Where did the expression "Right up your alley" Originate?
To be up a person's alley: to be up a person's street. slang. 1931 M. E. GILMAN Sob Sister v. 65 It's about time a good murder broke, and this one is right up your alley. 1936 D. CARNEGIE How to win Friends IV. viii. 247 Bridge will be in a cinch for you. It is right up your alley. 1941 AUDEN New Year Let. II. p. 37 All vague idealistic art That coddles the uneasy heart, Is up his alley. To be up (down, in) one's street: to be suited to someone's taste or ability. 1903 FARMER & HENLEY Slang VII. 10/1 Street.., a capacity, a method; a line: e.g. ‘That's not in my street’ = ‘I am not concerned’ or ‘That's not my way of doing,’ etc. 1929 Publishers' Weekly 21 Dec. 2813/2 A great many of the books published today are, as the saying is, right up her street. 1945 E. WAUGH Brideshead Revisited II. iv. 259 She is a jolly attractive girl, the sort of girl any chap would be glad to have—artistic, too, just down your street.
What is Nominalism?
There are 3 basic positions in philosophy related to things, thoughts and words. Those 3 emphases are empiricism (things) idealism (thoughts/ideas) and nominalism (words). What you ask about is NOMINALISM which emphasizes words, whereas IDEALISM emphasizes thoughts/ideas and EMPIRICISM emphasizes things/objects. Every philosopher has to have some "idea" of how to relate things, thoughts and words. But very few have been able to achieve a rational balance without coming up with an emphasis on one or other of the 3. Thus we have people like Plato and Kant who emphasize IDEAS (or thought Categories) in Kant's case. Kant was so extreme that he thought the world of things (phenomena or appearances) was "intrinsically unknowable" BECAUSE (for Kant) all our perceptions were controlled by our minds/ideas. Plato thought that the world of things was illusory and not as "real" as the world of "forms" (Latin root) or "ideas" (Greek root). Thus Plato is the quintessential IDEALIST. Empiricists like Locke, Berkeley and Hume don't even distinguish between intellectual and perceptual apparatus. Thus they are called Empiricists because they think that whatever gets into the minds of humans originates with the senses. They are British Empiricists because they do not make the distinction between sensitive and intellectual powers, whereas an EMPIRICIST, like Aristotle (for example) does distinguish perceptual from intellectual powers. The British empiricists are interesting because Locke was almost a "scholastic", Hume was a sceptic (which is really strange for an alleged empiricist) and Berkeley was both an IDEALIST and a NOMINALIST because he constantly argued against GENERAL IDEAS. For Berkeley words only stood for individual/sensible things, making him a NOMINALIST (emphasis on WORD-particularity), as well as an IDEALIST (because he thought that everything might be only IDEAS in God's mind --- strange man/cleric). Have fun with things thoughts and words which will make you, too, either an empiricist, an idealist or a nominalist who emphasizes words. Kevin
What does idealism mean?
Woah Nellie! Whoah! I'm afraid you've gotten things a little twisted around here. Here are your ideas: Pragmatism is the practise of doing things practically, while idealism is living your life based on your ideals. You can practise pragmatism and idealism at the same time with no problem, in some cases. So, idealism and pragmatism are neither opposites nor contrasting. Example: You believe in living on the cheap and not spending a lot of money on clothing. You feel there is no need for that. That idea is one of your ideals. Now, to be pragamatic about this, you could collect clothing from aunts and uncles, and go to the thrift store, or get clothing from freecycle. In this case you are being pragmatic and practising pragmatism, while at the same time maintaining your ideal. I hope this makes sense.
Is humanism considerred a form of idealism?
Relating humanism, idealism, and rationalism "Both rationalism and idealism had strong influences on humanism. Humanism, particularly favored by the classical Greeks, showcases mankind as the ultimate ideal; that is, perfect, flawless, and all important, without significant emphasis on the role of a god or gods. Idealism, the method of envisioning things perfectly and in their best form, had visible influences in the way the Greeks viewed the human body, as flawless and the ultimate goal of all things. Rationalism, however, perhaps was more influential in the Greek’s development of humanism as it accepted reason as the highest authority on matters of opinion and philosophy, and without any tangible proof of the gods, influenced the Greeks in their ideas that man truly was the most supreme and powerful being created."
Is Constructivism some kind of idealistic theory of knowledge ?
Yes, constructivism is an epistemology with its roots in idealism, especially German Idealism. Constructivists claim that there are only two kinds of epistemology - representationalism and constructivism. I'll "construct" their argument for you. It is generally accepted that we do not perceive things as they actually are - the new sciences prove this by saying we see light waves, hear sound waves, feel nerve sensations, etc. Representationalists claim that there exists in reality an object, and thus, what we perceive is a representation of that object. However, the constructivist claims that the properties of a representation do not tell us anything about the properties of the object itself. That if we look at a painting of a horse, it does not tell us anything about the horse itself - the only reason we make those connections is because we have actually seen a horse. So constructivists, in a sense, believe that all we perceive are like the paintings and we have no experience of the real. They pose an alternative. If we can't know anything about the real, then we can surely know what we create. With ideas found in as early as Immanuel Kant, the only knowledge we possess is the knowledge we put into the world we encounter. In fact, I believe one of the constructivists I've spoken to often said, "We create what we know." This idea carries itself through German Idealism and even can be found in some Existential theories, those that claim we create our meaning. In fact, many people misrepresent the constructivist views and claim that they believe that an outside world does not exist and everything is a product of our imagination. No good constructivist has ever said these exact words - rather, they claim that we cannot know anything other than what we create. In some sense, this spirit carries over into Karl Marx's economic theory, which may be one of the reasons he wants us to subdue and manufacture nature. Edit: Also, one of the basic presuppositions that seems to be an undercurrent in constructivist theories is that we are historical creatures. All of our beliefs, values, and ideas are products of a particular time and place. In fact, some of the constructivists take an evolutionary approach to this: claiming that with each historical epoch, our ideas are becoming more refined and more practical.
Can someone break down "Idealism" for me?
What is Idealism?: Idealism is the category of philosophical systems that claim reality is dependent upon the mind rather than independent of the mind. Extreme versions of Idealism deny that any 'world' exists outside of our minds. Narrower versions of Idealism claim that our understanding of reality reflects the workings of our mind first and foremost - that the properties of objects have no standing independent of the minds perceiving them. Important Books on Idealism: The World and the Individual, by Josiah Royce Principles of Human Knowledge, by George Berkeley Phenomenology of Spirit, by G.W.F. Hegel Important Philosophers of Idealism: Plato Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Immanuel Kant George Berkeley Josiah Royce What is the "Mind" in Idealism?: The nature and identity of the "mind" upon which reality is dependent is one issue that has divided idealists of various sorts. Some argue that there is some objective mind outside of nature, some argue that it is simply the common power of reason or rationality, some argue that it is the collective mental faculties of society, and some focus simply on the minds of individual human beings. Platonic Idealism: According to Platonic Idealism, there exists a perfect realm of Form and Ideas and our world merely contains shadows of that realm. Subjective Idealism: According to Subjective Idealism, only ideas can be known or have any reality (it is also known as solipsism). Transcendental Idealism: According to Transcendental Idealism, developed by Kant, this theory argues that all knowledge originates in perceived phenomena which have been organized by categories. Absolute Idealism: According to Absolute Idealism, all objects are identical with some idea and the ideal knowledge is itself the system of ideas. It is also known as Objective Idealism and is the sort of idealism promoted by Hegel. Unlike the other forms of idealism, this is monistic - there is only one mind in which reality is created.
What do you think of the philosophical idealists?
Personally, I believe philosophy to be one’s own thoughts on how life should be lived, and as this is my belief, I feel the philosophical idealists provide an interesting insight. I disagree with the idea that one should completely adhere to another person’s philosophical though, as this takes away some of the individuality of oneself and limits our ability to grow and formulate our own thoughts. Idealists provide us with their own thoughts, and any further interpretation than that is our own.
Is democracy nothing more than an idealistic impossibility?
<"Oligarchy is defined as rule by an elite or privileged few. Today people often use the word oligarchy to refer to a leadership class of corporate plutocrats, but what is less understood is how oligarchies form. Oligarchy is rule by a few to be sure. However, the concept or oligarchy in Michels’ lexicon – the “Iron Law of Oligarchy,” – is both an explanation for how oligarchies originate, as well as a compelling critique of the inherently flawed structure of all forms of democratic government itself.The functioning of Democracy's internal structure is distinctly undemocratic. If an organization which outwardly claims to be democratic does not even function democratically, what must that mean for government generally?Leaders are indispensable in democracy and in all democratic organizations and social life itself, and that the inevitable tendency of all leaders is to assert autocratic control. Organization means oligarchy, whether the oligarchy of popularly chosen leaders, or the oligarchy of a politically dominant minority. From out of this inevitable oligarchy come the decisions we erroneously refer to as the judgments of the masses, public opinion, or the will of the state.It is impossible for everyone to have a direct say in the leadership of a large organization or in government – then nothing gets done and no consensus can be reached.Leaders take on more power than members of the electorate who put them there in the first place, for both practical and sometimes personal reasons. Once in power, the leaders tend to want to stay in power.The electorate rarely has the time and skill to effectively prevent this process of consolidation of power. Disenfranchisement of the electorate leads to apathy, which produces the undemocratic need for a strong leader, since the people are incapable of taking part in decision making">[1]Footnotes[1] Is Democratic Government a Utopian Ideal? - Uisio
Are Libertarians too idealistic or they simply didn't have a real chance to show the benefits of libertarian society?
I’m going to pull heavily from Jonathan Haidt’s research into the link between personality type and political views, though I know several libertarians.Libertarians tend to be high on the personality trait reactiveness, that personality test question “I find contradicting others stimulating!” and “When I’m told to do something, I immediately want to do the opposite”. This makes the general public think they’re anti-social, though that’s not necessarily the case. It does mean they are proudly independent, whether they live a life similar to the majority or a very contrary one.Haidt found that libertarians were the ONLY group that scored high on willingness to evaluate personal beliefs. That in the face of contradictory evidence or cases, they didn’t come up with conspiracy theories to defend their view or dismiss the other side as crazy/fake/lying. They were willing to evaluate their beliefs rather dispassionately and change them periodically. That is rare, but too many libertarians think everyone else can or should think like them.In that regard, they’re a minority personality type that has many benefits - but that means the absolute competitive ideal too many libertarians hold is contrary to what most would want to live in.Where they can find alliances is conservatives who oppose a big government, because they both agree that’s oppressive. Conservatives are fine with local communities dictating rules and sharing cultures and faiths, as long as absolute civil rights like life, property and bodily integrity are respected. AND that people are free to leave if they don’t like it, and you don’t oppress others by using force to make them live by your beliefs, whether it is fundamentalist Islam, Catholicism or social justice.The conservative model of minimal government and strong local control is demonstrated as working for the US and nations that later adopted its model like South Korea. But I don’t see any large country successfully living by libertarian ideals, because 95% of the population doesn’t fit the mold.