Utopia

[fayefaye]

Well, I wanted to get a discussion of this going in the Animal Farm thread, but since nobody responded I'm whacking it in here and asking you what you think.

Personally, I can't really bring myself to take it all that seriously.... even though some people seem to. I mean, do you really think that could work? I sorta doubt it (then again, I'm cynical), but then I might sound like 'the sort of person who is afraid of looking a fool if he cannot pick holes in other people's ideas.' (heh. Bet More stuck that in there just so nobody'd criticize him)

[crisaor]

I have no problem taking Moore's Utopia seriously, why would I?
Do I find it possible? Well, maybe not entirely, but that's not the issue. The world's pretty fu**ed up these days, so a turn of direction is perhaps a wise choice. Although not the best around, Moore's suggestions are better than the average ones.

[piquant]

People have been coming up with ideas for utopias since Plato, and probably before. I think the fact of the matter is that it's a great idea, but it will never work. And who wants to live in a utopia anyway? Isn't it conflict that makes life interesting?

[subterranean]

Originally posted by piquant
..... Isn't it conflict that makes life interesting?


Are you sure mate ? :rolleyes:

I haven't read the book yet, but I don't like the idea of Utopia. We can't never be ourselves if we live in a place like that.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Isn't it conflict that gives life purpose?

Without conflict, how can life have meaning? I mean... look at religions answers to the question of the purpose of life: Christianity: to FIGHT against our sinful nature and the devil. To fight and live for God despite our sinful nature. To WIN souls and converts.

Pretty much the same for Islam if I remember... Fight against the unbelievers to convert or kill them. Fight against sin.

Life must have purpose, or nothing can have purpose... because you can't have a purposeful gear in a purposeless machine, can you?

And if life is purposeless and if everything in life is purposeless... haven't we just defeated the meaning of purpose?

So I ask again: how can life have purpose without conflict? Is our purpose just to enjoy life? How can that be a purpose? THat is pretty much existing for the sake of existance.... existing for the sake of existance to me doesn't even sound worthwhile...

hmm... looks like I have rambled a bit too long... about something I don't really know enough about...

anyway... about Utopias...

Utopias can never exist with the evil nature of mankind. The only kind of 'utopia' would be a Brave New World type of Utopia... where everyone is happy and free to feel happy.... but not free to feel anything else... the cost of a utopia is free will or other freedoms... thats my two cents... and I have absolutely NO idea what currency they are in...

[Shea]

Thomas Moore covered the evil of man in his Utopia. It's been a while scince I read it, something about making them work the lowest job for a while.

An interesting thought- Utopia was published a little while before the Puritains came to America. I didn't put two and two together until yesterday!

[crisaor]

Originally posted by piquant
People have been coming up with ideas for utopias since Plato, and probably before. I think the fact of the matter is that it's a great idea, but it will never work. And who wants to live in a utopia anyway? Isn't it conflict that makes life interesting?
I want to. :)
I consider my life to be interesting (well, for me it is), and I like it so much more when I don't have to deal with any kind of conflict whatsoever. I mean, think of how much could a human being improve himself in all fields if he didn't have to deal with mind troubling problems everyday. As to (dealing with) conflicts making us what we are, I agree with that sub, but they're not the only factor in the equation. Me, I'd take the chance of living in paradise (or the nearest thing to it in Earth) anyday of the week.

[imthefoolonthehill]

He could improve himself, yes... but for what purpose would he improve himself?

Of course.... that is assuming it would work... and it is my opinion that with the nature of man, evil will always exist...

I hate to quote the Lord of the Rings in our discussion, but at the beginnign of the first one, the elf was right... "man, who above all things desires power"

Someone would want to rule the utopian society ... and then it would go to hell in a handbasket.

[fayefaye]

Exactly, fool. In Utopia, the mayor of the city is elected mayor for life, unless he tries to start a dictatorship, which i think he most certainly would.

But i do disagree with your ideas on the purpose of life in religion-i think that Christianity is more about overcoming our sinful nature than fighting it. As in 'I used to be evil, but I'm good now-God's changed me' rather than 'I'm evil. But I'll try not to be' course, that's highly debatable, and I don't want to be a Christian who shoves their conceptions of religion down others throats. (just adding my two cents, Australian. -which is worth nothing. since they abolished the one cent piece years ago. :D Now everything is rounded to the nearest 5c, which means that rounds off to bubkus (sp?). Besides, I've admitted in another thread to being evil. So where does that leave my opinion?) Aside from that, I totally have to dispute the Islam remark. Islam does not teach people to convert or kill, no matter what terrorists/the mass media would have you believe. PLEASE don't tell me you're basing your idea of religions on the mass media. Fool, don't base your idea of ANYTHING on the mass media.

More says that all religions should be treated equally, but he sentenced people to be burnt alive for heresy (and now he's a saint. Can you believe it??). Aside from that, he suggests Utopians all treat each other equally, but discriminate against atheists.

Utopia, translated from Latin by Paul Turner, Penguin books. (I told you I don't like looking for things on the internet. Quotes included.)
'So nobody who subscribes to this doctrine (the people who believe 'the soul dies with the body, and the universe funcions aimlessly, without any controlling providence') is allowed to receive any public honour, hold any public appointment, or work in any public service. in fact such people are generally regarded as utterly contemptible.

They're not punished in any way, though, for no one is held responsible for what he believes. Nor are they terrorized into concealing their views, because Utopians simply can't stand hypocrisy, which they consider practicaly equivalent to fraud.'

I can't bring myself to take it seriously not only because of the way it's set out (Utopian alphabet, etc. Did More write that letter supposed to be by Peter Gilles? It's so self serving. 'More that genious..' I don't know if it's on this site, does anyone know what I'm talking about?) but some of the ideas are a bit confused too. Religion and education, at least. I'd whack in another quote, but i think you've had enough. Aside from that, it's a pain in the butt to type/find them.

[dru]

Thomas More also died for his beliefs. He was excuted for refusing to accept Henry VIII as the Head of the Church. He also wrote the book at a time when there were tremendous inequalities in England. I am not sure he would even say that Utopia would "work." I think he was just trying to get people to examine some of the norms and inequalities of the day.

[imthefoolonthehill]

FayeFaye... thanks for the lecture about the mass media... I really needed it... because... you know... I sit in front of my TV, glued to Tom Brokaw, accepting every idiotic pun that comes from his half-drunken mouth as the holiest of truths.

[imthefoolonthehill]

*wonders how his mouth can be drunken.... but holds dear the idea that Tommy boy is drunk 1/2 the time he is on the air*

[fayefaye]

sarcasm. love it, sorry fool, didn't mean to lecture.

[imthefoolonthehill]

heh... not a prob... it wasn't too bad.

[subterranean]

Originally posted by imthefoolonthehill
Isn't it conflict that gives life purpose?

......So I ask again: how can life have purpose without conflict? Is our purpose just to enjoy life? How can that be a purpose? THat is pretty much existing for the sake of existance.... existing for the sake of existance to me doesn't even sound worthwhile...




I see your point there. Yesterday I saw this movie series about the journey of a holy monk with his 3 disciples to the west to find the holy scripture. The holy monk said that by the time they found the holy scripture each of them will soon become Buddha. And this really shocked the 3 students cause when they become a Buddha they will no longer longing for anything. One student who likes to fight will no longer have desire to fight, the other who badly wants to meet his lover will no longer desire to meet and be united with her and the 3rd student who pursue intelegence will no longer wish for it. So they try to slowdown the journey, that way they wont soon become a Buddha!

Isn't the story interesting? I mean they have the change to become perfect but they don't want to. Somehow I see your point about conflict and life's purpose.
In a way what's so good about a very peaceful life

[fayefaye]

I think it's the other way around. I think it's love, not conflict gives life purpose. I mean, the natural state of the world is chaos-complete and total s***, to me the purpose of life is to overcome that. Not fight.

[subterranean]

Yes, people dream of perpetual peace on earth. Hard to achieve, since some people gain benefits from conflict

[fayefaye]

Yeah. hence all the s*** in the world. Peace on earth is fairly unattainable... but I think it's an ideal worth having anyway.

[subterranean]

But if perpetual peace and a harmonious living can be be achieved, don't you think earth won't be called earth anymore?

[fayefaye]

why not? Sometimes you don't even have to achieve something. You just shouldn't give up.

[subterranean]

well there's always be a problem, for a start, how to maintain such condition? sometimes it's easier to get than to maintain

[imthefoolonthehill]

fayefaye... two things...

1. Like subterranean said... how do we get such a peace? Only domination brings peace... but that is a different point...

2. Do you really want peace? INMHonest,not humbleOpinion, the only way to achieve peace is through force. What is the cost of peace? It would very likely be your freedom.

Lets assume that it isn't, though... what would you do with your life if their was no conflict of any kind in your life? There wouldn't be much to do... Eventually you would tire of everything that has no conflict.

[fayefaye]

I do want peace, but I'm not saying the world would be all perfect with it. I'm saying that there will always be war and conflict, and we should still strive to make peace, not war. ok, that sounds ridiculously simple minded and naive, but I mean... have you ever been in a war? Wouldn't be too pleasant, would it? If you want peace, you must prepare for war. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to fight. And of course, peace at the cost of freedom isn't a good idea either. argghhh! But bombing for freedom really is like f8cking for virginity...

ok, I'll clarify. There will always be conflict and war. But I think the point of life is to overcome this. Not by force, and not by bombs. And even if the world will never attain this, I still think it's a good ideal to uphold. ok, now I sound like an impractical, naive, total ****ing idiot. and I don't care!

[crisaor]

Originally posted by fayefaye
There will always be conflict and war. But I think the point of life is to overcome this. Not by force, and not by bombs. And even if the world will never attain this, I still think it's a good ideal to uphold. ok, now I sound like an impractical, naive, total ****ing idiot. and I don't care!
You don't sound like that at all. About conflict and war, I agree that conflict is part of the daily life, but I'm positive war is something the world can do without. Of course, some people wish exactly for the opposite, because imposing your views and interests over the weak is desirable for certain minds, but not for the world it isn't.

[azmuse]

faye, i'm embarassed to do this, but can i send you on a wild goose chase? there was an essay we read in english lit by virginia woolf, something about moths - forget the title - was about war, and it exactly encapsulated what you said. i think you'd like it.

[azmuse]

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/w/w91d/chap2.html
found it - she wrote it, i believe, circa the time of blackouts in London in WWII, and the moth was allegorical for persons in that time period. and the struggle for life at whatever cost.

[imthefoolonthehill]

what would you do with your life if their was no conflict of any kind in your life? There wouldn't be much to do... Eventually you would tire of everything that has no conflict.

And I'm not just talking about war.

Also, do you think peace can be obtained through means other than force, violence, or domination? (on an international level here, but not on the point above this paragraph)

[IWilKikU]

Ghandi thought so. Remember him? He used to work in a gas station down in St. Lewis. Alot of wisdom came out of that gas station.

[DumbLikeAPoet]

Peace on earth is unattainable....but definitly something worth striving for. But I think we have to be realistic. Unlike the pacifists in pre WWII times. We must understand that peace is not a goal for every person, for many reasons. We can't be afraid to stand and fight against all that is wrong and wicked in the world. I don't think we should let a nation suffer if we can do something about it. A truly peacefull world will not be attainable until every man, woman and child is free from tyranny. Free to think for themselves, and free to speak out.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't see the point in peace until everyone is free.

Jonus

[fayefaye]

fool-we do need conflict in our lives, but it depends on the TYPE of conflict. Some conflict can be good.

Some wars could be overcome with good diplomacy, some politicians are too ignorant to be capable of it. Some wars seem unavoidable. Tolstoy said that it's all inevitable. I think he's a liiiiiittle full of s*** The idea that there is an innate drive to thin out the population and root out the weak is interesting, though.

azmuse-thanks. too lazy to read it now, will do so when I get time. ;)

[fayefaye]

It's an outlet for our Thanatos [death drive] I think. War. A way for us to take out our destructive, aggresive tendencies. uh-oh....now I want to juxtapose this with War and Peace. .....But I'll spare you.

[fayefaye]

azmuse- I loved that essay.

[robson]

I just wanted to revive this old discussion and add a few remarks :idea:

What seems to be the most important here is certainly the issue of world peace. Hardly any of us believes that it could be attained but we should bear in mind that we, having learnt the history lesson of the last five centuries, are much wiser and more experienced than Thomas More could ever be. So, from this standpoint it’s very easy to criticize and point out his naivety, forgetting that he was one of the first to depict something that is, imo central and essential to the human kind.

After all the experiences of the 20th century, mainly two WW, faith in a possibility of an ideal world collapsed, or rather became reversed and twisted into anti-utopia (or dystopia). This idea was based on the belief in the fallibility of human nature, which was to be the reason why any society or political system, no matter how perfect in theory, would prove to be corrupt, oppressive, or inadequate.

In literature standard utopias and dystopias were being written more or less up to 1960s, mainly because of the already mentioned loss of faith in case of utopias and lack of new and original concepts in case of anti-utopias.

Of course these ideas, probably present in most people’s minds, couldn’t have been abandoned at once and are still being considered by writers.
And so, I hope somebody could help me find some books by British authors with utopian/dystopian traits.
To give some examples:
Lanark - Alasdair Gray
The Bridge – Iain Banks
The Third Policeman – Flann O’Brian
Millennium People – J. G. Ballard (?)

I’ll be grateful for any help :)

[robson]

I found also 'Arcadia' by Jim Crace
but still I would appreciate some comments, especially considering literary theory and criticism that can be applied to analyse utopian writings :)

[Etienne]

I have no problem taking Moore's Utopia seriously, why would I?
Do I find it possible? Well, maybe not entirely, but that's not the issue. The world's pretty fu**ed up these days, so a turn of direction is perhaps a wise choice. Although not the best around, Moore's suggestions are better than the average ones.

Moore's Utopia might have been something great back then in it's contemporary context, but from today's perspective, his Utopia hasn't aged very well, and I would argue that it would be hard to consider it an Utopia anymore, beside in it's literal meaning of "no place". Death penalty for discussing politics in public? Military action against peoples who doesn't follow the Utopia's principles? Remunerated denunciation (this has pretty much been refuted as a practice in most cases)? Honestly. We are almost talking about stalinism here.