Idealism (the recognition that the seeming solidity of this world is entirely founded on geist – spirit, mind) seems at first to offer a sort of solipsistic refuge, a sort of artificial autism for those who have been hurt too much in their contact with others. But if you are existentially scrupulous you’ll notice some anomalies. First of all, you never lose the impulse to speak about what you’ve seen. You cannot shut up – you just can’t. You’ll also discover that the one pain you wanted most to go away increases alarmingly: your words are unwelcome. You are turned away at every door. You lose the ability to remain blind to the fact that people prefer their images of you to you.
In theory, so what? But the immediacy of truth cuts straight through the theory, and it demands to know: Why this hurt? Where is it coming from?
Would you like to know where all this leads, so you can make an informed decision on whether to turn around?
One day, if an idealist has adequate courage and honesty, he will be forced to recognize that love is always and without exception rooted beyond the phenomenal (that is, in the metaphysical). We cannot dispense with the metaphysical without losing our capacity to care. We cannot protect ourselves and remain fully alive. And at this point, the one who meant to armor himself with spirituality discovers to his horror that he not only lacks armor, but also his skin. He is right out there, exposed, stinging, feeling everything and he has no choice in the matter.
Idealism – even existentialism – will not protect you for long. Find some other strategy – drugs, entertainments, a hectic and numbing lifestyle. Lose yourself in phenomena. For the love of God, don’t try to transcend this world if you’re seeking to escape it.
Please, be careful.
Is it totally serious?
I’m afraid I don’t do well any measure of sarcasm in text…so I can not tell if it is present here.
If you mean to say, that becoming exposed and experiencing the pain of Loss/Rejection/Having one’s words be unwelcome/etc. is not desirable…I have to disagree.
if you wish to discuss it further (and I would like that)
Please abstain from becoming Devil’s advocate to your own stance.
You seem earnest, earnest discussion interests me.
I am being completely serious here.
I’ll agree with you that some of the time or even most of the time it is fine to have your thought meet nothing but hostility. However, when there is nobody to agree with you on the most important points of your understanding of the world, or even anyone who can agree, or even anyone with the inclination to hear in order to agree or disagree — that is a bad situation. It may not be bad immediately, but eventually it becomes unbearable. It is dreadful to realize that someone that you care about not only doesn’t know you, but prefers to continue mis-know you, and when pushed (I’ve pushed it) insists on not hearing. It isn’t even resistance. It is refusal to engage at all.
We’ve seen how group-think can maintain itself even when empirical evidence refutes it. I used to think group-think is essentially despicable, but now I think it is a basic human requirement–but only when it takes the form of general agreement supported by–or at least not contradicted by–empirical evidence. To have no agreement on your own essential truths is like solitary confinement in plain sight.