>>723778016
>Kantian ideals aren't a thing, and Kant got btfo by Hume.
Any thing can be a thing, domain of ideals has nothing to do with opinions of select mortals.
Ideals of sapients are nothing but ideas, any idea imaginable can be realized in reality, complete with the consequences.
Self-order cybernetics of personal ideals especially so.
>Ideas evolve, too. And that evolution can imperceptibly change the original intention or philosophy of the idea. Ideals in spirit and ideals in form are two different animals entirely.
Anything can evolve or devolve, complete ideals are past such limits. If you approach a limit in perpetuity instead of reaching past you're not reaching any meaningful evolution, because your ideal, or your comprehension of it, or your, or its depth was inferior and unworthy.
>Ideals in spirit and ideals in form are two different animals entirely.
Irrelevant impotence such as this fillters any would-be idealist.
>What is truth?
The one that is The.
>And to blindly accept ideals without ever conceiving of their alternatives is foolish.
One has no need to blindly accept because one already is [understanding]. If you approach any idea from a point of view of "maybe there's another X" instead of "what is this Y" you already have failed.
>For all the bravado of your initial proclamation, I didn't expect the response of an intellectual and philosophical vacuum.
Naturally, because if you actually had expected it, you'd recognize said vacuum within all your posts here, and within numerous other philosophical posts on this site.
If you have to walk, you are yet to reach. If you're yet to reach, you're not reaching.
This classic failure of waxing lyrical and ponderous on ideals is systemic.