Does the future belong to realists or idealists? First of all, we can observe that realism has prevailed. This evolution spans several millennia: it begins in Antiquity with the emergence of secular values, then continues through the Middle Ages with the birth of capitalism, followed by the Renaissance and humanism, where humanity was placed at the center of everything, and then the Enlightenment, which established rationality as the guiding principle, before giving way to the current modern era, where the individual asserts themselves fully under the reign of individualism. Over the centuries, as every suprarational order was gradually diminished, the emancipation of man by man continued to grow, all in the name of progress. To support this ideology and give meaning to History, the worship of profit and the expansion of capital ultimately came to dominate, creating, through the multiplication of needs and goods, a commercial spirit that imposed materialism as the primary way of thinking.
In this new world, the one we live in today, which has taken hold over a large part of the globe, it is commonly accepted and validated that only what belongs to the realm of the visible and tangible, whose explanations are logical and rational, matters. From then on, people think less in terms of ideas than of solutions, less in terms of causes than of consequences. Every injustice is no longer addressed by understanding its original problem, but by examining its effects. This is the consequence of a world guided by material things rather than spiritual dimensions, a world focused on the earth rather than the heavens.
Unlike idealists, realists observe the world as it is, not as it should be. They seek to change it according to its existing conditions and address only the symptoms. The debate on pension reform in France is a striking example: instead of reflecting on how every French person could have a fulfilling job rather than a constrained one, without having to think about retirement (a word that, incidentally, evokes premature death), the focus is on the retirement age and the method of financing as ends in themselves. Rather than considering the usefulness of each person’s work and determining which sectors are necessary, the debate essentially revolves around changing a model that, in any case, will be swept away by the tides.
Similarly, on a broader scale, people think less about what the state of Europe or the world might be in a hundred years, and more about what it will be tomorrow or in a week. Attention is less given to the order of the world and how to pacify it, and more to the numerous and most sensational statements, those that reveal facts rather than those that awaken ideas. In this new way of thinking, history is no longer made, it is endured. And on an individual level, it is no longer a question of self-fulfillment but of constructing oneself according to what others do or want one to do. The individual, no longer oriented toward its own purpose, becomes oriented toward the one imposed upon him.
Our era suffers from an excess of realists and a shortage of idealists who seek the equilibrium. While poverty spreads across the globe, wars and conflicts multiply at an accelerating pace, individualism elevates vice over virtue, and artificial intelligence seeks to impose a parallel truth upon us, we do not need lukewarm souls, but more than ever, burning hearts. We need minds guided by something greater than themselves, and the spirit is capable of everything.
If everyone believes that the future belongs to realists, they are mistaken. For although we currently live in a world dominated by reason rather than faith, those without faith have no contact with the infinite, and therefore cannot know either the first cause or the ultimate end…