Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
I don't think real life corresponds well to this example. The beach goers have many different preferences, more or less malleable, and may exist in three-dimensional space around the beach plane.

And what if sometimes defending principles is likelier to get you results than accepting just about anything in the name of "pragmatism".

Fight as hard as possible, only then settle?
The example is static, one dimensional. Of course real life is dynamic, and multi-dimensional. That is why parties often move what they stand for and what they do stand for can have odd statements in it as they carve out niches that make sense in the particular election they are standing for. Corbyn is getting a mass of flack since Labour MPs can see many votes in just being anti-Brexit with the added bonus they might never have to follow through whereas Corbyn is sticking to something called his "principles" which only confuses career MPs.

For any matter, often it is the time frame one looks at that determines what the "best" approach is: Idealism after WW1 bankrupted germany and was a major catalyst of WW2. The idealism of pacifism in the 1930's followed by the appeasement pre-WW2 and also made WW2 more likely. Fighting WW2 on ideals gave the USSR East Europe on a plate and ensured the British Empire fell faster than it otherwise would have done and in a far more messy way. Whilst pragmatically the Allies teamed up with a power they had been at the very least hostile to since its inception - where before they had not allied with for idealistic reasons.

Depending on the time frame and the outcomes you focus on either idealism or pragmatism could be shown to be good or bad.