Utopia

[Three_Times_Great]

so what we need is a definition of utopia; otherwise we are speaking of two different things altogether.

[matty]

Well, you already have my suggestions from the other thread.

[Three_Times_Great]

@matty

Well, you already have my suggestions from the other thread.

i dont have time to read through that thread at the moment, but you may link if you wish, otherwise i will reread the link you posted previously; with regard to a definition of utopia, traditionally it refers to ideal society, the maximization and realization of total happiness and freedom, and the maximum absence of want or pain. dictionary.com reads:
"

1. an imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More’s Utopia (1516) as enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc.
2. (usually lowercase) an ideal place or state.
3. (usually lowercase) any visionary system of political or social perfection. "

this encompasses the duality of the term that i remember you referred to. utopia is seen as both ideal and perfect, and also impossible or imaginary. however, it seems that the imaginary nature or seeming impossibility of utopia stems from its drastic difference between the world we are used to. our modern world is so far from perfection that contemplating a utopian state seems certainly “impossible” from our perspective. but i do not think that impossibility is inherent in the term “utopia” itself, or out of any necessity of impossibility.

so we can define utopia as a state where all people enjoy perfection of laws, politics, etc. of course we need to define what perfect is, in an objective sense. certainly the ideas of freedom and happiness come readily to mind as corollaries to perfection. as do freedom from harms. however, there need not be a “eugenic” aspect of utopia: we could imagine a society where all people are freed from the need to work, where food and water are plentiful thanks to technology, and everyone is completely free to go where they wish, talk to whomever they wish, learn or do anything at all, provided it does not harm anyone else. of course there are practical considerations to be addressed, such as whether or not there could be a currency under such a system, and if it would even be necessary to have one (and if not, how would economics play out in such a system?)

ideal does not have to mean 100% perfect. humans could still be restricted from some actions, such as murder, they could still be fallible and die of old age, they could still catch disease or die of natural causes, and this state could still be utopian. utopia denotes perfection or ideal of those things which humans have control over.

when we perfect our social system to eliminate crime, oppression, the need to work, and all people are free to act and think as they see fit, without the possibility of their body or mind being violated or harmed; that would be my definition of utopia. a state where everyone is free to do and think what they wish, as close to a state of anarchy as would be realistically possible within the framework of justice and reason. of course, utopia may also entail a change in human nature, such that laws may not be required anymore, but i do not think that this would be a necessary aspect of utopia itself, merely a long-term goal to see in the future, if and when human nature ever shows signs of maturing or evolving towards more enlightened views.

[matty]

To my mind, a utopia is an image of perfection, a feature of political thinking that makes political philosophy possible, which is why I emphasised “imagined communities” in the passage from the other thread you cited earlier. I do not believe that utopias can be realised because their status as images makes them inherently impracticable; when you say that “ideal does not have to mean 100% perfect” - and I am in agreement with you on this sentiment, at least from a practical point-of-view - then we are already on the road to accepting the impracticality of the utopian image of perfection as such. It is not possible for us to achieve an absolute utopia without a quite fundamental shift in the structure of the human psyche, and I am inclined to agree with Fabiano that this is a shift that would alienate us from our humanity (this is also the great insight of dystopian fiction), were it possible at all.

However, there is no need for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater here: that the utopian image of perfection is unrealisable in itself does not make utopian thinking (utopianism) undesirable. Rather, the key is not to allow the utopia itself to become the ultimate focus of political activity; utopian thinking must remain nimble, agile, light on its feet - capable of responding to changes in circumstances and incorporating new approaches. Utopian thinking is inherently futuristic, teleological even, but the future is not a given so the utopia must be adaptable if it is to be practically applied.

[Unity1]

@Three Times Great

inevitability has nothing to do with utopia. in truth nothing is inevitable about the evolution of society, because we as individuals determine its course and direction, and we are not inevitable; further, evolution only selects for the better survival traits at the present moment. in the case of society, if natural selection can be said to apply to social change, then those forms which ensure greater stability and control will be selected for.

since true utopia reflects a realization of social forms which embody freedom, and because evolution will likely continue to select for progressively more unfree societies, it is probably the case that utopia will never arise by natural processes. utopia simply presents too great an uncertainty in predictability, not to mention the tremendous difficulties with establishing utopia for the first time.

utopia would need to be established in spite of natural processes, which would select for less utopian states all the time. perhaps this is just a reflection of the idealistic and presently impossible nature of utopia itself.

Wrong.

In whose ‘truth’?

What is ‘truth’?

Who/what created ‘natural selection’?

Why do you analyse ‘evolution’ as ‘natural selection’?

What you are sayingis that Man and his politics are not part of nature. Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Utopia is absolutely inevitable.

[Unity1]

[quote=“Three Times Great”]
humans could still be restricted from some actions, such as murder, quote]

Yes I would hope this would be part of ‘Utopia’.

[Unity1]

@matty

To my mind, a utopia is an image of perfection, a feature of political thinking that makes political philosophy possible, which is why I emphasised “imagined communities” in the passage from the other thread you cited earlier. I do not believe that utopias can be realised because their status as images makes them inherently impracticable; when you say that “ideal does not have to mean 100% perfect” - and I am in agreement with you on this sentiment, at least from a practical point-of-view - then we are already on the road to accepting the impracticality of the utopian image of perfection as such. It is not possible for us to achieve an absolute utopia without a quite fundamental shift in the structure of the human psyche, and I am inclined to agree with Fabiano that this is a shift that would alienate us from our humanity (this is also the great insight of dystopian fiction), were it possible at all.

However, there is no need for us to throw the baby out with the bathwater here: that the utopian image of perfection is unrealisable in itself does not make utopian thinking (utopianism) undesirable. Rather, the key is not to allow the utopia itself to become the ultimate focus of political activity; utopian thinking must remain nimble, agile, light on its feet - capable of responding to changes in circumstances and incorporating new approaches. Utopian thinking is inherently futuristic, teleological even, but the future is not a given so the utopia must be adaptable if it is to be practically applied.

What is perfect is objective.

[Three_Times_Great]

the lack of inevitability inherent in social systems lies in their emergent nature; social systems are the product of countlessly complex and numerous forces working together, direct results of human free will on the individual level, and affected greatly in the end by random, isolated incidents or unpredictable variables, such as natural disasters or the untimely death of an influential person, which may spark a war or a new paradigm. to view any specific manifestation of social structures as “inevitable” means taking the factors of randomness and human free will out of the equation, which is unrealistic and impossible.

in the sense that society is viewed as evolutionary, different elements and forces from within society can be understood as being “selected for” in a similar sense as natural selection; of course, the mechanism is far different, and therefore the parallel ends with the end results, but the fact remains that certain ideas, viewpoints, structures, institutions are selected for at any given time. various conflicting ideas (such as freedom vs slavery, monarchy vs democrary, tradition vs progress) are competing with each other through the medium of the human minds of that society. when a certain view wins strong majority “support” from a sufficient number of individuals (or wins support among a key group of influential leaders) these ideas are “selected for” in the sense that they beat out the competition and become established realities for the future. in theory, these various ideas/paradigms compete to see which better fits the needs of the society at the time. in a free democratic society, it would seem therefore that ideas forwarding the notions of independence/freedom/happiness would tend to be selected for.

however, to absolutely conclude this would be to only look at a small part of the picture. society itself is organized and exists for the purpose of restricting and controlling individuals. with our self-aware intelligence, we are such a potential threat to each other that social systems need to keep us in line, regulate our behavior, imprint us with desirable responses, condition our thoughts, etc. because of this, a social system embodying utopian ideals of complete freedom (freedom TO act/think as well as freedom FROM want/need/pain) would contradict the purpose of society itself. in general, social system will never naturally evolve to utopia, because this would severely undermine the function of society itself.

this is why utopia is undesirable from the point of view of historical selection. society has fluctuated between more freedom and less freedom, more rights and less rights, off and on again in cycles throughout human history. however, the extremes of the cycles are never realized, because they represent a failure of the system itself. social systems will continue to swing from one side to the other, but will never remain long in one place, and will never reach either extreme with regard to any of the critical elements that compose society itself.

utopia therefore will need to realise a drastic change in human nature: humans will need to complete an internal “evolution” or “enlightenment” in the sense that we learn how to use our consciousness and willpower to overcome natural forces such as selection. we will need to take our destiny into our own hands and establish a utopian system IN SPITE of the need for being controlled and repressed: in short, humanity will have to lose its need to be dominated by authority, and this will only happen when we cease to be a threat to each other. clearly, this would be possible only when we see a drastic rise in human awareness, compassion, intelligence… and obviously, we are a long ways away from that at present.

this is why utopia is not inevitable, because this internal change in human nature is not inevitable. we are free, and we will continue to change and evolve as time progresses, but the direction of that evolution is never set in stone. humanity may realise internal change sufficient to enact utopia in 10,000 years, or 100,000, or never at all. there simply is no way to predict the future for humanity, partly because evolution is so complex and dependent on random unpredictable factors, and partly because the nature of our free will means that nothing is certain.

[dreamscaper]

@Three Times Great

@matty

I’m not convinced about your theory on “the common man”. What evidence do you have for this loss of depth in popular culture?

i do not feel that the fact of the average person’s intellectual vacuity is even up for debate; most modern authors in philosophy, psychology, politics, etc evidence this fact. i know the majority of the literature ive been exposed to points to this fact. historically, most people are not “great thinkers” by any stretch of the imagination…

if you doubt this fact, and perhaps want to argue that most people are intelligent, self-aware, ethical and reasonable people, then we could probably start a new thread for this aspect of the discussion. however, i feel that the anti-intellectualism which pervades common mass culture is apparent, and recognized by any objective, serious thinker these days. in order not to distract the discussion, we could start this discussion in a new thread, if you disagree. it could perhaps be an interesting discussion…

It’s the sodium flouride(poison) in the water. It makes people stupid and docile, especially children. Then there are the vaccines (even more poison), the monosodium glutamate (mind number), the aspartame (neuro toxin), and aluminum (memory inhibitor). That is how the ruling class keeps the average man from thinking too much. The utopia that you seem to desire is already on its way. Aldous Huxley was writing more then a work of fiction. All these substances are used for the purpose of eugenics to make the common man stupid enough to create a huge rift between the ruling class and the plebs. In the future it will be unthinkable for the common man to rise up against their rulers. They will be like mindless animals. I already see this happening. Here in America our politics are going crazy, protests are entirely ignored, all the elections are fake, and the people are just like “oh well, that’s too bad”. Hardly anybody has any fight left in them. But before the advent of eugenics, people WERE actually starting to get smarter. That is what cued eugenics and public education, the number one and number two enemies of intelligence.

[Ierrellus]

If life is a journey and, according to Hess, the journey is sufficient for proving the value of life, the journey’s end in some utopian dream is a distraction from the here and now business of living. Heaven and hell are human inventions made from experiences of suffering and joy. These are hills and valleys through which the road passes; and getting through them hones our personal character. Utopia is, when all is said and done, a final end, a conclusion, a mental resolution hoped for by the tired, bored or sick traveller.

[Three_Times_Great]

@dreamscaper

It’s the sodium flouride(poison) in the water. It makes people stupid and docile, especially children. Then there are the vaccines (even more poison), the monosodium glutamate (mind number), the aspartame (neuro toxin), and aluminum (memory inhibitor). That is how the ruling class keeps the average man from thinking too much. The utopia that you seem to desire is already on its way. Aldous Huxley was writing more then a work of fiction. All these substances are used for the purpose of eugenics to make the common man stupid enough to create a huge rift between the ruling class and the plebs. In the future it will be unthinkable for the common man to rise up against their rulers. They will be like mindless animals. I already see this happening. Here in America our politics are going crazy, protests are entirely ignored, all the elections are fake, and the people are just like “oh well, that’s too bad”. Hardly anybody has any fight left in them. But before the advent of eugenics, people WERE actually starting to get smarter. That is what cued eugenics and public education, the number one and number two enemies of intelligence.

yes, unfortunately the reigns have been out of our hands for a long time, and we lost control of our destiny and future without ever realising it. all these things you mention are completely true; yet the utopia i refer to of course is not the “utopia” thats intended for us by the global elites. there is still hope for the future, for a REAL utopia based on intelligence, higher awareness, freedom and compassion, but to be honest, its FAR in the future, if it will even ever exist at all… we still have a lot to overcome in the meantime, and it remains to be seen how the human spirit and unlimited potential for energy (once we realises its there) will react to the cage its being imprisoned in, if it ever wakes up enough to see the bars closing in around itself…

[dreamscaper]

@Three Times Great

there is still hope for the future, for a REAL utopia based on intelligence, higher awareness, freedom and compassion

I hope you are right about that. I have been trying to wake people around me up, and is like punishment for me. People just think you are crazy. It seems like people just do whatever is easiest. It is a hell of a lot easier to believe that everything is fine then to admit that we have a serious worldwide problem that will require a huge united effort to overcome. The thing is though, if EVERYONE stood up to it, it wouldn’t take much of an effort. It is like a house of cards, and would topple in a heartbeat. Problem is, people no longer know how to live as free men and women so just the thought of it scares the hell out of them.

I suppose I shouldn’t knock the term “utopia” too much. It definitely has attained a negative connotation over the years though. But most things that were good have been turned evil in insidious ways by the ruling class. All of the heretical doctrines of the renaissance and middle ages for example. The mystery schools too.

[Three_Times_Great]

@dreamscaper

@Three Times Great

there is still hope for the future, for a REAL utopia based on intelligence, higher awareness, freedom and compassion

I hope you are right about that. I have been trying to wake people around me up, and is like punishment for me. People just think you are crazy. It seems like people just do whatever is easiest. It is a hell of a lot easier to believe that everything is fine then to admit that we have a serious worldwide problem that will require a huge united effort to overcome. The thing is though, if EVERYONE stood up to it, it wouldn’t take much of an effort. It is like a house of cards, and would topple in a heartbeat. Problem is, people no longer know how to live as free men and women so just the thought of it scares the hell out of them.

I suppose I shouldn’t knock the term “utopia” too much. It definitely has attained a negative connotation over the years though. But most things that were good have been turned evil in insidious ways by the ruling class. All of the heretical doctrines of the renaissance and middle ages for example. The mystery schools too.

thats the irony of social change: everyone waits for the guy next to him to do it, when the guy next to him is just waiting for you…

[Unity1]

@Three Times Great

the lack of inevitability inherent in social systems lies in their emergent nature; social systems are the product of countlessly complex and numerous forces working together, direct results of human free will on the individual level, and affected greatly in the end by random, isolated incidents or unpredictable variables, such as natural disasters or the untimely death of an influential person, which may spark a war or a new paradigm. to view any specific manifestation of social structures as “inevitable” means taking the factors of randomness and human free will out of the equation, which is unrealistic and impossible.

in the sense that society is viewed as evolutionary, different elements and forces from within society can be understood as being “selected for” in a similar sense as natural selection; of course, the mechanism is far different, and therefore the parallel ends with the end results, but the fact remains that certain ideas, viewpoints, structures, institutions are selected for at any given time. various conflicting ideas (such as freedom vs slavery, monarchy vs democrary, tradition vs progress) are competing with each other through the medium of the human minds of that society. when a certain view wins strong majority “support” from a sufficient number of individuals (or wins support among a key group of influential leaders) these ideas are “selected for” in the sense that they beat out the competition and become established realities for the future. in theory, these various ideas/paradigms compete to see which better fits the needs of the society at the time. in a free democratic society, it would seem therefore that ideas forwarding the notions of independence/freedom/happiness would tend to be selected for.

however, to absolutely conclude this would be to only look at a small part of the picture. society itself is organized and exists for the purpose of restricting and controlling individuals. with our self-aware intelligence, we are such a potential threat to each other that social systems need to keep us in line, regulate our behavior, imprint us with desirable responses, condition our thoughts, etc. because of this, a social system embodying utopian ideals of complete freedom (freedom TO act/think as well as freedom FROM want/need/pain) would contradict the purpose of society itself. in general, social system will never naturally evolve to utopia, because this would severely undermine the function of society itself.

this is why utopia is undesirable from the point of view of historical selection. society has fluctuated between more freedom and less freedom, more rights and less rights, off and on again in cycles throughout human history. however, the extremes of the cycles are never realized, because they represent a failure of the system itself. social systems will continue to swing from one side to the other, but will never remain long in one place, and will never reach either extreme with regard to any of the critical elements that compose society itself.

utopia therefore will need to realise a drastic change in human nature: humans will need to complete an internal “evolution” or “enlightenment” in the sense that we learn how to use our consciousness and willpower to overcome natural forces such as selection. we will need to take our destiny into our own hands and establish a utopian system IN SPITE of the need for being controlled and repressed: in short, humanity will have to lose its need to be dominated by authority, and this will only happen when we cease to be a threat to each other. clearly, this would be possible only when we see a drastic rise in human awareness, compassion, intelligence… and obviously, we are a long ways away from that at present.

this is why utopia is not inevitable, because this internal change in human nature is not inevitable. we are free, and we will continue to change and evolve as time progresses, but the direction of that evolution is never set in stone. humanity may realise internal change sufficient to enact utopia in 10,000 years, or 100,000, or never at all. there simply is no way to predict the future for humanity, partly because evolution is so complex and dependent on random unpredictable factors, and partly because the nature of our free will means that nothing is certain.

What is the purpose for the existence of Humanity?

Why do you think Humans have free will?

Why do you assume randomness?

Your theories are to be based on scientific analysis of society. What evidence is there that these theories are correct and will not shift by the time future histories have past?

If history is a good indicator of future, which you seem to think it is, then your paradigm will shift.

Why do you say society exists for restricting and controlling behaviour? This is just a theory.

Utopia means perfect society. Perfect society does not contradict the purpose of society.

Historical selection is not a good indicator of desirability.

Perfection is desirable by everyone.

I generally agree humans need to develop in the ways you suggested in your second last paragraph.

The internal change in humans is inevitable. We are not free.

There are many ways to predict the future.

The progress of Humanity throughout history points directly towards a practically perfect world society.

… first there were families, then there were communities, then villages, then cities, then nations, then unions, then unions of unions…

… finally there will be a union of all the unions…

… then space colonies… then… ?

[Three_Times_Great]

@Unity1

What is the purpose for the existence of Humanity?

how should i know?

@Unity1

Why do you think Humans have free will?

do you think that we do not?

@Unity1

Why do you assume randomness?

fundamental “randomness” is scientific fact; look into chaos theory, behavior theory or quantum physics

@Unity1

Your theories are to be based on scientific analysis of society. What evidence is there that these theories are correct and will not shift by the time future histories have past?

the application of “scientific analysis” to historical social change is demonstrated by marx/freud/nietzsche/marcuse/deleuze/guattari/etc/etc/etc…

@Unity1

If history is a good indicator of future, which you seem to think it is, then your paradigm will shift.

of course.

@Unity1

Why do you say society exists for restricting and controlling behaviour? This is just a theory.

start a new thread; i will be happy to debate the point with you.

@Unity1

Utopia means perfect society. Perfect society does not contradict the purpose of society.

yes it does.

@Unity1

Historical selection is not a good indicator of desirability.

yes it is; it is the ONLY “indicator”.

@Unity1

Perfection is desirable by everyone.

absolutely not. most people do not want true freedom/perfection at all.

@Unity1

I generally agree humans need to develop in the ways you suggested in your second last paragraph.

thats good, because i am right.

@Unity1

The internal change in humans is inevitable. We are not free.

change itself is always inevitable; the direction of that change, however, is not.

@Unity1

There are many ways to predict the future.

name one, other than the “scientific analysis” you previously rejected.

@Unity1

The progress of Humanity throughout history points directly towards a practically perfect world society.

what “progress of Humanity”? why does it point to perfection, and not away from it?

@Unity1

… first there were families, then there were communities, then villages, then cities, then nations, then unions, then unions of unions…

… finally there will be a union of all the unions…

… then space colonies… then… ?

who knows? hopefully our species will survive in some minimally-recognizable form to find out…

[Jayson]

We already live in utopia. People just don’t like it.

[Unity1]

@Three Times Great

@Unity1

What is the purpose for the existence of Humanity?

1. how should i know?

@Unity1

Why do you think Humans have free will?

2. do you think that we do not?

@Unity1

Why do you assume randomness?

3. ". fundamental “randomness” is scientific fact; look into chaos theory, behavior theory or quantum physics

@Unity1

Your theories are to be based on scientific analysis of society. What evidence is there that these theories are correct and will not shift by the time future histories have past?

4. the application of “scientific analysis” to historical social change is demonstrated by marx/freud/nietzsche/marcuse/deleuze/guattari/etc/etc/etc…

@Unity1

If history is a good indicator of future, which you seem to think it is, then your paradigm will shift.

5. of course.

@Unity1

Why do you say society exists for restricting and controlling behaviour? This is just a theory.

6. start a new thread; i will be happy to debate the point with you.

@Unity1

Utopia means perfect society. Perfect society does not contradict the purpose of society.

7. yes it does.

@Unity1

Historical selection is not a good indicator of desirability.

8. yes it is; it is the ONLY “indicator”.

@Unity1

Perfection is desirable by everyone.

9. absolutely not. most people do not want true freedom/perfection at all.

@Unity1

I generally agree humans need to develop in the ways you suggested in your second last paragraph.

10. thats good, because i am right.

@Unity1

The internal change in humans is inevitable. We are not free.

11. change itself is always inevitable; the direction of that change, however, is not.

@Unity1

There are many ways to predict the future.

12. name one, other than the “scientific analysis” you previously rejected.

@Unity1

The progress of Humanity throughout history points directly towards a practically perfect world society.

13. what “progress of Humanity”? why does it point to perfection, and not away from it?

@Unity1

… first there were families, then there were communities, then villages, then cities, then nations, then unions, then unions of unions…

… finally there will be a union of all the unions…

… then space colonies… then… ?

14. who knows? hopefully our species will survive in some minimally-recognizable form to find out…

1. You have no right to judge the future if you have no understanding of purpose.
2. We don’t.
3. I don’t need to look into these areas as I already have. Who created science? Who created systems that work randomly? Did the universe create itself out of nothing?
4. I’m not going to list all of the ways that the people you mentioned were not scientific.
5. So why are you so arrogant about your point of view?
6. Maybe I will.
7. The lack of logic you are displaying tells me you are not worth speaking to.
8. Arrogance.
9. Everyone desires. Funadamentally this is a desire for perfection. You have to learn more about human nature.
10. You are a smartass that thinks he knows everything. Ignorant and narrow-minded.
11. Bullshit. Prove it.
12. Ever heard of induction?
13. I find it funny you ask what progress of humanity when an example of progress follows.
14. You sound like a smartass undergrad to me who thinks he knows everything beacuse he has done 2 or 3 years at Uni. I can guarantee that by the time you are dead the world will still be here. Remember me on your deathbed.

[spyderjoe]

Create a situation of perfection or sameness and immediatly differences are formed. People dont want to be perfect they want to be different. A society where eveyone aggrees is not a society of humans, its a society of ants.

[Unity1]

@spyderjoe

Create a situation of perfection or sameness and immediatly differences are formed. People dont want to be perfect they want to be different. A society where eveyone aggrees is not a society of humans, its a society of ants.

Why do you associate perfection with ‘sameness’?

Perfection includes difference.

A garden which has only one type of flower but five hundred of them is boring.

A garden which has five hundred different flowers is more beautiful.

Difference is part of perfection, so all you have done is confirm that people want to be perfect.

You are scared of losing yourself.

[Three_Times_Great]

hey Unity, i would love to respond to your points, but im not going to scroll up and down, back and forth and try to pair your comments with my OP; please quote or at least copy the original question/point along with your response so i can address what youre saying without wasting an extra 10 minutes of my times, thanks.