Being realistic.

[Rawr]

Don't waste time, go to Patrick's Post below:







"I was giving up - being realistic, as people liked to say, meaning the same thing. Being realistic made me feel bitter. It was a new feeling, and one I didn't like, but I saw no way out" - Tobias Wolff, This Boy's Life.


So, ladies and gents of age 23 and over, what do you make of this. What side of the fence do you plant yourself - holding for your dear life to naiveté, brooding over the realism of it all?

Both are pros and cons at the same time.

How do you decide on the amount to put in the mix, to make life go the way you want it?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Lights]

Why the age cut limit? Most users on this site are below age 25, that's like removing 50% of the population here.

75% UNREALISTIC
25% REALISTIC

Realistic enough to know the laws, dangers of STDs, diseases, debt, and the notion of bad ideas.

Unrealistic enough to pursue anything that has a good probability of success. Putting the cards in my favor.

It's defining what is realistic for you, and what is realistic in society that is the issue.

 

[PatrickP]

I honestly have no idea what you are asking.


But I get the feeling this post may be appropriate especially the last sentence:

https://www.thefastlaneforum.com/current-events-sports-off-topic/43166-who-free-here.html#post241842

 

[Rawr]

I honestly have no idea what you are asking.


But I get the feeling the last sentence in this post may be appropriate:

https://www.thefastlaneforum.com/current-events-sports-off-topic/43166-who-free-here.html#post241842

You're right. Lesson to learn here - now that I read it I see it for what it is - basically mental masturbation, but at the time, I just came off a 30 min call with a relative and another person when we were talking metaphysics, and even though I suspected it was so, it seemed like an easy enough way to think of life.

The point, the key point, is always "Ok, sure, but now what? What are you going to eat tomorrow for dinner?"

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Lgallion]

I think most people's definition of 'realistic' is very flawed. It implies that something is 'real', that is physical or bound to hard & fast laws - like physics. However, if you ask, "is licensing my new bottling idea to Coke or Pepsi" was realistic to Joe On the Street his answer would probably be "no". However if you asked a guy with 500 patents, his answer might well be, "yes". Notice that is kind of "realism" is just opinion.

For me, real realism (kind of redundant, isn't it) is similar to how Lights defined it. If you don't eat, you die. Things fall down, not up. However besides these kind of obvious 'duh' examples, there isn't a lot that can't be changed or tried. Even laws can be altered if they are blocking you (it might not be easy, but it is possible). The trick isn't to decide what is realistic, it is to decide what reality you really want and what you are willing to do to obtain it.

Think of the things we take for granted today that was totally unrealistic at one time. Going to the moon, crazy. Have a interconnected computer in your hand, crazy. Replacing major organs with other people's or a machine, crazy. Buildings a hundred story high, crazy. Flying machines, crazy. Of course none of that was ultimately unrealistic, just hard to do and (at the time) hadn't been done. So almost anything is realistic, but what is the amount of effort or innovate techniques which need to be applied and can you muster it?