I think the best cats are the naughty ones. (Note that mine is named Trouble :) )
Idealism in the philosophical sense = a whole pile of different things, depending on context. Even the meaning of 'idealism' in 'german idealism' is very much up for debate (one of the main debates being whether german idealism is making an epistemological claim about what is accessible to consciousness, or a metaphysical claim about what is out there). (which is not even to enter into the multiple meanings of 'absolute idealism', which also gets bandied about by the german idealists!)
I think the one overlap between the psychological sense and the philosophical sense, at least for the earlier german idealists, and also for Plato & platonic philosophy, is that there is the sense that an "ought" has some sort of weight, some kind of reality (whatever that might be!). An appeal to an ought is saying that there is some sort of ideal of justice/good/whatever (whether this is durable or ever-changing) that can be appealed to. Someone with a more pragmatic or skeptical attitude, on the other hand, would be more likely to dismiss an 'ought' as wishful thinking, or merely practical advice, to be discarded if something better comes along. (and not necessarily in a callous way -- just seeing ethical decision-making as a muddling through & doing the best in each situation, rather than appealing to "Ought"s.)
Does that make sense? Does that seem to square with the psychological division?
One question I had, actually, when going through -- has any of the recent philosophical work on virtue ethics (which is Aristotelian in heritage, but has really been picking up in the last 20 years) carried over to psychological work on ethics/subjectivity? Virtue ethics is broadly situationalist, but focuses on developing the kind of character that is likely to make good decisions. So, one develops virtues of prudence, wisdom, patience, etc., that come into play in making a decision. No rules, but still not a free-for-all. :) I've seen it used in medical ethics/bioethics as being a good model for health practitioners.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-27 06:00 pm (UTC)Idealism in the philosophical sense = a whole pile of different things, depending on context. Even the meaning of 'idealism' in 'german idealism' is very much up for debate (one of the main debates being whether german idealism is making an epistemological claim about what is accessible to consciousness, or a metaphysical claim about what is out there). (which is not even to enter into the multiple meanings of 'absolute idealism', which also gets bandied about by the german idealists!)
I think the one overlap between the psychological sense and the philosophical sense, at least for the earlier german idealists, and also for Plato & platonic philosophy, is that there is the sense that an "ought" has some sort of weight, some kind of reality (whatever that might be!). An appeal to an ought is saying that there is some sort of ideal of justice/good/whatever (whether this is durable or ever-changing) that can be appealed to. Someone with a more pragmatic or skeptical attitude, on the other hand, would be more likely to dismiss an 'ought' as wishful thinking, or merely practical advice, to be discarded if something better comes along. (and not necessarily in a callous way -- just seeing ethical decision-making as a muddling through & doing the best in each situation, rather than appealing to "Ought"s.)
Does that make sense? Does that seem to square with the psychological division?
One question I had, actually, when going through -- has any of the recent philosophical work on virtue ethics (which is Aristotelian in heritage, but has really been picking up in the last 20 years) carried over to psychological work on ethics/subjectivity? Virtue ethics is broadly situationalist, but focuses on developing the kind of character that is likely to make good decisions. So, one develops virtues of prudence, wisdom, patience, etc., that come into play in making a decision. No rules, but still not a free-for-all. :) I've seen it used in medical ethics/bioethics as being a good model for health practitioners.