams and fantasies are all well and good, as long as you can keep them separate from your real-world view. In that sense I think I am a realist.

However. I’d never heard a definition of ideal like this before. It definitely struck a cord with me, because, I mean, isn’t everyone searching for the ideal version of something? I mean, no one looks at something and says, “Yes, this is the best this is ever going to be.” That’s absurd. You can look at anything and find fault with it. Nothing is perfect ever. But does that mean that I am looking for the ideal? Are we saying that acknowledging that something isn’t perfect makes you an idealist on principle?

Then I repeat, I don’t think there’s such a thing as a realist. I don’t even really understand what realism would be at this point. That’s amazing to me.  It was mentioned that an idealist wouldn’t always have to be an optimist, as it is commonly assumed. But in this case wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that all the realists would have to be optimists? I think you’d have to be. If you acknowledge that what you have is what you get- it doesn’t get better, you would have to be optimistic about it I think. Otherwise people would just off themselves.