But the idea that what's best for people is always tough love and a job is just as reductionistic and oversimplified.
And at scale, neither blanket solution is perfectly effective, but one at least leans towards kindness.
Very kind of you :)
Eudaimonia is the word you're looking for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia
There are a lot of arguments against it. I think there are good points in these counter arguments, but come down on the side of Eudaimonia, personally.
Counter arguments:
https://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/eudaimonism-is-...
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/646/is-virtue...
https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004395794/BP000003.xm...
Pragmatism is relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters. (That's a dictionary definition.) But yeah, in war for example, you are very much not thinking about taking active steps to manage your mind, or managing the way your mind works, or anything of that nature. You just become very pragmatic. Your desires become almost the only thing you consider at the pragmatic extreme represented by combat for instance.
I think you're speaking more on a certain type of idealism maybe? The practice of following ideals, or living under their influence. But romanticism works too.
That's the definition. What I outlined - granted, without the specific action steps - is sensible and realistic. And it distinctly is not about happiness. Romantic would be "just be happy." Would you consider behavioral therapy romantic?
Edit: I'm really hoping you guys aren't saying that anything involving a person managing their mind/emotions is romantic and impractical.
I think pragmatism fits least because of your clarification. Managing one's mind, or ridding oneself of desire, and especially dealing with reality without bias or judgement, are just not terribly realistic in nature. We should certainly strive to deal with reality without bias or judgement for instance, but, I mean, we obviously don't do that in practice. None of us do. Despite the protestations of the number among us who would claim to be completely non-judgemental. Especially not when we find ourselves at a pragmatic extreme. In combat for instance, there is a whole lot of bias and judgement because people start to become almost too pragmatic.
But we can just agree to disagree. No worries man. Just wanted to explain my thinking.
> Managing one's mind, or ridding oneself of desire, and especially dealing with reality without bias or judgement, are just not terribly realistic in nature. We should certainly strive to deal with reality without bias or judgement for instance, but, I mean, we obviously don't do that in practice.
From that point of view, I get how you're looking at this. You're certainly not wrong. I'm likely letting my own bias color my thoughts here because I practice this more aggressively (and actively) than most. So I've seen how realistic it can be. But generally speaking it's not very realistic, you're right.
To try and fix that by understanding your mind might not be a bad idea, but it remains a theoretical solution until you can presume some success rate. Going to therapy might give you that if you have the means, social stability and trust to do so. Which might then result in you leaving the pool of people having problems.
But if you don't have the conditions to go to therapy successfully, or don't end up succeeding anyway, that solution also remains theoretical. The further down this rabbit hole we go the harder it gets the solve the problem and the less pragmatic understanding your own mind becomes. Instead pragmatism would be to get people in a position where they can realistically work on implementing that, or another, solution successfully.
In that sense I could agree that your position could be considered idealistic rather than romantic. As my objection isn't that it isn't pragmatic because it couldn't work, but that it isn't pragmatic because it wouldn't work in many situations that would also required other things.
Professional therapists often fail in this, which is one way that people can see a therapist for years and never make progress on their issue.
There's a downside to this logic, one of the enabling sort. I consider myself fairly empathetic, but with a very pragmatic tint. I find many, many people take on complaining and a victim/underdog status with an almost hobby-like approach. And I watch how others react, which is exactly as expected: sympathy, attention, allowing those complainers a way out of personal responsibility or true introspection (specifically into their role in managing reactions to external events). It's a never ending cycle. And it hardly ever promotes growth. And almost never results in true happiness (happiness is probably the wrong word...maybe contentedness is better, tho maybe not).
So, the same way you wonder about those people who "dismiss others' concerns," I wonder about those who kowtow to others' words and fail to consider the reality (perceived, of course) behind them. It often feels lazy to me. And short-term thinking. Truly caring about another person sometimes means forsaking short-term "feel goods" for long term growth.