Differences between Defeatism and Realism
Would someone be able to help me understand the difference between these two? I find these two terms rather overlapping and a bit confusing.
For example, it can be said that defeatism is where a person refuses to fight on because he or she thinks that the fight will be lost for sure or that it is not worth fighting for some other reason.
Well, if the person has analyses and realizes that the fight would be not worth the effort of time; energy; money and life, wouldn't that make him a realistic person?
A bit confused here =/
Many thanks.
For example, it can be said that defeatism is where a person refuses to fight on because he or she thinks that the fight will be lost for sure or that it is not worth fighting for some other reason.
Well, if the person has analyses and realizes that the fight would be not worth the effort of time; energy; money and life, wouldn't that make him a realistic person?
A bit confused here =/
Many thanks.
Defeatism can be understood as the practical consequence of pessimism which would seem to me something quite different from realism.
Your examples offer "thinks the fight will be lost for sure" and "analyses and realizes that...". Thinking that something is the case and arriving at the conclusion after careful consideration - analysis - are surely quite distinct.
Your examples offer "thinks the fight will be lost for sure" and "analyses and realizes that...". Thinking that something is the case and arriving at the conclusion after careful consideration - analysis - are surely quite distinct.
Original post by cambio wechsel
Defeatism can be understood as the practical consequence of pessimism which would seem to me something quite different from realism.
Ok. Somewhere mentioned this as well.
Your examples offer "thinks the fight will be lost for sure" and "analyses and realizes that...". Thinking that something is the case and arriving at the conclusion after careful consideration - analysis - are surely quite distinct.
Well, I would think they are connected to each other =/
First you need to think -> analyse -> conclude.
Of course the process is more detailed than the one I mentioned =/ (Or I might be wrong in some other philosophical ideology)
Original post by kka25
Would someone be able to help me understand the difference between these two? I find these two terms rather overlapping and a bit confusing.
For example, it can be said that defeatism is where a person refuses to fight on because he or she thinks that the fight will be lost for sure or that it is not worth fighting for some other reason.
Well, if the person has analyses and realizes that the fight would be not worth the effort of time; energy; money and life, wouldn't that make him a realistic person?
A bit confused here =/
Many thanks.
For example, it can be said that defeatism is where a person refuses to fight on because he or she thinks that the fight will be lost for sure or that it is not worth fighting for some other reason.
Well, if the person has analyses and realizes that the fight would be not worth the effort of time; energy; money and life, wouldn't that make him a realistic person?
A bit confused here =/
Many thanks.
I think what the first reply was trying to say that the defeatist in question thinks that he is going to lose without necessarily analysing anything aka presuming. They may just presume that everything is going to go wrong.
A realist, on the other hand, must not only think but analyse the situation as well. He would look at the battle and try to calculate the chances (or any other personal moral defectors) and make a choice.
In short, a defeatist expects defeat and doesn't need to analyse. A realist expects the normal actions of reality, and therefore must analyse reality in order to come to a conclusion, which may be for defeat or victory or something entirely different.
Original post by DebatingGreg
I think what the first reply was trying to say that the defeatist in question thinks that he is going to lose without necessarily analysing anything aka presuming. They may just presume that everything is going to go wrong.
A realist, on the other hand, must not only think but analyse the situation as well. He would look at the battle and try to calculate the chances (or any other personal moral defectors) and make a choice.
In short, a defeatist expects defeat and doesn't need to analyse. A realist expects the normal actions of reality, and therefore must analyse reality in order to come to a conclusion, which may be for defeat or victory or something entirely different.
A realist, on the other hand, must not only think but analyse the situation as well. He would look at the battle and try to calculate the chances (or any other personal moral defectors) and make a choice.
In short, a defeatist expects defeat and doesn't need to analyse. A realist expects the normal actions of reality, and therefore must analyse reality in order to come to a conclusion, which may be for defeat or victory or something entirely different.
Thank you. It does make sense now. I'll try to re-think again if there's any other possible argument relating to these 2 ideas, so that I could better understand it.
Nice username btw
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by kka25
Thank you. It does make sense now. I'll try to re-think again if there's any other possible argument relating to these 2 ideas, so that I could better understand it.
Nice username btw
Nice username btw
No probs and thanks
Realism is the belief that there is a reality outside of living things (observers) and what they observe.
'I'm a realist' therefore not only suggests 'I'm a person of action rather than ideas but also 'I'm objective' (even though nobody is objective).
It needs not necessarily have anything to do with defeatism at all.
Although there are examples of defeatist realists like 'I'd love to be able to go out with that girl but I'm a realist and know that she would say no'.
But a realist could be an optimist instead. 'I have these awful nightmares but I'm a realist and, in retrospect, I know that they are just in my mind, not the whole of reality for that time'.
Defeatism is waving a white flag of defeat without a battle actually having been fully lost or without even having commenced.
'I'm a realist' therefore not only suggests 'I'm a person of action rather than ideas but also 'I'm objective' (even though nobody is objective).
It needs not necessarily have anything to do with defeatism at all.
Although there are examples of defeatist realists like 'I'd love to be able to go out with that girl but I'm a realist and know that she would say no'.
But a realist could be an optimist instead. 'I have these awful nightmares but I'm a realist and, in retrospect, I know that they are just in my mind, not the whole of reality for that time'.
Defeatism is waving a white flag of defeat without a battle actually having been fully lost or without even having commenced.
Original post by Picnic1
Realism is the belief that there is a reality outside of living things (observers) and what they observe.
'I'm a realist' therefore not only suggests 'I'm a person of action rather than ideas but also 'I'm objective' (even though nobody is objective).
'I'm a realist' therefore not only suggests 'I'm a person of action rather than ideas but also 'I'm objective' (even though nobody is objective).
Can I say that being a realist makes you an objective person?
It needs not necessarily have anything to do with defeatism at all.
Although there are examples of defeatist realists like 'I'd love to be able to go out with that girl but I'm a realist and know that she would say no'.
Although there are examples of defeatist realists like 'I'd love to be able to go out with that girl but I'm a realist and know that she would say no'.
I understand this... but something about the two terms being together makes me want to object it; but I don't have good arguments why I should =/
Maybe it has something to do with the below statement:
Defeatism is waving a white flag of defeat without a battle actually having been fully lost or without even having commenced.
So taking the previous example of the guy asking the girl out; the guy would not ask the girl out because the girl would say no, and the guy didn't even try to ask the girl out, therefore, he has lost the battle even without commencing it, which makes him, a defeatist.
However, we we could argue as well that the guy is just being realistic because he knows that he won't get to ask the girl because so and so reason, which makes him a realistic person or follows realism.
I don't know if the above analysis is even remotely correct =/
Hope somebody could help me a bit =(
(edited 12 years ago)
He's not so much a realist if he instantly accepts rejection. Do I not put my dollar in the vending machine in fear it being spit back at me? No. The deafeatest doesn't put his dollar in. The realist goes for it because humans are the least predictable things.
Philosophical Realism is a philosophical construct that some things exist regardless of conscious , subjective, perception. eg if there was no life in the universe, beauty, justice, could still objectively exist. A philosophical realist, therefore, holds that there are rigid objective facts, regardless of how humans might bend those to their own will. (when people casually say 'I'm a realist' they usually mean to suggest 'I'm a pragmatist'. A pragmatist would use only the facts that can have the best balance of practical application for that particular situation. ie to a pragmatist Philosophical Realism could seem needlessly or unusefully loftily intellectual.
Defeatism is a more watery psychological one based on personality / environment / social groups / overthinking due to previous underthinking or previous physical / psychological separation or sinking your own boat out of comfort or to maintain a pattern / fit in to a subservient role etc.
To the OP's question, if someone says "I fancy them", the pragmatist might not ask them out as they only like to date someone who doesn't already have a wife / husband , for all the profound pain and physical / emotional separation it would cause! The defeatist would hopefully have those same pragmatic concerns but , regardless of the relationship status of the person, they wouldn't feel worthy or fully committed or ready in a natural way (and possibly correctly given their lack of esteem suggesting their heart is elsewhere. Their lack of esteem might actually only be a reflection of their lack of esteem towards certain people).
Defeatism is a more watery psychological one based on personality / environment / social groups / overthinking due to previous underthinking or previous physical / psychological separation or sinking your own boat out of comfort or to maintain a pattern / fit in to a subservient role etc.
To the OP's question, if someone says "I fancy them", the pragmatist might not ask them out as they only like to date someone who doesn't already have a wife / husband , for all the profound pain and physical / emotional separation it would cause! The defeatist would hopefully have those same pragmatic concerns but , regardless of the relationship status of the person, they wouldn't feel worthy or fully committed or ready in a natural way (and possibly correctly given their lack of esteem suggesting their heart is elsewhere. Their lack of esteem might actually only be a reflection of their lack of esteem towards certain people).
(edited 6 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- issues and debates
- Sociology AQA ALevel
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 + 2 (7172/1+2) 18th and 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- A-level Philosophy Study Group 2022-2023
- sociology
- Psychology A level 16 marker advice?
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 3 (7192/3) - 14th June [Exam Chat]
- edexcel a level politics paper 1
- Realism 30 marker Help - sociology ALEVEL
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- English language AQA gcse
- Realistic advice for economics
- Art GCSE Final Piece
- AQA A Level Sociology Paper 3 7192/3 - 13 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- machine elements
- Bad placement
- If I sent in my English lit paragraph would anyone be kind enough to mark it
- WJEC AS Resources?
- youtube channels for philosophy a level
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
