To be an Idealist or a Realist. The idea is simple in its most basic form. An Idealist strives to uphold what’s right according to their principles, even if circumstances make that difficult or even impossible, whilst realists will view the world as it is, and adapt their actions to the current situation. It can be said that people gravitate more toward one way of thinking than the other. It’s typically put on a spectrum, to which people can place themselves accordingly to the degree they show a more idealistic or realistic attitude towards life’s decisions.
I’ve often been drawn to thinking idealistically in most things. What’s the use in doing anything at all if not for the right reasons? Usually, in an idealists mind, the means justify the end, whilst for a realist, the end justifies the means. In other words, for an idealist, the way in which something is carried out to reach the end goal is important, whilst a realist may use an adaptable approach to reach that same goal, even if that means going against what they think is right to do so.
In the past, I’ve been of the mind that nothing should be expected from me; that I should be able to have deep connections with those around me by simply existing, and by not offering anything truly meaningful in return. I’d say it’s a flawed way of thinking, and that combined with an idealistic attitude meant that I would be stubborn in this expectation.
You’ve likely heard the term “Unconditional Love”. We’d usually use it towards family members who we feel such a deep connection for that it seems nothing would allow us to lose that feeling. Well, that’s a strong statement you might say. When presented with the idea of Unconditional Love, the first question I would ask is whether that still holds true in the most extreme circumstances. What if the person you love commits mass murder for example?
By definition Unconditional Love is, well, unconditional. We continue to love that person despite any circumstance. So if that were the case, it might be reasonable to ask what it means to love someone. In this example, I’m not referring to romantic love, I’m focusing more on the love we find in our friends, family and neighbours. The ancient Greek language has 8 words for love according to the Greek City Times. Here’s the list:
- Eros (romantic, passionate love)
- Philia (affectionate love)
- Agape (selfless, universal love)
- Storge (familiar love)
- Mania (obsessive love)
- Ludus (playful love)
- Pragma (enduring love)
- Philautia (self love)
In the English language, we have a single word. The only way to differentiate it’s meaning is by examining the context the word is spoken in. I think the lack of such clear differentiation like the Ancient Greeks have may cause us to misconstrue the real meaning in each scenario. Let’s consider Agape; it’s probably most closely related to what we know as unconditional love. One definition is:
This love is unconditional, bigger than ourselves, a boundless compassion and an infinite empathy that you extended to everyone, whether they are family members or distant strangers.
The 8 Ancient Greek Words For Love (greekcitytimes.com)
It’s a word often expressed in Christianity. One of the most profound biblical examples is found at John 3 vs 16:
For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
Agape is a love that extends to all, but to live up to that word, does it mean we must support everyone we meet by accepting their current attitudes and ideals? As the definition above describes, Agape represents Infinite Empathy expressed towards everyone. I wouldn’t think this should mean that we accept the conclusions and actions others have made as correct simply because that’s what they’ve expressed. If someone were to state that they should be able to drive at any speed on any road, would we accept their conclusion? It’s likely we wouldn’t, as we might consider that a highly dangerous thing to do, and it would put unnecessary risk on other lives. It’s also not to say that we would take a vigilante approach in stamping down our own ideals onto others; after all, how can we in absolute terms ever conclude that we have the knowledge on what is truly right and wrong; in a capacity that plays God? Agape represents the general love for humankind, and love for the possibilities that are extended to each person.
Which leads me onto the bluntness of this posts title. You’ve likely heard the expression to “Love someone the way they are” or “People should accept you for who you are”. Based on this it could be easy to conclude that we should agree with others who stand against what we’ve ascertained to be right or that we should be accepted for simply existing. As long as we’re not acting against the attitudes of those around us, we should expect to be included within our friendships, our families and it’s surrounding activities. Well, let’s throw out another scenario. Imagine the typical example of the father who after a number of years, still hasn’t returned home with the milk… It’s established that the child in this situation has a father, but if that father were to return, would he be afforded the right to discipline, or instruct that child on what he can and can’t do? It seems reasonable to say that the father has lost his right to that role as he’s failed to live up to those responsibilities.
So, what responsibilities do we all have? We don’t expect anything from those around us, but if we are to live up to the duties we’ve been granted through our families, our friendships and our community, wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that we should feel compelled to extend ourselves in the best way we can to that end? Agape love is extended to all, but we must take action to fulfil the meanings of all forms of love. In this sense, we have a responsibility to offer something if we desire to be included.
JW Blog 