Idealism and Realism, The Philosophies of Two Great Men - Essay Example

Idealism and Realism: The Philosophies of Two Great Men Introduction Two of the most successful approaches when appealing to the masses are the use of idealistic and realistic philosophies. Both these philosophies were expertly employed by two men who achieved great historical success in their humanitarian and political endeavors. The first, Martin Luther King, Jr., the idealist, an American born civil rights leader of African-American heritage who lead the American black minority in winning and asserting their civil rights as citizens in America. The second, Nelson Mandela, the South African leader, a realist, who lead South Africans in defeating white minority Apartheid in South Africa, where the black African majority reclaimed their country and leadership. Both men accomplished their goals in the face of grave dangers and obstacles, and they did it by appealing to the masses from their respective philosophies grounded in idealism and realism. The best examples of the ways in which these two leaders appealed to the masses from their philosophical perspectives, are Martin Luther King’s letter from a Birmingham, Alabama jail; and Nelson Mandela’s letter to his people written from his South African prison cell. Both men succeeded in gathering the masses around their individual philosophies, and bringing about historical changes. How did they do it? That is the question that will be examined in this research paper. Addressing his fellow church leaders, who criticized King’s choices that took him to Birmingham, a hotbed of racial resentment, violence and controversy; King wrote: “. . .I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their ‘thus sayeth the Lord,’ far beyond the boundaries of their home town, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so I am compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town (King, Martin L., DATE).” King, using the philosophy of idealism, appealing to his audiences’ sense of strength through faith, dispels their criticisms of his trip to Birmingham, knowing before he went there, that there would be minimally trouble, if not an arrest and jail time for the civil rights leader. Reminding the ministers that the work of the followers of Christ often took them to places where they would be met with challenge and where they would face potential harm; should make them more adamant, stronger about facing those challenges and taking their work to those places where non-believers did not want the Word of Christ heard. Just as Birmingham did not want to hear the civil rights message, reminding them that under the Constitution of America, all men were created equally, and have the right to pursue happiness. The letter then escalates in its idealistic passion when King follows saying, “I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere (King, DATE).” King is telling his fellow ministers that they are not safe in Atlanta if there is injustice in Birmingham. That out of sight should not be out of mind; and that injustice, when it is not confronted, when encroach upon those places where justice prevails and consume it. King then goes on to turn his chastisement by his fellow ministers, into an admonishment of his own, citing specific events and times in place when they have had the opportunity to confront injustice, and have not done that. He encourages them to embrace the moment, to join him, rather than chastise him. His letter takes on an increasing passionate tone and language as he writes, “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed (King, DATE).” Nelson Mandela, like King, writing from his jail cell, begins by stating his point factually: “I am the first accused (Mandela, Nelson, DATE).” Educated and trained as a lawyer, Nelson Mandela begins his realistic appeal by indicating to his jailers that he stands as the first accused, suggesting that there will be others to follow him. Mandela then goes on, putting himself on an equal playing field with those who have imprisoned them, knowing that they, too, are educated men of legal training. Then, Mandela shows his brilliance by not alienating his white South African jailers; but by building the bridge between himself and them as South Africans. He writes, “At the outset, I want to say that the suggestion made by the State in its opening that the struggle in South Africa is under the influence of foreigners or communists is wholly incorrect (Mandela, DATE).” Mandela addresses that assertion so that he can emphasize that the struggle in South Africa is an internal one, between South Africans, be they black or white, nonetheless, between themselves as South Africans. Mandela, appealing to a court of law, keeps his appeal pragmatic, less idealistic in nature, as is the pattern of legal exchange between lawyerly men. To put too much idealistic rhetoric into the appeal, would be ignored by the legal minds, because they would write that off as emotional, and there is no room for emotions in the pragmatics of law. To this end, Mandela describes his youth, his origins as a member of the indigenous population of South Africa, listening to his “tribesman,” and goes on to say, “This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case (Mandela, DATE).” Mandela, as a man of law, understands that he must provide the legal minds with a motive different than that by which they convicted him; that his action needs to be as a result of a motivation that is internal, not external, but nonetheless must be a motive to circumvent the motive of outside agitation. Thus, Mandela uses the example of his own childhood, his own indigenous heritage of and in South Africa as his motive. He successfully replaces the motive of outside interference in the country’s processes with that of an internal source, meaning that the country must address the problem internally, and that their basis for jailing him, based on the now invalid motive for his action, is no longer a valid legal ground to retain him. Mandela understands that a court of law is more a finder of fact, than truth, because truth can be obscured by the emotions of idealism. That while it is idealism, perhaps, that compels certain actions, it is nonetheless a court, a finder of fact, whose task it is to sift the idealistic “truth” from fact, and act according to the facts. Mandela writes, “Having said this, I must immediately and at some length deal with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue (Mandela, DATE).” Thus, Mandela demonstrates an awareness that the Court will look for truth in facts, not idealistic motives. “I do not however deny that I planned sabotage,” Mandela advises the Court. He resolves that as truth in fact. He continues, “I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness or because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a clam and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites (Mandela, DATE).” Thus, Mandela has announced that his actions were internal, not external, and that they were as a result of tyranny, or injustice against his people. The legal minds that retain him as a prisoner are seekers of justice. Mandela is putting his conviction before them as a response to an effort to address injustice, to bring their attention to the injustice so that justice may prevail. King and Mandela use a combination of realism and idealism in their appeals; but each use one of a lesser degree than the other philosophy. For King, it is the more emotional appeal of a idealistic philosopher. For Mandela, it is the appeal of a pragmatic man, educated in the law, who is using the law to seek justice. Both men are righters of wrong; dealing with the racism of white oppression; King as a minority, Mandela as a majority. Neither man seeks annihilation of the white oppressor; only relief from oppression through justice. Both men knew that the law that imprisoned them was the same law that could free them. Read More