Is it the System or is it us?

I do write write loads and loads of messages in a lot of discussion fora. There's an inherent, unifying theme in nearly all my writings, nevertheless. I never highlight a fault with the system when the individuals that should run the system are faulty themselves. Unless the operators know how to run a machine, one should not try to repair the machine - it's bound to break down again, even if one repairs it successfully! We, the people, are the operators in a democracy, of course!

We, as individuals:

lack a lot of knowledge, information, and attributes,

do a lot of mistakes, individually and as a part of various groups,

follow a lot of unethical practices,

find fault with everyone and everything except what we feel our own,

find a reason to blame or rant and move on with a pseudo-satisfaction of achievement,

are filled with skepticism and hatred towards the System that we don’t understand,

ignore that we need to understand the System before we can even deem it dysfunctional,

think we can troubleshoot the System we do not know,

extrapolate and blow up our limited understanding of a part of our surroundings – only that we want to see – and think the whole Society is the same,

do not realize that We, the people, are the only ones to be ever blamed in a democracy; after all, we are the rulers!

forget that other individuals in the System can be wrong and then blow up that “individuals” to a “group” and that group to “Society” and that “Society” to the “System”.

 

Thus said, I have a trouble convincing people that individual-level reforms should come first. I really wish people do find a sound argument to explain why the System should be reformed first. And/or I wish that they would agree that finding individual-level solutions is more important, necessary, and effective compared to system-level solutions that no one wants to design, test-drive, implement, manage, troubleshoot, or even believe in!

Practical Idealism versus Ideal Practice

I always hear: idealism and practicality are opposites! Well, I surely don't ever see it as a black-or-white question. Why, you may ask? Simply because they're but just two adjectives that can take other nouns, including each other! That's exactly why this piece is titled as it is.

What's it to be practical? To put something in practice. And, now, what renders idealism an unsuitable candidate? Nothing but unnecessary apprehensions that ...well, idealism cannot be put in practice! I simply ask, to inform myself, as to why idealism cannot be put in practice, and I still am yet to find a person who can give me a logical, straightforward answer. Now, what's it to be ideal? To follow certain ideals, of course! What ideals, due course of action decides.

Some ideals of old times might seem "impractical" as is, and what do you do then? Make them practical, of course, or how can you put them into practice! That's what I term Practical Idealism. In cases where there're no prescribed ideals, the practice, in a win-win situation, could be called Ideal Practice, by bringing practicality as close as possible to an “assumed ideal”. There is a subtle difference between the two, I dare to point, in that Ideal Practice is to be only sought after as the modus operandi when Practical Idealism is, presumably, not all feasible. (By "not all feasible", I refer to circumstantial constraints on its applicability but not on its practicability.) In other words, when ideal comes to meet practice, it's Practical Idealism, and when practice comes to meet the ideal, it's Ideal Practice.

How does this wordplay matter? Well, the wordplay doesn't matter, surely, but what matters is people's perception of both idealism and practicality. When one talks about practicality, one treats it as an antonym of idealism, like I wrote when I started. So, how does this antonymy matter? By looking at these terms as antonyms, practicality is put afar off idealism and not as nearer as it could be! In this light, idealism is cast off outright. If only one tries to bring practicality as much nearer to idealism as possible, one attains Ideal Practice, and in most cases, a bit of furthering shall bring oneself to Practical Idealism.

The bottom line? Practice Idealism, and you'd then learn that it's practicable. Look at them as opposites, and your practicality is never ideal!

“JAI – Just An Indian”