CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
when you dream, you are in a world of your own and you want the real world to be like your dreamland ... because people having been dreaming this world is sooo beautiful
for who? for oneself i would say it is better to be a dreamer, being a realist myself. the happiness of the excitement of possibility is no trivial happiness. however it doesn't help others much for one to be a dreamer, unless they too are dreamers.
so you could say that a society of dreamers would be the happiest possible society, but they wouldn't, because such a society would cease to function properly or would endure more suffering.
the optimal lifestyle would be (annoyingly) as with most things; moderation of both dreaming and realism.
I shocks me to see those who favor science with a passion and yet fail to defend the star glaziers that made science what it is. If it was not for dreams, then nothing would ever be invented or explored.
I think you are confusing intelligence and aptitude with vision. I would contend that the best scientist is not the one who approaches their research with the intent of proving an assumption to which they have become emotionally attached, but rather the one who studies without presumption of conclusion or attachment to their findings.
Let's take Copernicus for example, reality shows little signs that the Earth revolves around the sun. Only a dreamer could envision a universe that is contrary to reason. Only a dreamer would question reality in the first place.
Name one human that is not emotionally attached, this a quality that makes one human in the first place.
Let's take Copernicus for example, reality shows little signs that the Earth revolves around the sun. Only a dreamer could envision a universe that is contrary to reason.
Copernicus was a mathematician, astronomer, and scientist who identified the concept of a heliocentric system on the premise of objective reason and the evidence available to him. He hardly "dreamed" it up.
Only a dreamer would question reality in the first place.
How does that follow? Negation is predominantly an act of deconstruction, not creation.
Name one human that is not emotionally attached, this a quality that makes one human in the first place.
You are misrepresenting my argument. I never indicated that a person ought to be entirely emotionally unattached, but rather that a legitimate researcher gives preference to reason and evidence over their emotional attachments/desires.
To indulge your tangent, however: Emotional attachment is not what "makes one human"; genetics is. Further, there are human beings who do not experience emotional attachment; such people are frequently pathologized under diagnosis such as antisocial personality or dissociative disorder.
Copernicus was a mathematician, astronomer, and scientist who identified the concept of a heliocentric system on the premise of objective reason and the evidence available to him. He hardly "dreamed" it up.
This definitely clears the matter up, after all astronomers are star glaziers.
To indulge your tangent, however: Emotional attachment is not what "makes one human"; genetics is. Further, there are human beings who do not experience emotional attachment; such people are frequently pathologized under diagnosis such as antisocial personality or dissociative disorder.
So you are saying that what you consider to be human, is what everybody else considers to be insane.
Also with you being an atheist as your profile says, you just opened up a can of worms with each sub definition being a completely different item. By your own words there are now 10 gods that exist instead of one. I've always said if want evidence that God exists, ask an atheist.
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute:
"the God of Islam."
3. one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. a supreme being according to some particular conception:
"the god of mercy."
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. an image of a deity; an idol.
7. any deified person or object.
8. Gods, Theater.
a.the upper balcony in a theater.
b.the spectators in this part of the balcony.
9. to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
interjection
10. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like):
How is it possible that a balcony could be the creator of the universe?
People worship idols; How could a gold image be the creator of the universe? My point is just because you and I can't grasp a balcony creating the universe, doesn't mean that someone doesn't believe this to be the case.
Believing it is the case is definition number 4 or number 2, not definition number 1. It doesn't matter what someone believes we can verify that a balcony did not in fact create the universe. You are doing something wrong. I can explain definitions to you if you would like to know how they really work.
A gold image is not the creator of the universe, it isn't even considered God most of the time (although it fits the definition). Providing another example of how you are wrong doesn't help your case.
Your original citation was to a dictionary, not a thesaurus, and I tailored my response accordingly.
A dictionary is not a compendium of synonyms, but rather a list of distinct definitions that are encompassed by a particular word (generally listed in order of common usage).
A thesaurus does list synonyms for a particular word, but this does not mean those synonyms are themselves synonymous with one another. "Stargazer" is synonymous with both "astronomer" and "daydreamer", because it can be used interchangeably with both. However, if you look up "astronomer" in the thesaurus you will find that it is not synonymous with "daydreamer" (ref).
This renders your attempted rationale invalid, both in respect to the dreamer/realist issue as well as to your god tangent. Barring any other new arguments, my points stand and this debate is at an end.
Am sure many of us have read the public speech delivered by American civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr. on August 28, 1963, in which he called for an end to racism. He started by saying "I Have a Dream" a dream he wanted to turn into reality.
A little bit of dreaming is okay as long as you spend more time and effort trying to turn your dream into reality. How can a dream come true if you don't have one?
To dream is to attach desire to an uncertain and sometimes improbable outcome. To be a realist is to acknowledge ones desires without hoping for them, which enables a more practical pursuit of fulfillment.
A dreamer does not have the ability to face the facts, even when faced with the cruel fate of the world. A realist is able to accept the rubble of society, and deal with it. Dreamers try to make the entirety of society better, a feat only possible if everyone was a dreamer. But sadly, there is no chance of that, and it is good that the people of this age are able to cope with what we have been left from our ancestors. A dreamers goal is it have a good life, but can't if they don't know what their life really is.
I try to not dream... I know my dreams won't come true. Realists are always right, despite negativity. I'm a negative realist and proud because that pride is the only optimism that will ever work. And we live in a shitty world.
Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. Perhaps you're dreaming too big, or perhaps you are having difficulty working backwards from the dream to come up with manageable portions you can work towards individually.
I've made many of my own dreams come true, and it's happened primarily due to careful planning and execution, calculated risks, and yes- a little bit of luck.
While there are certainly exceptions, most dreams are definitely fulfill-able, given sufficient time and dedication towards the goal.
I see the misunderstanding here. The term 'dreamer' doesn't refer to literal dreams as experienced during REM sleep. It refers to dreams in the sense of lofty goals and aspirations. If someone says "My dream is to be a racer," they are not communicating that they had a dream about being a racer (though this may be the case), but rather that becoming a racer represents something tangible that they want to accomplish.
I think a professional therapist could answer that question for you better than I could. You should consider seeing one, or if you already are, bring up that topic.
Here's a starter dream for you: Not hating yourself.
If you hate yourself, you most likely have reasons why- maybe guilt over things you've done, maybe you dislike aspects of your personality, maybe something else entirely, maybe a combination of multiple factors. You can take action to alleviate guilt, and you can work on things that you dislike about yourself.
If you don't have reasons why, but just hate yourself for no reason you can elucidate, there is likely a physiological reason behind it. Talking with a therapist could identify this, and get you a referral to a psychiatrist.
Self-loathing is not healthy, and you should know that it hurts anyone who is close to you. If nobody is close to you, that is likely part of the problem.
Then I wish you the best of luck with your therapist, and highly recommend that you bring up what I've mentioned here. I've hit on some bullet points, but they're not very useful on their own- your therapist can ask you some guiding questions to help you work it out.
