In sees things in an excellent or perfect way.

In
this essay I am comparing the realism and idealism philosophies with
United States President Donald Trump’s doctrine and Ex-President
Obama’s. In
order to be capable
to make
a distinction
between idealism and realism, we first
have to
have a accurate
and detailed
understanding of both
terms. Realism
and
idealism
are
world
or general
philosophies that
emanated

from Plato and Aristotle who
were
ancient Greek philosophers.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

On
the one hand, idealism is
a philosophical approach which
central principle
is that
ideas are the singular
authentic
matter,
the only thing that it is
worth to
know. In a pursuit
for honesty,
beauty, and fairness
that is everlasting and
abiding, the focus is on
certain
interpretation
in the mind. Plato, also
called the father of
Idealism, adopted
this view in his distinguished
book, The Republic.
The
goal
of educationIn idealism is
to find
and develop each individual’s capacities
to better serve the
community.
The curricular gives
more attention
to
the
subject matter of mind: religion,
history literature
and
philosophy.
Imitating
heroes
and examples,
character
is developed.

On
the other hand, realists
consider
that reality endure
separate
of the human mind. The basic
existence
is the world of physical objects.
Objects
and body are where they
focus. Aristotle, who
was a
student of Plato, totally
broke with his mentor’s idealist philosophy. He
is
also
called the father of both Realism and the scientific method. The
Realist curriculum emphasizes the subject matter of the physical
world, specifically
mathematics and
science.
Content
is organized
and presented
systematically
within a regulation,
showing
the
application
of criteria while
making decisions. Realists
need
also to
prove
the capability
to have
a critical and scientific way of thinking, working
with
experimentation
and observation.
Curriculum has
to
be scientifically approached, patterned,
and distinct-discipline based. Training
in the rules of conduct is
how character
is developed.

In
short, idealism
is when one
envisions
or sees
things in an
excellent
or perfect way.
Realism, differently,
tends toward a more logical
and certain
perspective
of a situation. Both
ideas
can be deemed different in viewpoints;
because
while
idealism focuses
on ‘what could be’, realism focuses
on
‘what actually is.’

Giving
use to the classic test of whether the glass is half full or half
empty as an example, it can be differentiate that idealists would
tend to be positive thinkers – those who see the glass half full.
Talking about realists, many not hold the opposite or pessimistic
point of view, but they do view the situation through less hopeful
eyes.

Let’s
start comparing Trump
and Obama’s
Inauguration Addresses. It’s
difficult
to imagine two men whose worldviews, rhetorical style and familiar
demeanor contrast more dramatically than Donald
Trump and Barack
Obama.

Trump
gave a
relatively phity
speech, was
the bleakest to date.
In it, the 45th president empashize
the topics
of isolationism and nationalism that formed the bedrock of his
campaign, painting a dark landscape of an weak
nation, harmed
by global forces and in desperate need of resuscitation.

When
Obama took the oath eight years ago the message he delivered was
strikingly different in tone and vision, one that acknowledged the
many challenges the nation faced, but was centered on themes of
optimism, reconstruction and global cooperation.
In
both examples of
parts
of the
addresses, we
can aappreciate how Trump has a more realist vision, whose thoughts
are based on a conception
of things as they are, regardless of how one wants them to be, with a
tendency to be pragmatic
and practical, while
Obama tends to a more idealist vision whose
thoughts
are based on a conception
of things as they should be, or as one would wish them to be, with a
tendency to be visionary.
Talking
about
the path forward, “From this moment on, it’s going to be America
First. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign
affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American
families. We
must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making
our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs” said
Trump, while Obama announced
“We’ll
restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s
wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will
harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run
our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and
universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do.
All this we will do.”

We
can also appreciate the difference between them even referring
to the closing
statement. Trump
said “Together,
We Will Make America Strong Again. We Will Make America Wealthy
Again. We Will Make America Proud Again. We Will Make America Safe
Again. And, Yes, Together, We Will Make America Great Again” while
Obama claimed
“America:
In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship,
let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us
brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come.
Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested
we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did
we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon
us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it
safely to future generations.”
We
can clearly see the same difference comparing Obama’s thanksgiving
speech in
2016 with
the remarks by President Trump at the National Thanksgiving Turkey
Pardoning Ceremony in
2017.
Trump
expressed his gratitude in
a more naturalist and pragmatist way,
thanking directly to specifics groups of people “Well, thank you
all for being here…I’d
also like to thank the National Turkey Federation
for bringing along two other turkeys from Jaindl’s Turkey Farm in
Orefield, Pennsylvania — the great state of Pennsylvania” “I’d
also like to express my thanks to the wonderful citizens of our
country — the people who care for our communities, raise America’s
children and uphold our laws and our values” while Obama, a year
earlier, gave a more enthusiast speech “This history teaches us
that the American instinct has never been to seek isolation
in opposite corners; it is to find strength in our common creed and
forge unity from our great diversity. On
that very first thanksgiving celebration, these same ideals brought
together people of different backgrounds and beliefs, and every year
since, with enduring confidence in the power of faith, love,
gratitude, and optimism, this force of unity has sustained us as a
people.
It has guided us through times of great challenge and change and
allowed us to see ourselves in those who come to our shores in search
of a safer, better future for themselves and their families.”
In
conclusion, it
is so
stramge
to find someone who is a entire
and absolute idealist or realist.

We
would say Obama follows
a
liberalist doctrine,
even
though many
people see
him
as some sort of realist. However,
the nonrealist dimensions of his presidency were
even
more
important than
any realist elements.

On
the one hand, Obama has
some
aptitudes
that fits
in
a realist outlook. Like
most contemporary realists do,
he thinks the U.S.
is exceptionally
safe
and that nuclear terrorism and climate change are the only exclusive
threats it faces for the foreseeable future. He
also believes
that Asia is gaining
importance and
that economic and military ability play a
key role in
shaping world politics. And like nearly
all
realists, he considers
the belief
that the U.S.
needs to fight absurd
wars to keep its “credibility” undamaged
is dangerous nonsense. But
on
the other hand, Obama
does
not
really
adopt
a realist worldview, he
did not
asign
a
lot of
realists to key positions, and never really tried to take
apart
the bipartisan consensus behind the grand strategy of liberal
hegemony. An
actual
“realist” foreign policy would have left Afghanistan immediately
in 2009, converted the
“special relationships” in the Middle East to normal ones,
definitely
rebuffed
further NATO spread,
renounce
“regime change” and some
other
forms of social engineering in foreign countries such as Syria
or Libya,
and come
back
to the broad strategy of restrained “offshore balancing” that
worked
for
the United States so well before.

President
Trump, when he was still
a candidate,
was a darling of the realists. His
motto has always been
“America First”; the
U.S would sacrifice anymore
its own interests to contribute
to other
states.
Deliberately,
he affirmed
to renegotiate trade pacts.
He
would proclaim
China as
a
currency manipulator. And
even more important,
he advocated a more peaceful
relationship with Russia, which he thought
it was
a key to solve
the Syrian Civil War.
However,
realists
are starting
to have second thoughts. One
thing is putting American
interests first and
another
not to understand
that those interests involve
trade
agreements and alliances,
and even, sometimes,
multinational organizations.

Trump’s
vision of the world is not one I much like, but it reflects a justly
logical theory of international relations. It is realist,
transactional, and Machiavellian — and it demands a deliberate,
mindful, and nondefensive answer.