Hong’s Cave

From a recent conversation, I realized that quite a few smart people seems to take an either-or approach to the idealism-vs-realism issue. That is, there are a group of people who believe that an ideal human state (e.g., no war, no conflict and happiness for everyone) can be achieved while there are another group of people that any idealistic endeavor is useless because that state cannot be achieved at all.

The first group is basically limiting their thoughts because they cling so much to what they think this “world” is. Also, they are creating more conflict (external or internal) because they are refusing to interact with the “world” and to see it as what it is (that is).

The second group, on the other hand, is just like saying, “Since we will get hungry again, why bother with eating at all?” They are also refusing to see deeper into the nature of this “world.”

As always, I am taking the middle ground. My belief is that it’s essential to realize that there is a limit to the idealistic goal we set out to, and at the same time, to still try to achieve that goal nonetheless. I mean both are important, the realization and the effort.

One of its most fundamental example would be our own existence. That is, we live on although we know that our existence has a time-limit and that not all the experience we go through is pleasant. But that doesn’t mean that we should just stop living all together. Our imperfect existence is given, it’s the ground rule that we have to work with. I didn’t realize what “coming to terms with one’s own life” that I heard often meant until now. But I think it means to realize what you are, what your ground rule is, and work from there.

I guess this is how most religion starts…