Idealism and Spirituality, Part I

By: Ira Allen

Introductory Questions
What is an idealist? One who pursues an ideal? Are all people idealists, to some degree? Who sets the ideals that are pursued? Is it possible to escape pursuing an ideal? Is the degree of intensity with which the ideal is pursued what separates an idealist from a non-idealist? Let us say for the moment that an idealist is one who pursues her ideal with a high degree of intensity. In this case, idealism may be a dangerous thing, but may also be necessary for changes of any great moment to be consciously engineered. Which brings us to a difficult question: Is the conscious engineering of changes of great moment desirable? And a second question: If all people pursue some ideals (regardless of who defines the ideals in question) with a degree of intensity that might be characterized as something beyond simple presence, as personhood-in-doing, does the term ‘idealist’ retain any meaning? And finally, what is the relation between the ideal and the spiritual?

Some Difficulties with Idealism
Let us begin by noting that some people, of varying dispositions, develop concepts of the "ideal," of the most favorable state imaginable, and that they try to realize these conceptions in the world in which they live and interact with other beings. This set-up, first of all, underscores the provisionality inherent to idealism. There is no unifying ideal possible by this definition, since the state imagined as "most favorable" will vary widely from individual to individual. In the most extreme case, one man’s "ideal" might be a "pure" white race, an "ideal" quite rightly condemned by the majority of the world population. On the other side of the fence, the "ideal" of some sort of spiritual communion with a Higher Power or Powers—held by a vast majority of human beings—is scorned by a few as completely unnecessary.

The moral values of one culture tend to differ from those of other cultures, and the question of whether certain universal values exist, values that could provide the foundation for a "true" conception of the ideal, remains unanswered. In addition, even if a universal ideal should exist, it is surely imagined differently from person to person, as may be seen in differing attitudes among persons of similar political persuasions—even between areas as culturally similar (relatively speaking) as the United States and Western Europe—toward the implementation of values such as social justice. This wide variety of approaches to implementation does not prove the nonexistence of an ideal, of course, but it does cast doubt on the assertion of any individual or group to have a model of idealism that is valid for all human (and other) beings, since idealism as we have defined it includes implementation of the principle.

Why Study Idealism?
The dubiousness of the ideal itself might seem to render further inquiry into the nature of idealism unimportant, given that it must be founded on an illusion, on no more than imagination. Two points mitigate against so easily casting the question aside. First, we have, as stated above, not proven the nonexistence of the ideal, and it may thus prove worthwhile to investigate the behavior and nature of those who act on the belief that they are acquainted with universally valid ideals, as they could be "right." Second, the fact that idealists may be "wrong" does not change at all the importance of their behavior in the course of history, nor does it render an examination of their approach to reality less necessary. In fact, especially if they are "wrong," the thinking and behavior of idealists needs to be understood, that we may minimize or prevent altogether the harm that results from their activities.

Harm? I hear some readers asking. Harm? But what about Jesus? The Buddha? Gandhi? Mother Theresa? Idealists, all. On what grounds might we assert the harmfulness of idealism? First, as we shall discuss, it is not certain that all the above-mentioned personages should be considered idealists, by our conception, as their focus seems in many cases to have been on the individuals with whom they interacted, rather than on the principles or ideals driving their actions. Second, it may be shown that harm results from the actions of all four, especially those whom we might classify as idealists, and that the degree of harm in each case corresponds to the degree of idealism informing their activities. In a later segment, I will explore the ways in which the idealism of these figures—or of their representations throughout history—interferes with their own spiritual messages.