I adore this man - I sat in his lecture hall at The Ohio State University in complete awe. An amazing thinker, a captivating storyteller, a beautiful writer and a brilliant mind. He is outstanding in his field. I think of him fondly and often. A true gem.
'I tried to type everything that I heard' Realist work into a bar and order half empty glass of vodka, the term realism I think is on people skin harder to complete with power, perspective that called realism and so then you become an idealist,The idealist would walk into the bar and order half four glass of vodka , realism is a theory essentially about power and security ,states will seek power and security because they exist in the self help system, they security, prestige, most of all a realist would say you seek autonomy , because in a world where you can never trust anyone. you don't want to be interdependent .Liberals believe in interdependence ,think that it leads to peace.But realist tend to be very skeptical about interdependence ,because who want to be mutually dependent in a world that's very dangerous essentially ,todays's friends could be tommorow's enemy .And to the extent that that's true, you never know who's gonna be aligned against you down the road, or who's making plans against you now. So you can never have enough power. Like how much is enough power? I don't know , who's gonna be lined up against me in ten years?Realist don't believe in sort of Utopian muddle-headed schemes that would provide a perpetual peace in the world, based on some notion of a natural harmony of interests among states. Instead ,realists see the world in terms of tragedy and evil, and essentially ,the best you can hope for is that people choose the lesser evil and try to be as good as they can be in an evil world. I guess the bottom line is that realists may not be angels, but in the real world, angels often turns out to be brutes.Because if you are moralising, crusading saying we don't like your humans right policies and we don't like your regime the way, It's not democratic enough,It's not liberal enough, well then you can get involved everywhere and the problem with promoting democracy is it doesn't work ,first of all, and second of all it almost always leads to a quagmire. Again there is no natural harmony interests in the world. Realist understand that so you just have to live with destiny and I think liberals don't understand that . Most of American war have been and particularly since the end of Cold War , have been all about promoting democracy and human rights . And liberals would actually say that the only just war is one that promotes human rights, Whereas a realist would say the only just war is one that promotes national interests. And if there are no treats in the environment, well then you retrench. So essentially if I had to give one sort of view of how realism sees the world ,It would be sort of a Hobbesian war of all against all, in state of nature The state of nature meaning there is no 911,there is no world government, is just everyone out for themselves. which doesn't mean that war always occurs, it just means that the danger of war is always lurking in the back ground of all international politics.
Nah a realist knows intellect is not significant thats why just being in the system causes u being confined even if u involuntary as an individual whose fault not intellect i know says fvvking system
8 ปีที่แล้ว +269
A constructivist would walk into a bar and order a full glass of vodka, because he can.
This video has become a habit for me to review from time to time for years now. I know the material well but watching him talk is very relaxing so I keep getting back to it!
This was probably the best definition and collective explanation of the theory, spoken as succinctly as possible. For more details, see any of the lectures by John Mearsheimer.
Well said. Though I'd argue that America's wars to promote democracy after WWII may not have been entirely ideologically driven. Ideology can be seen as a form of soft power as well, and by spreading your values and views to the rest of the world, you can make their goals and interests more aligned with your own. Democratic countries are more likely to help you(the US) than say; communist countries, after all. So although the rhetorics used to justify these wars may have been democracy, freedom for all, value of the individual etc; I think at the very core of these ideological wars lie a very serious, non-idealistic focus on national security & maintaining global dominance.
SinerAthin I agree on the part about maintaining global dominance but the soft power argument you make is bogus imo. Mutual interests through the promotion of the national interest. U.S-Saudi relations rely on oil, nothing more. One is a Wahhabi Monarchy fundamentalist regime that never gets criticized by the liberal republic U.S Ideology is simply meant to deceive the masses
Ak Khan a hobsian (taken from hobs) war of all against all. In a state of nature. A state of nature meaning there is no 911 there is no world government. It os just everyone out for themselves. Which doesn't mean that war always occurs, it just means that the danger of war is always lurking in the background of all international politics.
you obviously don't understand that this isn't talking about psychological terms. These are political terms. This is realism vs liberalism vs constructivism.
He's describing it in the video... Basically, it's an expectation of the worst of others, and a distrust in how others function. It's a very war/conflict based belief that is used to describe conflict between countries, e.g. it would describe the conflicts in the middle east as a conflict between ideas. The problem with this way of viewing international relations is that it is very black and white, and it ignores cultural factors or other actors such as religious institutions, businesses, NGOs, et cetera. Realism has a huge problem being able to describe the End of the Cold War. It's an interesting subject all together, but it requires that you abandon your preconceived notions of realism, pessimism, and optimism. I was equally bothered by his idea of idealism.
INF Prince I'm having a hard time separating it and feel that since I already got the notion he was speaking about the ideology it would be better to hear another person put things into perspective for me. From what you're saying I'd say political realism is more akin to pessimistic political views rather than realistic. I always have viewed realism as the middle ground, a neutral, of ideology. To that extent hearing it used to describe a pessimistic world view is something that bothers me. Perhaps I am just following you poorly, but I see the conflicts of the world as a failure of communication rather than a conflict of good vs evil.
I interprete Prof. Randall Schweller's insights, as worthy of engagement. Based on his articulation of 'Realists' and Liberalists', it would be interesting to learn hear how fellow scholars feel about his outlook on IR.
The author of The Great Game is by Peter Hopkirk and I cannot stress too strongly that it is a book that deserves a read but also some concentration as it is very complex
Did he honestly suggest that American wars were 'liberal idealist' rather than 'realist' - did I mishear that? He thinks that the actual motivation for going to war in the Middle East was about 'promoting democracy and human rights' rather than say, realist objectives of securing natural resources
well yeah, think about it we claimed to be the leaders of the "free world" the "leaders of democracy" how can you not classify us going into areas like Vietnam and the Korean war as liberalism for the US is the angels for whom will invade to make sure its own ideals spread around the world
Hi Frederik, you are right that any form of pure theory doesn't exist in reality - that's the nature of a theory, communism and the market economy, liberal and realist perspectives. I think the key issue is how far along any particular path do we go? Denmark and the United Kingdom whilst both democratic, European liberal democracies (to a large extent) conduct their policies considerably differently. My question, what makes that difference a reality>?
I am currently reading The Great Game which touches on two rival parts of the world. British India Company which later changed to become the British Government in India who were constantly in fear of being invaded by Russia and the latter was constantly trying to extend its powers and bargaining abilities with other nations. In each case, buying one off the other, sometimes involving Persia. This very much reflects the common fear of neighbouring khanates of today in Russia as they wonder realistically, where Putin is planning next to invade in his foreign adventures and extending his power thereof, probably bringing the West into another Cold War. Ukraine wants to be part of Europe but Putin clearly has other ideas. This book really gives an insight into the Russian state of mind and also clarifies the situation in Afghanistan plus its neighbouring countries. Realism can cause turmoil and one that we must be aware of as the conflict intensifies
Prof. Schweller should upload more videos like this. He speaks clearly and not to fast or too slow, and obviously he knows his stuff. If only Joseph Nye was this good at speaking....I personally find him dull
I've spent 12 years developing a theory on choice, and what I discovered was that self-Identity could predict how long you live. But, this is just a theory. So my hope for certain things are starting to slowly diminish right before my very eyes.
'Really', this guy is not really wrong. Most of the people, even me too, we see Realism as an 'evil' approach.But in fact, if we consider that the conditions are pushing states in this kind of behaviour, the meaning we attach should be closer to -neutral-. The world is just seems this way. You can not know what happens tomorrow, even if you are ally with a state, when national interests turn upside down, you can just be gone away. The only solution for this kind of condition is seeking a self-help system and to spread your power as much as you can among others. Beside, in a world which every state seeks its own interests, the stability in international relations looks possible only when dominant power functions in its own way, because in long term the reality and interest of the dominant(s) can also become the reality and interest of others.
well interdependency in a dangerous world is certainly the most interesting scenario and what else should be a starting point to think about ethics :-) and hey prof. randall, I ask myself what you have personally gone through so you became a realist ;-)
While this series presents itself as a theoretical 'logic', there is a more spiritual and moral dimension that deserves discussion. In this case, if you see the world as threatening and your fellow humans as selfish, violent, and incapable of community, then you will justify a world of fear and violent responses. This fear is self-fulfilling. Like FDR said 'the only thing to fear is fear itself...'
It always amazes me when theories talks about their understanding, it's almost always based on their perspective of what the western world has done. For example, the civil war that happened in Sudan is rarely ever brought up even though it's still an ongoing conflict, or the relentless proxy wars that was committed just under the guise of ~democracy and ~human rights. I'm not trying to focus on one single issue, but it does irk me on how all of these video of theories seems to always be based on a western-leaning perspective.
I clicked on this to decide whether or not this video was CGI or not. 12 years ago cameras are looking like current day computer generated videos. Crazy times
friendship's are fragile they break when a certain point of stress is experienced by it, the international system is anarchic however it is robust, nothing is antifragile in world politics though, so far from what I have been learning?
Question: If the National Interest IS democracy... then who is right, the liberal, or the realist? Is the problem all in the execution, the operationalization of theory, rather than in the theory?
both are right, realism also emphasizes that states are rational actors, so if a state's national interest is democracy, the realists would think of it (democracy) as another form of power while the liberals would think of it as a tool necessary in reaching peace
From the way he kept on with the vodka glass joke I knew he was deep down a pessimist. Now look into his eyes. Anyway: a realist sees the world for what it is, and tries to accept it, embrace it, in a way, to avoid the emotional pain that unrealistic expectations create. Remember your last breakup? The things that now look so clear have always been there...you somehow couldn't see them...now you can. You got closer to reality. It's not right or wrong, good or bad, it just is. A realist looks at all of the things as they express themselves, and compare them to what he's been taught to believe, and realizes they collide. He seeks truth. Unbiased. In interpersonal dynamics, in life, in the way the world works. That's it.
I adore this man - I sat in his lecture hall at The Ohio State University in complete awe. An amazing thinker, a captivating storyteller, a beautiful writer and a brilliant mind. He is outstanding in his field. I think of him fondly and often. A true gem.
i just love to hear this man speaking, i always come back to watch this video once in a while i just love this professor
Moroccan Citizen shd
Moroccan Citizen he reminds of Tom Hanks alittle .. both are so calming
Me too
“Realists aren’t angels but in the real world most angels are brutes”
I love it! Haha.
omg this is true
Funny you say this. All along I've said I've become a brutal realist. I break everything down into its most simple 1 and 0 form, then analyze it.
He is so articulate.. I really wish i could take some class with him
You just did.
'I tried to type everything that I heard' Realist work into a bar and order half empty glass of vodka, the term realism I think is on people skin harder to complete with power, perspective that called realism and so then you become an idealist,The idealist would walk into the bar and order half four glass of vodka , realism is a theory essentially about power and security ,states will seek power and security because they exist in the self help system, they security, prestige, most of all a realist would say you seek autonomy , because in a world where you can never trust anyone. you don't want to be interdependent .Liberals believe in interdependence ,think that it leads to peace.But realist tend to be very skeptical about interdependence ,because who want to be mutually dependent in a world that's very dangerous essentially ,todays's friends could be tommorow's enemy .And to the extent that that's true, you never know who's gonna be aligned against you down the road, or who's making plans against you now. So you can never have enough power. Like how much is enough power? I don't know , who's gonna be lined up against me in ten years?Realist don't believe in sort of Utopian muddle-headed schemes that would provide a perpetual peace in the world, based on some notion of a natural harmony of interests among states. Instead ,realists see the world in terms of tragedy and evil, and essentially ,the best you can hope for is that people choose the lesser evil and try to be as good as they can be in an evil world. I guess the bottom line is that realists may not be angels, but in the real world, angels often turns out to be brutes.Because if you are moralising, crusading saying we don't like your humans right policies and we don't like your regime the way, It's not democratic enough,It's not liberal enough, well then you can get involved everywhere and the problem with promoting democracy is it doesn't work ,first of all, and second of all it almost always leads to a quagmire. Again there is no natural harmony interests in the world.
Realist understand that so you just have to live with destiny and I think liberals don't understand that .
Most of American war have been and particularly since the end of Cold War , have been all about promoting democracy and human rights .
And liberals would actually say that the only just war is one that promotes human rights,
Whereas a realist would say the only just war is one that promotes national interests.
And if there are no treats in the environment, well then you retrench. So essentially if I had to give one sort of view of how realism sees the world ,It would be sort of a Hobbesian war of all against all, in state of nature
The state of nature meaning there is no 911,there is no world government, is just everyone out for themselves.
which doesn't mean that war always occurs, it just means that the danger of war is always lurking in the back ground of all international politics.
Thank you for this, some of us are visual learners
Here is a link to the transcript: genius.com/Randall-schweller-theory-in-action-realism-annotated
@@pontshosefitlholo5716 There are subtitles by the way.
Wow!
Well-done
I had Schweller for several classes at Ohio State. This guy is brilliant.
This series has been really helpful to me in studying for my international relations midterm!
A realist walks into a bar and orders a full glass of vodka to forget how bad the real world is.
made my night lmao
mine too :)
I prefer to smoke some weed to forgot how bad the real world is
Doomer?!
Nah a realist knows intellect is not significant thats why just being in the system causes u being confined even if u involuntary as an individual whose fault not intellect i know says fvvking system
A constructivist would walk into a bar and order a full glass of vodka, because he can.
A constructivist rides in on the back of the reality of the realist ;)
Alexandru Sudiţoiu A postmodern constructivist sees the glass full but is actually empty. ;)
so a postmodern realist enters the matrix where everyone eats the best fucking cake to order an empty glass of vodka...???
A constructivist would walk in to a bar and order a full glass of vodka because that's what you do at a bar
A constructivist walks into a bar, chats up the bartender, becomes friends, and get a free drink every now and then.
It's a ritual for me to come back and watch this every now and again
This video has become a habit for me to review from time to time for years now. I know the material well but watching him talk is very relaxing so I keep getting back to it!
I really like the way he explains it
Honestly wish he was my lecturer. Explained it so simply yet so complex. Love it!
This was probably the best definition and collective explanation of the theory, spoken as succinctly as possible. For more details, see any of the lectures by John Mearsheimer.
Every single Eastern and Central European would vehemently disagree with him.
As great Thomas Hobbes used to say: a realist walks into a bar and a war of all against all starts
Randall Schweller is so well-spoken and eloquent. I would love to attend some of his classes.
I really like the way of his spontaneous speech on realism
I love to watch this man. The ways he explain the term realism is just OWESOME...
So well spoken and articulate, I love listening to him talk
This videography is beyond its time
The casual way he says the truth about realism is what captures my attention. Simply put, realism is; every man for himself, God for us all.
Quite enlightening. Probably one of the best explanation of realism which I’ve come across lately
I learned so much in his class.
I'm writing a political science paper applying the realist perspective. This was very helpful, thanks!
Thanks. I learn a lot from this class
thanks this vedeo just helped me with my assignment
Well said.
Though I'd argue that America's wars to promote democracy after WWII may not have been entirely ideologically driven.
Ideology can be seen as a form of soft power as well, and by spreading your values and views to the rest of the world, you can make their goals and interests more aligned with your own.
Democratic countries are more likely to help you(the US) than say; communist countries, after all.
So although the rhetorics used to justify these wars may have been democracy, freedom for all, value of the individual etc; I think at the very core of these ideological wars lie a very serious, non-idealistic focus on national security & maintaining global dominance.
The wars were driven by security and hegemony. Everything the US does is to further it's own interest.
The most ideologically-driven war had to have been Iraq, but even then that was because of fear of WMDs.
Please US is a warmongering nation.
You're saying that with a profile picture of a Japanese WWII-era soldier? Give me a break.
SinerAthin I agree on the part about maintaining global dominance but the soft power argument you make is bogus imo. Mutual interests through the promotion of the national interest. U.S-Saudi relations rely on oil, nothing more. One is a Wahhabi Monarchy fundamentalist regime that never gets criticized by the liberal republic U.S Ideology is simply meant to deceive the masses
This is brilliant. Thank you, perfect revision tool! Makes me want to come and study at the University of Ohio!!
Can anyone kindly tell what he said at 3:22 about how realism sees the world..I want to use his comment in my paper
Ak Khan a hobsian (taken from hobs) war of all against all. In a state of nature. A state of nature meaning there is no 911 there is no world government. It os just everyone out for themselves. Which doesn't mean that war always occurs, it just means that the danger of war is always lurking in the background of all international politics.
I have to watch this every now and then
Extremely knowledgeable professor, and interesting perspective.
Not a half empty, thats pessimism. Half a glass, thats realism
Exactly, realism is reality seen with the most unbiased view possible. Anything else is attaching a judgement of positive or negative.
you obviously don't understand that this isn't talking about psychological terms. These are political terms. This is realism vs liberalism vs constructivism.
INF Prince So what's political realism?
He's describing it in the video...
Basically, it's an expectation of the worst of others, and a distrust in how others function. It's a very war/conflict based belief that is used to describe conflict between countries, e.g. it would describe the conflicts in the middle east as a conflict between ideas. The problem with this way of viewing international relations is that it is very black and white, and it ignores cultural factors or other actors such as religious institutions, businesses, NGOs, et cetera. Realism has a huge problem being able to describe the End of the Cold War. It's an interesting subject all together, but it requires that you abandon your preconceived notions of realism, pessimism, and optimism. I was equally bothered by his idea of idealism.
INF Prince I'm having a hard time separating it and feel that since I already got the notion he was speaking about the ideology it would be better to hear another person put things into perspective for me.
From what you're saying I'd say political realism is more akin to pessimistic political views rather than realistic. I always have viewed realism as the middle ground, a neutral, of ideology. To that extent hearing it used to describe a pessimistic world view is something that bothers me.
Perhaps I am just following you poorly, but I see the conflicts of the world as a failure of communication rather than a conflict of good vs evil.
this video has been an extremely helpful tool in understanding realism. awesome :)
I interprete Prof. Randall Schweller's insights, as worthy of engagement. Based on his articulation of 'Realists' and Liberalists', it would be interesting to learn hear how fellow scholars feel about his outlook on IR.
This video is so awesome! It goes directly "into the heart". I am understanding now how Realists think.
Simple is that!! my lecturer toke 3 weeks to explain Realism and i didn't understand it from him as much as i did from this guy in 3 minutes.
essentially thats how we talk its our way of describing something by showing you that essentially it is what it is
The author of The Great Game is by Peter Hopkirk and I cannot stress too strongly that it is a book that deserves a read but also some concentration as it is very complex
Wow! Beautifully, beautifully said.
Where can I see the full version of the interview?
Very educational, it will be awesome if he can explain the difference between Neorealism and Neoliberalism.
Excellent Introduction to Realism. Do you guys have anything on Machiavelli too ?
its much helpful to get better understanding on realism
Did he honestly suggest that American wars were 'liberal idealist' rather than 'realist' - did I mishear that? He thinks that the actual motivation for going to war in the Middle East was about 'promoting democracy and human rights' rather than say, realist objectives of securing natural resources
Noth are right, but still mainly about oil
well yeah, think about it we claimed to be the leaders of the "free world" the "leaders of democracy" how can you not classify us going into areas like Vietnam and the Korean war as liberalism for the US is the angels for whom will invade to make sure its own ideals spread around the world
Guys... can someone explain what does it mean in the beginning of the video?? like the bar and vodka things?? i really don't understand :s
he looks like he's having a really good time c:
in 4 minutes he just explained (more effectively) what the 120 minute lecture i just sat through was conveying.
Hi Frederik, you are right that any form of pure theory doesn't exist in reality - that's the nature of a theory, communism and the market economy, liberal and realist perspectives. I think the key issue is how far along any particular path do we go? Denmark and the United Kingdom whilst both democratic, European liberal democracies (to a large extent) conduct their policies considerably differently. My question, what makes that difference a reality>?
whats the background music? its so soothing..
I am currently reading The Great Game which touches on two rival parts of the world. British India Company which later changed to become the British Government in India who were constantly in fear of being invaded by Russia and the latter was constantly trying to extend its powers and bargaining abilities with other nations. In each case, buying one off the other, sometimes involving Persia. This very much reflects the common fear of neighbouring khanates of today in Russia as they wonder realistically, where Putin is planning next to invade in his foreign adventures and extending his power thereof, probably bringing the West into another Cold War. Ukraine wants to be part of Europe but Putin clearly has other ideas. This book really gives an insight into the Russian state of mind and also clarifies the situation in Afghanistan plus its neighbouring countries. Realism can cause turmoil and one that we must be aware of as the conflict intensifies
Prophetic
This speaks so much to what is happening right now.
It's be awesome if you'd break down realism into classical realism v. neorealism (offensive and defensive)
Any recommended texts on realism?
Try Andrew Heywood. It's more like the basic theory but quite helpful
wow, this guy just changed my mind in 5 minutes, realism it is...
U made it crystal clear for me
I love ur explanation. Very dope
Your Video Is Very Useful Sharing Theories of international relations simplify the complex happenings of world politics. In this video
Well explained. Thank you.
Prof. Schweller should upload more videos like this. He speaks clearly and not to fast or too slow, and obviously he knows his stuff. If only Joseph Nye was this good at speaking....I personally find him dull
finally simple video explained it all !!!!
this guy knows what he is talking about genius !!!!!!!
absolutely love it
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know that.
Pretty sure I just learned more about realism than in my GOVT 401 class
I've spent 12 years developing a theory on choice, and what I discovered was that self-Identity could predict how long you live.
But, this is just a theory.
So my hope for certain things are starting to slowly diminish right before my very eyes.
that was great! thanks!
Well articulated
'Really', this guy is not really wrong. Most of the people, even me too, we see Realism as an 'evil' approach.But in fact, if we consider that the conditions are pushing states in this kind of behaviour, the meaning we attach should be closer to -neutral-. The world is just seems this way. You can not know what happens tomorrow, even if you are ally with a state, when national interests turn upside down, you can just be gone away. The only solution for this kind of condition is seeking a self-help system and to spread your power as much as you can among others. Beside, in a world which every state seeks its own interests, the stability in international relations looks possible only when dominant power functions in its own way, because in long term the reality and interest of the dominant(s) can also become the reality and interest of others.
wow hes amazing at explaining
thanks this vedeo just helped me with my assignmen
precise explanation!!
Love this new Tim Heidecker character
I want to have a discussion with this man. He seems highly interesting to talk with.
2:39 "Allllll riiiiight!!!! Giggity!!!"
hahahha i got it
i understand everything he said. then when i go to class, prof just asks a follow-up question. a complicated one, then i stuck again.
that would be me tomorrow
@@habibroish6140 goodluck lol
well interdependency in a dangerous world is certainly the most interesting scenario and what else should be a starting point to think about ethics :-)
and hey prof. randall, I ask myself what you have personally gone through so you became a realist ;-)
Idealism has come and go, realism has stood the test of time.
I'm just a business student and this is totally out of my realm but I have to study for a philosophy class
We also have realism in physics!
While this series presents itself as a theoretical 'logic', there is a more spiritual and moral dimension that deserves discussion. In this case, if you see the world as threatening and your fellow humans as selfish, violent, and incapable of community, then you will justify a world of fear and violent responses. This fear is self-fulfilling. Like FDR said 'the only thing to fear is fear itself...'
It always amazes me when theories talks about their understanding, it's almost always based on their perspective of what the western world has done. For example, the civil war that happened in Sudan is rarely ever brought up even though it's still an ongoing conflict, or the relentless proxy wars that was committed just under the guise of ~democracy and ~human rights.
I'm not trying to focus on one single issue, but it does irk me on how all of these video of theories seems to always be based on a western-leaning perspective.
i became a realist because of Professor Schweller
great video
Great video! :)
Splendid!
in the real world angels actually turn out to have a bazillion eyes and be super fucking terrifying to look at
So this is exactly it
I clicked on this to decide whether or not this video was CGI or not. 12 years ago cameras are looking like current day computer generated videos. Crazy times
Lol
friendship's are fragile they break when a certain point of stress is experienced by it, the international system is anarchic however it is robust, nothing is antifragile in world politics though, so far from what I have been learning?
i'm a fucken realist yeeeaaahhh!!!!!!!! 2pac was why can't I then yeeeaahhh!!!!!
Interesting I did not know the term except for epistemology.
Question: If the National Interest IS democracy... then who is right, the liberal, or the realist? Is the problem all in the execution, the operationalization of theory, rather than in the theory?
both are right, realism also emphasizes that states are rational actors, so if a state's national interest is democracy, the realists would think of it (democracy) as another form of power while the liberals would think of it as a tool necessary in reaching peace
well this made my school essay much easier
An idealist walks into a bar and doesn't order a drink to that they don't loose more time to socialise.
Thanks!
Realist see things and the world the way they present themselves. They have no self idea about anything but how things are
Anybody watching this after Trump gave the UN a giant dose of Realism??!
D. Crp yep
Wow
Excellent
From the way he kept on with the vodka glass joke I knew he was deep down a pessimist.
Now look into his eyes.
Anyway: a realist sees the world for what it is, and tries to accept it, embrace it, in a way, to avoid the emotional pain that unrealistic expectations create.
Remember your last breakup? The things that now look so clear have always been there...you somehow couldn't see them...now you can.
You got closer to reality. It's not right or wrong, good or bad, it just is.
A realist looks at all of the things as they express themselves, and compare them to what he's been taught to believe, and realizes they collide.
He seeks truth. Unbiased.
In interpersonal dynamics, in life, in the way the world works. That's it.
Very true!
Classical realism?