Last week I had written an article questioning the strength of ideas. At its roots was the citation for awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama.
“For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
“His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.”
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
The background was the Copenhagen summit. This was the great opportunity to preserve the idea of protecting Mother Nature. President Obama had his chance to promote “values and attitudes” shared by the majority of the world, the reason for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize. The world expected him to take the lead.
However this was not to be. The idealism of environmental protection came with a price tag. The thought of the economic consequences has given cold feet to all, bringing into play the hard reality of money.
The concept of Idealism is based on values and attitudes which spring from the mind and are focused on sense of fair play and justice. Realism on the other hand is based on the concepts of what exists, or which has an absolute value, like money.
The first Noble Peace Prize was awarded to Henry Dunant, founder of the Red Cross, who shared it with Frédéric Passy. Over the years we have seen that the concept of the Red Cross though very great, is always within the boundaries of its budgets. Only so much can be done for the victims of war and conflict and famine and hunger.
The debacle at Copenhagen just clarifies that Idealism, is perhaps just an image of realism, or as the two meet, in the words of William F. Buckley, Jr.:
“Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.”
“For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
“His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.”
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
The background was the Copenhagen summit. This was the great opportunity to preserve the idea of protecting Mother Nature. President Obama had his chance to promote “values and attitudes” shared by the majority of the world, the reason for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize. The world expected him to take the lead.
However this was not to be. The idealism of environmental protection came with a price tag. The thought of the economic consequences has given cold feet to all, bringing into play the hard reality of money.
The concept of Idealism is based on values and attitudes which spring from the mind and are focused on sense of fair play and justice. Realism on the other hand is based on the concepts of what exists, or which has an absolute value, like money.
The first Noble Peace Prize was awarded to Henry Dunant, founder of the Red Cross, who shared it with Frédéric Passy. Over the years we have seen that the concept of the Red Cross though very great, is always within the boundaries of its budgets. Only so much can be done for the victims of war and conflict and famine and hunger.
The debacle at Copenhagen just clarifies that Idealism, is perhaps just an image of realism, or as the two meet, in the words of William F. Buckley, Jr.:
“Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.”
5 comments:
Sunil, you asked me "Do you think that the Nobel Committee goofed up by nominating Obama, because most of his words may never get translated into action. He signed a document for the closure of Guantanomo Bay within an hour of taking oath, but even that cant be done."
No, and yes.
No, the Nobel Peace Committee is perfectly within its rights to nominate and select whomever they please, just as is the Triumvirate who select the winner of the Gandhi Peace Prize.
Yes, if the nominating criteria are to the person who "...shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Obama is on the right side of these three criteria, but nobody was a stand-out success in these criteria last year (though we could all nominate some joke characters here!), so in my mind nobody should have been awarded the Prize.
Of course, whether those three criteria lead to peace is another matter: before the First World War, marxists and socialists declared undying love for one another around the world, but it didn't stop most of them fighting for their own respective countries, so fraternity between nations doesn't stop war. The members of the European Union hate each other, and that is probably why they refuse to fight each other anymore!
Abolition or reduction of the UK's standing Royal Navy before the Falklands War nearly prevented the just war of retaking the islands, so again this criteria is a dubious one.
You can hold and promote as many peace congresses as you like and that won't stop war. All it will do is burn fossil fuels and provide yet more junkets for beknighted bureaucrats and PR-hungry politicians.
But then again I have assumed alot about Peace in my counter-arguments, haven't I?!
http://warpoliticsandstrategy.blogspot.com/2009/09/book-worth-reading-thinking-about-peace.html
Copenhagen was neither about realism nor about idealism. It was basically about ignorance and petty-mindedness.
Mitigating climate change is neither an idealistic endeavour nor an option.
Climate change is a reality, as those struck by Catrina, or people in Bangladesh, in Tuvalu and other places on the earth nobody cares about could tell one or two stories about.
And the technologies to mitigate it are also there. Actually, climate change is a major business opportunity. It's not about costs and restrictions, it's not about suffering and giving up our most beloved toys, it's about enormous potential. About doing things the smart way. About totally new industries. About independence in energy production. And about totally new jobs. Which are already emerging. Because thankfully, the business community (at least the more innovative part of it) is smarter and faster than politicians will ever be. Well, they don't have to be reelected. So where is the realism in ignoring all of this?
Generally, I think, realism is often just a euphemism for cynicism and intellectual paralysis. A realist sees the world as it is, sees what is going wrong, does not have a clue how to change it, and thus decides to "make do". Which is ok for a while but does not change anything.
The idealist, however, sees the world as it is, sees what is going wrong, and tries to think about better ways, albeit not dreaming of an ideal world but about shaping a better reality for the future. About making a start.
So strictly speaking, an idealist is a future oriented realist.
I am pretty grateful for idealists. Because without the odd idealist, we might still believe that the earth is a disc and the sun circles around it. We all know how this story ended....
Sabine Breit
www.language-connection.de
Obama has sweet talked his way to US Presidency.. Similarly his charming ways have won him a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.. Only time will tell whether he puts action into his sweet words..
Copenhagen was neither about realism nor about idealism. It was basically about ignorance and petty-mindedness.
Mitigating climate change is neither an idealistic endeavour nor an option.
Climate change is a reality, as those struck by Catrina, or people in Bangladesh, in Tuvalu and other places on the earth nobody cares about could tell one or two stories about.
And the technologies to mitigate it are also there. Actually, climate change is a major business opportunity. It's not about costs and restrictions, it's not about suffering and giving up our most beloved toys, it's about enormous potential. About doing things the smart way. About totally new industries. About independence in energy production. And about totally new jobs. Which are already emerging. Because thankfully, the business community (at least the more innovative part of it) is smarter and faster than politicians will ever be. Well, they don't have to be reelected. So where is the realism in ignoring all of this?
Generally, I think, realism is often just a euphemism for cynicism and intellectual paralysis. A realist sees the world as it is, sees what is going wrong, does not have a clue how to change it, and thus decides to "make do". Which is ok for a while but does not change anything.
The idealist, however, sees the world as it is, sees what is going wrong, and tries to think about better ways, albeit not dreaming of an ideal world but about shaping a better reality for the future. About making a start.
So strictly speaking, an idealist is a future oriented realist.
I am pretty grateful for idealists. Because without the odd idealist, we might still believe that the earth is a disc and the sun circles around it. We all know how this story ended....
Sabine Breit
www.language-connection.de
Good point, though sometimes it's hard to arrive to definite conclusions
Post a Comment