I feel utopian envisions of the future still dominate politics, governments, science and yes even atheistic secular movements who have claimed that they have broken their shackles of religion.
Look at the world and observe the behaviors of others around you. We can notice political correctness where we call each other equal amongst a seemingly ironic reality of inequality, we can see the myth of peace being preached from above by those who would call themselves the higher authority, and we can see the thought of total scientifical domination in making a futuristic complete world without all the blight problems of our day in that such a ideal is reminiscent to building a heaven on earth under the direct control of so called human guardianship.
Blind utopianism is alive and well my friends.
And what’s this, my fellow secular atheists after killing god still use religious concepts as they search the corpse of religion for anything they can utilize calling themselves the new breeed by defeating the old.( What a joke.)
Define utopian… the word itself, is very vast and vague and slippery. It could define anyone or anything. Were capitalists utopian in fuedal times, were the blacks 100 or so years ago utopian in struggling to free themselves from slavery? Were women utopian when they wanted to get the vote?
It seems to me many “utopian” thoughts lead to progress, it’s knowing which ones are good from which ones are bad that are difficult.
Just remember this, politicians are liars and hypocrites. They preach sermons to the masses yet they live a life totally contrary to what they say. Do not believe everything you hear. Instead of saying ‘utopian visions’ why not say ‘lies still dominate politics’ as it has always done.
I mean politicians can’t say to you you that you’ll lose your job next year cuz of their economic mismanagement, they’ll rig the numbers and say everything is alright.
They don’t tell the truth because most people can’t handle the truth, they only say what people want to hear, which is utopian vision of the future.
Agreed. Many of the claims of my fellow atheists come dangerously close to God. Like the beliefe in the Tao. I know its not techically a God but its pretty damn close. Close enough to serve as the emotional counterpart of one.
Whilst not denying that any reference to a Utopian ideal is deeply contextual and possibly also a very Western concept, I think a more useful analysis would come from not what the Utopian dreams are, but how they are used, their purpose.
It seems to me that, within the idealistic sphere of politics, there are two basic ‘types’ of Utopian ideal. Whilst the two ideas, in appearance, may be very similar, even identical, the purpose they embody, about which they are spoken, can be very different. These two types are, broadly, Utopian visions which form a critique of our current situation, and Utopian visions which someone aims to achieve. To say that these two forms are mutually exclusive, distinct concepts is probably a fallacy, but one useful to their further analysis.
Whilst both are private reasons or public incitements to action, the former is primarily a rhetorical concept, not an idea that exists as a goal in itself, its deployment no more dangerous, no more blind than any other concept, neither inherently rational or irrational, good or bad, that depends entirely on the phrases used and their context.
The latter… is more troublesome. A muse to extremes. Almost always arriving in a deeply passionate invocation, its fundamental problem is that, no matter the intentions of the author, such an invocation gives it life in the minds of others, an existence beyond the former, often leading to terrible, terrible results. We all know what happens when someone tries to purify the world.
The examples given all conform to the first type, to me.
I do not. The statement is meaningless, it makes no referral for the concept of ‘progress’ to be deployed. You can infer that he means progress generally, in all things is a delusion, but this is clearly nonsense as there are clearly defined areas of life where goals were set, progressed towards and met. Done. Progress occurred. Continues to occur constantly and forever. Someone aimed to build a better gun, built it, sold it for millions. Done. Progress.
What I think you mean, is that some grand constructed story of progress is a delusion. Where we started as primitive cave dwellers and reached for the sky. That some day we will hold everything in our grasp. That this is delusional I can agree with, but only because it posits a direction for humanity that requires some God’s Eye view to become meaningful. Things have, in certain ways, become generally better in some ways but not in a linear or uniform manner. Things have changed, but this is not some capital Progress, just progress .
It doesn’t seem that you argue against “utopia”, rather your own inhibitions against worldly “ideal” conditions.
I understand the concept of Utopia, and it shouldn’t be defined at the will of a common theme.
If you have resentment for the common day desire for a “better world” take it up as a societal issue, rather than as a blind status quo.
Surely you consider a desire to generally improve the human condition to be a good thing? Is it just the belief that we can succeed in this task that is utopian, naive or worthy of contempt? Surely any human endeavour that aims towards an increase in happiness and freedom for more of the people more of the time is worthwhile?
By Thomas More right? A very good book.
The governments force people to steal. And when they steal they are punished by the governement.
A good concept.
I did. It was the book that first made me forget all my political delusions forever. Utopia is death.
I’d rather die than inhabit a perfect land like that. The fact that we are born and educated as machines doesn’t mean we have to like, desire or even promote such an abominable condition as the greatest of all ideals.
The fascinating thing about that word “utopia”, to me, is that it has a double meaning - the Greek meaning from which More derived it from was οὐ, “not”, so therefore non-place, but it also alludes to the alternative prefix εὖ, “good”, or best-place. Now, whether or not you make a matter of importance of More’s intended target, this double meaning is unavoidable, and it can be the grounds for some very interesting discussion about utopia as a political concept. The obvious question is whether one can think the ideal world, the εὖ-τόπος, without also recognising its impossibility as the οὐ-τόπος, and, therefore, whether every utopia is destined to descend into a dystopia.
In another context, however, both the εὖ-τόπος and the οὐ-τόπος are what we might call “imagined communities”, and doesn’t the history of political philosophy demonstrate to us that these kinds of utopias have always been at the heart of political thinking, from Plato to Rawls? Indeed, might it be possible to say that it is impossible to think politics at all without engaging in a certain amount of utopian thinking, in this respect?
Finally, to consider a philosophical perspective on this conundrum, does it not question the very way in which we think, specifically about the tension between the real and the ideal, which it would be naive to suggest can be simply delineated?
So maybe, in conclusion, it would be wise not to be too sniffy about “utopian thinking” after all…
