Note: Sometimes I just sit and stuff comes up to my head and I just write them down. This particular post might have some political thought behind them, but the main point is on the topic of idealists working out ideas, concepts and manifestos in isolation of their own thoughts. I guess the ideas written are pretty broad and can work, on anything to do with community, leadership and progress. These are just my own thoughts anyways but I’m a willing listener. I’m not so sure about the title of the post but at best this post is rather experimental and needs a lot of unpacking from others who disagree or resonate with.
Ideas, regardless of how we conjure them are realities spaced out on a landscape created by the one responsible for thinking them up. It does not matter how well versed the idealist is in matters of what he or she had and has experienced, his or her views are always biased to what he or she thinks as the way to go. This also holds true to concepts as well.
Ideas and concepts live well in the reality conjured up by the idealist, worked out under the conditions and probabilities reworked in the mind of the one thinking them up. Alone, the idealist paints a reality where he or she has thought up of every known probability taken from their own experience, knowledge and wisdom.
So if the community takes up the idealists’ ideas and conception as something pure and thought up to be something perfect, the community relents or denies its own responsibility in the conversation of what would work best in the vicinity constructed by physical reality; the real world, and also how their own ideas would be meshed together with the idealist.
The idea of truth should not be grounded in or on one solidarity figure to carry out what works best if he or she is in the position of leadership. This relinquishes the power embedded in a community as they relent their responsibility to think for themselves. There is always the tendency of leaders who are ushered into or onto a position of leadership to corrupt their platform by thinking that it becomes their sole responsibility to define truth for everyone. I suppose this is what happens when some leaders revert from their initial support from the people and become dictators, ruthless to those who oppose them, or disagree with their rule.
An idealist who is given the power to think by a community because they view the leader is capable of bridging a pure concept for everyone to live have ceased responsibility of conjuring space for realistic progress. Sure, progress is certainly easy if only one sole idea is followed. But the reality of diversity deconstructs this and renders this concept numb and in someways unrealistic. If progress is to be realized it needs unity formed in the conceptual dimension of diversity. Unity in it purest sense is unity that understands diversity. That understands dialogue. That is unafraid to sit down and discuss opposing positions and work out a third way to going about.
And in a more realistic conception to this writers idea, progress is slow. Real progress is when it is willing to discuss humanely opposing views in the vicinity of reality’s probability and taking consideration from all views coming from the desires of the collective voice of the people, the community in the hope that working together is the only way forward.