I need to address a critique of my previous essay, Whispers of Perfection. The main complaint was that my image of a future family with a moral, angelic wife was too idealistic and impractical. Of course, many men throughout time have said the same thing about those who dare to dream: your ideas are too large and cannot fit inside reality.
Is this the truth, or is it simply that my idealism cannot fit within your limited imagination? Because if past achievements have taught us anything, it is that not much is impossible under the sustained pressure of discipline and intelligence. In 1960, the ceiling of possibility expanded when we reached the moon and stars. If something like that, the most brilliant and craziest idea, is possible under the power of creativity, why can't something simpler, like men and women behaving morally, be equally likely?
Such idealism is actionable. But to do so, we need to redefine the definition, or more specifically, our relation to it. Usually, we define reality as a concrete and observable aspect. We divide this into two categories: social and natural. I believe it is probable to create individuals, especially women, who not only perform their natural roles but also find much joy in doing so. We cannot really argue with nature because biology is evident. Women possess the capacity to become pregnant. They are cultural incubators due to their unique connection to their children.
But given the choice, women select a life of labor in corporations, hospitals, and schools. Few have children, an insufficient number as the birthrate declines below replacement levels. This does not even consider the rate of abortion, which is alarmingly high, incited by a morally insipid and careless attitude toward the sanctity of newborn life.
And for this reason, our reality is determined by these people. The type of people who have deviated from God and traditional morals. As a result, I have a critic shouting, "Your vision for the future is not possible!" Obviously, my idealism cannot take root in the hearts of women who lack the essential characteristics. For the equally insufficient men, they do not have the capacity to visualize an idealistic future because their imagination and hope have abandoned them a long time ago, or never existed in the first place.
Precisely why we need engineers and scientists to construct a ship for navigating the stars, qualified individuals are required for a brighter future. The problem, then, is not the definition of my vision for a bucolic—or even rural—life of every man having a beautiful and radiant wife. The problem is that we need people who not only share our desire for a better world but also possess the genetic and moral qualifications.
What these detractors reveal is precisely the type of person who would not survive in our idealistic world because they are grounded in a past with weak or absent morality. These are the complainers and consumers. Naturally, they will be left behind. But for us, the ones who not only dream, but act, destiny requires clearing of the old and planting of new.
Today, we can edify our new world piece by piece. We do not submit to a vision for reality decided by the detractors and the corrupted. Why should they get to define society? I reject it. Our vision of pure morality is honest with nature and God and is more powerful and blessed. We must live our lives as if the ideal does, in fact, exist, by demanding more of ourselves and others. What type of person lives in this hypothetical future? Be it. Do not ask. Enforce clear boundaries and do not accept attitudes or behaviors that are beneath us. They say my idealism is not acceptable. I say: your reality is unacceptable.
Comments to the editor are welcome: thedeidaily@gmail.com