Friends of Ideas vs. Friends of Reality

In The Sophist, Plato described two types of thinkers: the “friends of the earth” and the “friends of ideas.”

The friends of the earth start with reality, they look at what actually exists and adjust their thinking when facts contradict them.

The friends of ideas do the opposite, they start with theories and then force reality to fit them.

Take Islamic jihad as an example.

The friends of the earth look at history, theology, patterns, statements, statistics, media, and reality, and conclude that Islamic jihad is a religious mandate in Islam and that it poses a serious threat to Western civilization.

The “friends of ideas” approach Islamic jihad the same way they approach everything else: they begin with a theory and then force reality to fit it.

Their starting idea is that all cultures are equal, all belief systems are morally equivalent, and no tradition can be judged from the outside.

So when jihadist violence appears, they can’t allow the explanation to be religious, because that would mean admitting that a belief system can produce specific patterns of behavior. That would violate the theory of cultural equivalence.

Instead, they translate jihad into safer language:

Islamic jihad becomes “resistance, political struggle, grievances and desperation.”

The belief is never allowed to be the cause, it must always be something else: poverty, colonial history, trauma, racism, Israel.

If jihad does not fit the mold, reality is adjusted:

When jihadists target civilians, it becomes “blowback.”
When they target Jews, it becomes “anti-Zionism.”
When they target women, it becomes “patriarchy.”
When they target apostates, it becomes “social pressure.”

Religion is erased from the equation because religion is inconvenient to the theory.

The “friends of ideas” are not asking, “What do these people believe?” They are asking, “How do I explain this without challenging my worldview?”

Another example is mass immigration and open borders.

The friends of the earth look at history, social patterns, integration results, crime statistics, welfare systems, housing markets, and long-term demographic change.

They look at what happens when large numbers of people with very different norms, loyalties, and expectations are inserted into a liberal society in a short period of time.

From this, they conclude that mass immigration reshapes culture, weakens social trust, strains institutions, and can import conflicts and values that are incompatible with the host society.

The “friends of ideas” starting idea is that all cultures are equal, borders are immoral, and movement itself is a moral right.

So when problems appear, they can’t allow the explanation to involve culture, values, or behavior, because that would mean admitting that differences between societies matter. That would violate the idea of universal equivalence.

Instead, they translate mass immigration into safer language:

Open borders become “humanitarian duty.”
Illegal entry becomes “seeking dignity.”
Failure to integrate becomes “exclusion.”
Social tension becomes “fear of the other.”

The migrant’s beliefs and norms are never allowed to be causes. They must always be something else: poverty, colonial history, climate change, Western guilt, racism, or capitalism.

The friends of the earth ask: What values are being imported? How do these values treat women, law, and dissent? What happens when assimilation fails?

The friends of ideas ask: How do I defend the principle of open borders no matter the outcome?

So immigration stops being a practical policy
and becomes a moral identity, and anyone who points to consequences is accused of opposing compassion.

---