>>4000550>Idealism isn't inherently life denying.There's a strong argument, from Nietzsche and other places, that idealism, seeking holiness, heaven, Nirvana, and all variations on this sort of idea are against life. Against accepting and enjoying life as it is, and ultimately in a negative and self-annihilating sense: shown in Socrates submitting to his unjust execution willingly. Essentially, that he was merely suicidal, and his sophistication disguised his madness.
In Buddhism there's a funny and easy answer to this problem.
Buddhism suggests suffering comes from desire, "so free yourself from attachment and desire" and enter Nirvana.
One step past entry level is the realization that "the desire to be free from suffering is also a desire", which is the joke I guess. Freeing yourself from the desire to be free of desire, one must accept his desires as a part of his life.
Both Buddhism and Platonism seem to agree on the idea that it takes a soul a long time to develop.
On some level it can be argued that, if a person has a taste for philosophy, then (according to the outlook of Platonic philosophy) that soul is getting old, and close to moving on from incarnating altogether.
But if we take several steps back and shift to the perspective of a scientific materialist, it could be argued that these ways of thinking are psychologically dangerous to impressionable people.
If a person gets the idea in their head that the material world is sinful or un-ideal and that they want to move towards the ideal, a materialist could argue that's a recipe, the very idea that there is a "higher" "ideal reality" is a recipe for undue personal misery.
If we look at it from the perspective of someone who denies the existence of the soul, we could even say too much idealism is a kind of cognito hazard.
As I understand it this is basically Nietzsche's argument against Socrates.
