On 27-11-2013 0:35, Florian Pesth wrote:
> "Wer Visionen hat, soll zum Arzt gehen." (engl. "Those who have visions
> should go see a doctor.") Helmut Schmidt, German chancellor from 1974 to
> 1982
>
> Well I think it points at a criticism of having ideas without thinking
> how to realize them. What is the difference of a vision to a plan or an
> aim? You can have long term plans as well but there you have a path
> leading to it. Vision could mean that you know where you want to go but
> don't care to think about how to get there.

I can live with that. As I understand it, 'vision' seems to be 
interpreted differently from case to case. Schmidt and Rutte interpret 
it as a goal without clearly defined (unrealistic) means, in effect 
opposing it to a form of 'realpolitik' they would favour instead. 
Others, and I think Clinton might be amongst them, see 'vision' as a 
(long term) goal which is planned along a more or less defined roadmap, 
with the possibility to adjust the roadmap in-between and according to 
necessity or changing conditions. That last is what /I/ would call 
'vision' in the present context.

I think that dismissing vision as something for the doctor or something 
blinding are purely reductionist rhetorics which ignore the fact that 
you always need some framework to achieve a goal. As such, they sound 
very straightforward and realistic but are rather hollow phrases. The 
danger is - and it has been commented upon in the press - that in the 
end it may serve to hide the absence of ideas or purpose.

>
> Might be some similar mentality of northern germans and dutch for
> rational thought processes and refusing ideas which go beyond that. If
> that is a good thing or not is probably a matter of mentality and
> taste :).

Yes indeed. I am afraid that I am not 'pure blood' enough to be that 
rational. I have a healthy mistrust about such 'rational' thoughts in 
general. ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message