/lit/ - Literature

>>18970727
No healthy man would live entirely in either, and who is to say that there cannot be a symbiosis struck up between the two? The realists build and maintain, the idealists are visionaries and oddballs that really push progress forward qualitatively, not only quantitatively? Assuming that "civilization" matters and can not afford a handful of idealists (not all are destined for that), or that it kills the soul by "isolating it to the metaphysical?" What man ever is "isolated to the metaphysical?" It's like talking about a man that has only masculine qualities, and no feminine qualities; of course such a man will "kill his soul," he does not even exist!

How does the realist "nourish the soul" by using reality (as it apparently is, not as it truly may be)? How can an idealist do anything that shirks or is "outside of reality," if he is a being operating within reality? Whether or not what he does is pragmatic is an irrelevant question; what is important is that he has a goal, and that it is noble, and that he strives to accomplish it.