Is A Utopian Society Possible ?
A society without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death.
The angle of my question is not aimed at the human obstacles of achieving such a civilisation or whether its technologically possible but rather whether its philosophically possible.
What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death?
To live in a society where we were incapable of experiencing such things as unhappiness, sadness, pain would be the same as being colour blind to the complete palette of human emotion of what truly makes us human.
For this reason I dont think Utopia is possible as life is about opposites ying and yang otherwise it would just be all yang and without ying. All black or all white. But what do you think ?
Comments (250)
The answer to this question is spiritual, however, and not rational. Any attempt at giving a rational answer will overstep the boundaries of the tool of rationality and therefore fail.
If you cannot accept a spiritual answer, you will instead have to keep rebelling against the absurd and eventually fail.
You can achieve peace, first of all, by rejecting every rational answer to this question. Next, you can pick a spiritual answer which adequately appeases your need to know; which you never truly will anyway.
Philosophically, it is possible. I know that our default response is it is not. But humans have had a time of innocence and ignorance -- albeit briefly. Freud's theory of the id, the ego, and the superego explains this.
With just the id, we achieve the pleasure similar to the utopia. But then the ego, intervenes and exposes us to the outside world.
An imaginary community run by philosopher-kings?
Quoting kindred
Joy, because it is not necessary to have or risk pain in order to feel joy. There's no such connection, which is good, e.g. you can use your ability to feel joy in otherwise painful situations as a means to survive. But it can also be misused and result in disaster, such as in Chicken Run
Part of the problem with utopian visions is that people differ in what they believe should be in scope. One mans utopia is another mans stifling authoritarian state.
This is because it is like asking for white to be black OR black to be white. If either were the case neither would exist. The kind of utopia many hope for essentially culminates in annihilation of everything as a 'solution'.
Suitable for flora but not fauna.
As long as suffering exists, life itself is a questionable endeavor- hence the Pessimists (and antinatalists) position. You will find no other philosophy so reviled, misunderstood, and scorned, yet still true.
What is questionable is wanting to continue suffering and calling it good and most perplexingly, necessary. All the ethical talk after this claim is just excuses. What are the implications if this world cannot in theory, be a utopia, let alone in practice? The best people got is variations of no pain, no gain. Knowing how it works doesnt confer any more goodness to it. Its simply coping, sometimes by excusing, but it shouldnt be confused with having a legitimate justification. Shit still smells bad even if its put in the context of the necessary part of eating. The fact that shit helps grow food, doesnt dismiss that it causes other problems like disease, etc. Knowing context doesnt change the facts on the ground. It just reminds me of the aliens trying to convince you that everything is ok, and that they are trying to cook FOR you, not actually cook you. As long as you get tricked just enough for long enough to continue and even procreate, its working just enough for long enough for its continuation.
Hallmark belief of a religious cult.
Quoting kindred
By definition a utopian society is impossible, otherwise it is not utopian anymore. But that doesn't make for an interesting argument. If you want to argue instead that an idyllic, harmonious society is impossible, carry on.
Like the Cult of the Grinning Martyrs?
:up:
Philosophy cannot replace spirituality.
In fact, philosophy causes a lot of damage whenever it tries.
What the poor and other people in desperate situations need most of all is faith and hope. As long as they have faith that there is still hope, they will keep going. If you manage to take that away from them, you are effectively destroying them.
Philosophy was not meant to give hope to the hopeless struggling at the bottom of society. It does not do that because it cannot do that.
When philosophers try to overstep the boundaries of the tool of rationality and try to replace spirituality by philosophy, then they become a threat to the very survival of society and especially to the survival of its poorest and most vulnerable individuals.
If someone gives Trump a thumbs up, must mean hes right :roll:.
Cant deny the rightness of a statement is determined by someone agreeing with someone else with a thumbs up
Whoever smelt it dealt it
-Plato
What do you mean by "philosophy"and "spirituality" what makes them fundamentally different?
NB: Greco-Romans of the Hellenistic era practiced their philosophies (Epicureanism, Stoicism, Neoplatonism, etc) as ways of life consisting of "spiritual exercises" (P. Hadot).
???
By philosophically possible I take you to mean theoretically or rationally possible.
I dont think it is theoretically possible to even imagine this life without pain or deprivation or suffering. These things are part of existence. So any possible Utopia would have to incorporate responses to these as they arise (as opposed to eliminating them). Like instead of never feeling hunger, you would be able to find good food available when hungry; instead of no pain, you would be able to get good medical attention when hurt, etc.
So we would need technological advances and political advances, but most of all, true humble service and charity and compassion towards others to build and live in a Utopia.
But sure, its philosophically possible. If all 8 billion of us wanted to, we could decide to stop lying, stop stealing, stop assaulting, stop killing, stop hating and judging, stop oppressing - we have that in our bag of theoretically possible tricks. But none of us care that much, or love that much, or trust others that much, and all of us judge others too harshly, and make ourselves feel better or safer by putting others down or oppressing or killing them.
So a Utopia is probably ONLY theoretically (philosophically) possible.
Unlike philosophy, spirituality is not related to rational inquiry. Spirituality is a non-rational tool to stimulate survival instinct by connecting to something that is greater than ourselves and which is divine in nature. Philosophy is not meant to do that and therefore cannot replace that. Unlike spirituality, philosophy is not meant to assist with mental healthcare.
Without pain - no; so long as biology and physics prevail, biological entities equipped with a nervous system cannot avoid some pain. A good society would inflict as little pain as possible and alleviate as much of the unavoidable pain of its members as possible.
Without suffering - unlikely. The word is poorly defined in the first place; one 'suffers' unrequited love, boredom, nightmares, halitosis, bone cancer, the prattle of fools... so many natural human experiences are described as suffering.
Without disease - again, unlikely in an organic world. A good society would develop protocols and methods to deal with disease, so that it causes the least possible damage.
Without wars - sure. A single society need never go to war within itself. In a good one, the possibility would not even arise. However, if there is a second society, which isn't very good, that casts a covetous eye on the territory or resources of the peaceful society, war may be unavoidable.
Without poverty - easy as pie. A good society divides its pies, loaves, pickled herrings and apples equitably. There is no natural cause for poverty: if humans don't create it, poverty can't exist.
Without even death - no. Sorry: dying is an inherent attribute of life.
Quoting kindred
Sure. Where do you suppose we got the concept and the word?
Quoting kindred
Everything an animal experiences is real. Lust, comfort, affection, hunger, relief, loss, confusion, joy...
It doesn't need a meaning; it just is. If humans didn't twist their brains around purpose and meaning and the deeper whatever, their life would be easier.
Quoting kindred
That's not what Utopia is. Utopia is just a country where you can live, be happy, sad, silly, creative, responsible, angry, competent, honest, amorous or whatever combination of traits, abilities, moods and potentials you are, without other people bullying you, taking your stuff, forcing their beliefs on you, refusing you help, or preventing you from making your best possible contribution to the welfare and happiness of your neighbours.
Let me break this down in terms of priorities. Physical pain may be significantly reduced with medical advances, and perhaps even immortality is a conceivable possibility. But of all forms of suffering, I suggest the most profound is emotional pain, and this is a result of social conflict. Can we eliminate this source of suffering? Perhaps not completely, but we can make enough progress in understanding each other that we can make a huge dent in the frequency and intensity of experiences like anger and guilt. What makes us human is our creative capacities, and this does not requires that our mood colorations include intense feelings of suffering. Those are not a function of what it means to be human, but only reflect a stage in our development
I think the opposite is the case. The more id -like, the more suffering ensues ( fear, rage, etc). The more effectively the primitive id is guided by anticipative sense-making, the better we are able to avoid profound emotional pain.
I had a prior post that went over these two notions of utopia- a sort of metaphysical one and hedonistic one...
Quoting schopenhauer1
As you and I know, no one is really motivated to pursue suffering for its own sake. One endures suffering and hope it leads to a reward, a release from suffering. Is suffering necessary? If we arent motivated to suffer for its own sake , what does motivate us? I suggest placing an interpretation over life to make sense of it is its own motivation. An interpretation aims to make sense of things by bringing order to chaos, flattening and covering over discord and contradition. The buddhist notion of a compassionate, loving no-self is an example of how the fundamental desire for an a unifying interpretation produces an ethical stance of non-ego.
What about the pessimist-antinatalist view? The desire for non-being is just as much a unifying interpretation as any life-affirming doctrine. The pessimist-antinatualist wills the perfect and pure living thought of non-existence, and tries to live over and over through this thought, this vital organizing interpretation. The thought requires suffering in that it can only appear as a resistance to , or escape from the chaos it addresses. The weakness i see in the pessimists living interpretation of non-being is that it cant apply its ordering scheme to enhance an understanding of human behavior, so it lives in a state of resignation, depression and self-imposed suffering.
Quoting Joshs
Well, you kind of answered the first part with the last part of your post. Why the need for motivation? You well know the Schopenhauerian insight into dissatisfaction. One is always playing a game that one did not and cannot choose. Accepting suffering is just the default because we have not killed ourselves. I don't see a problem with understanding this "unifying interpretation". Resistance, catharsis with fellow-sufferers, empathy with fellow-sufferers, and not unjustly putting others in the game of suffering seems to be the best course based on what is the case. Acceptance can be said to be the Lie for the Conspiracy to continue. Indeed procreation is political, as one is force voting for another that suffering IS INDEED necessary (for others to play out), just as you do. See, don't you like the suffering game? As long as it doesn't get too much in the red (which it often does for many people), it's great to have obstacles and then overcome them! Yay!! We are so arrogant in our hubris, not giving any pause to if the game should be played at all, if it is just to begin with. If perhaps acceptance isn't just a farce coping mechanism perpetuated down the ages..
Quoting schopenhauer1
Who is this one? Schopenhauer made the mistake of thinking the I who wills as a metaphysical subject. But the I , and with it the world it makes sense of, changes its meaning completely , but subtly, every moment. You are not the same you from moment to moment , so blaming whoever came before you makes about as much sense as blaming the you of yesterday for your current woes. You have a chance to start over again with each tick of the clock, because it s a subtly different you and a subtly different world. The question is what are you going to do with that opportunity? I happen to think that the concept of non-being is a metaphysical chimera, a notion of death as pure nothingness that we invented and used as either a source of threat or comfort. But it is a human-invented illusion which only exists when we summon it as a thought. And when we summon it, it is fraught with suffering because built into the concept is a reminder that we currently fail to achieve what it promises. Imagine killing yourself , only to pick up right where you left off, with all your sufferings, questions, imperfects, but without the memory of your past history. I think something lien that is closer to the case than the metaphysical notion of pure nothingness. Them d of peace youre looking for in the metaphysics of pure nothingness can only be found by getting in tune with the continual flow of change. Transcendence of suffering is an active, dynamic achievement that must be continually repeated. Its about discovering the unities, patterns, relations in the flow.
It doesn't matter whether people are resentful or grateful, happy or miserable; the world is what it is. Whether you make up excuses or justifications for why this is the right way for it to be, or rant and rail against a cruel universe, this is what you have to cope with. Some of us are lucky enough to experience more pleasure than pain, or, indeed, very little hardship at all - and these lucky ones are most likely to tell the less fortunate to bear their burdens gladly; that some divinity has a plan for them, if only they persevere and look for the silver lining, keep the faith, whatever.
Each person can, in some way, however small, make their little bit of the world less awful, less miserable, less frightening - for themselves and others. Some have prodigious talents, resources and opportunities to make a bigger portion of the world better for many of his fellow organic entities. If people pooled their talents, resources and opportunities, they could create something very close to the fabled human-based Utopia.
I think you missed the entire idea behind #1.
Quoting Vera Mont
I think Schopenhauer's point is that something akin to a Hegel-Marx materialist solution to human dissatisfaction is itself misguided. And by this I don't mean a specific system whereby it ends in a communist society, just the Salvation-Through-Economics/Government aspect. But yes, we can try.
My only suggestion from the View of Pessimism is as I laid out in another thread:
@Tom Storm asked me for my response to the problems of modern secular philosophies (like humanism/hedonism/economics as religion/and existentialism..even Nietzschean nihlism):
I am wondering what his response to my response is. Never heard back :).
This merely means that you cannot make use of spirituality to address deep mental anguish.
If you ever happen to need it, it will not be available to you.
If a society as a whole could survive without spirituality, the history books would definitely mention it.
They don't.
Hence, that is a hell of a gamble.
On the other hand, people are certainly free to think like that. Every misbehavior tends to be its own punishment. That is why there is no compulsion in religion.
I find this particularly interesting. How this might work.
I've often thought that a key reason people contrive families is to be distracted by an interactive domestic soap opera.
If you could wave a wand an never be born, would you wave that wand?
Which was? This can't happen, so why bother thinking about it?
So why bother responding to it?
Quoting schopenhauer1
We could. It's harder now we've overcomplicated and pissed on everything, but I guess we could try.
Quoting Joshs
And yet people feel they can't start again because they are on a loop. Habits seem to become compulsion. How do we work with this? (Perhaps the last quote from you below is what you are suggesting?)
Quoting Joshs
I am assuming this holds if you believe that we are on some kind of eternal cycle. And/or that death is not the end. But if there is a loop we pick up again, doesn't this suggest being is ongoing and consistent in some way? A ceaseless cycle of boredom and suffering. Are you hinting at a Nietzschean solution to recurrence?
Quoting Joshs
That's an exciting notion. Can you say more about this but locate your answer around a tentative example or two?
No, it means you don't need the deep mental anguish in the first place; you're imposing it on yourself for no good reason.
Quoting Tarskian
Because history wasn't written until after people had been imprisoned by agriculture, walled cities and stratification of society.
Quoting Tarskian
Racks, disembowellings, beheadings and pyres in the public square notwithstanding... you're a free agent. Good to know.
In absence of spirituality, generalized pessimism is a very valid rational answer. It is now even the norm in the most atheist country on earth, China.
The four nos supplement the widespread life strategy of "lying flat":
Pessimism keeps growing in China:
What you are proposing, is exactly what they are now doing in China.
People at the bottom of society or other vulnerable individuals do not always choose to suffer from deep mental anguish. Their social or financial circumstances could impose this through no fault of their own.
I do not just assume that people in trouble have only themselves to blame. Even good, decent, honest, and upright individuals can become unemployed and homeless without therefore being at fault themselves.
They may need help from others as well as the inner strength to keep striving for improvement in their situation.
In my opinion, synagogues, churches, and mosques are well-positioned to offer material and spiritual assistance. In my opinion, someone in serious trouble needs both.
A society can only survive through history if it can keep its very bottom alive and afloat. Otherwise, the whole thing will just keep eroding, with every new bottom disappearing, until nothing will be left.
I didn't say we stay in the id stage. That's the beginning -- we can't escape it because this is the only thing in humans that is present at birth. So, let's just say that it's a given. Then, if you take Rawls's veil of ignorance in the theory of justice, theoretically, we could form a mind conducive to utopia. I said in my previous post that philosophically, as a thought experiment, it is possible.
Yes, they do. They're bullied into it. More appropriately, they should be mad as hell. Instead of escaping into 'spiritual' whatnot, they should rise up and fix the bastards that shoved them down to the bottom of a bad society.
Quoting Tarskian
And that's the point of a good society - or Utopia. Not pie in the sky.
Quoting Tarskian
Bullshit. The pastor, imam or rabbi may offer some psychological support, family relations guidance, community adjustment advice, but they can't do squat about your economic or legal woes.
Quoting Tarskian
An interesting thought-experiment, tops of societies continuing to exist after the bottoms have eroded. Try this at home, see how far up the pyramid you get.
Then, just for fun, try it upside-down. How many top tiers can erode before the bottom one starts dying?
Is this meant to be practical advice?
Quoting Vera Mont
They can keep you afloat while you evaluate your options. Sometimes it is indeed preferable to start all over again elsewhere.
As a digital nomad and nomad capitalist, I do not hesitate to engage in extensive jurisdiction shopping. That is why a valid passport is an important tool. Two or more passports are even better. It allows you to go where you are treated best.
People tend to be completely unprepared for, and dangerously over-exposed to, an attack from the matrix. That is why a matrix attack is often so damaging. The solution begins by making the inventory of any undue trust in the system and drastically reduce it. If these people did not trust the matrix at all, it would not be able to cause so much damage.
Unfortunately, most people only learn that when it is too late already.
I learned it from my father, who instilled me with a deep distrust for the "trusted" institutions, none of which can be trusted in any shape or fashion.
I have summarized this into my "theory of deception". It is the collective trust itself in the deceptive statement (a=b) that automatically fuels the growth in the total amount of deception (b-a)².
For example, it is exactly because so many people believe that their money is still in the bank that none of it is still there. It is exactly because so many people believe that the television newsreader is telling the truth, that everything he says is a lie. And so on. Most mainstream beliefs are highly deceptive, exactly because they are mainstream.
More precisely, "spirituality" is a stance or disposition towards daily experience (like e.g. creativity) and not merely a means-to-ends "tool".
Not so. "Survival instinct" is autonomic (like e.g. respiration) and therefore does need to be extrinsically "stimulated".
I.e. metaphysics (i.e. categorical / absolute ideas) that is expressed via rational (inferential, dialectical) and/or non-rational (analogical, mythical) discursive practices.
Really? Tell that to Daoists, Confucists, Vedantists, Pythagoreans, Epicureans, Stoics, Neoplatonists, Aristotleans, Spinozists et al ... Each of these philosophies are manifest "spiritual" ways of life.
This may be true of modern academic philosophy (e.g. Anglo-American analytical philosophy, Viennese logical positivism, Parisian post/structuralism, etc) but not true of contemporary variants on and applications of way of life philosophies (some of which I've already mentioned) such as (e.g.) rational emotive hehavioral therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, existential therapy, logotherapy, clinical philosophy, etc.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/when-philosophers-become-therapists
There are quite a few psychiatrists who write in their posts that in their experience spirituality truly assists with mental issues such as depression and anxiety, which I both consider to be a dangerous impairment to the person's will to survive.
I believe that survival instinct can find itself damaged but can also be repaired.
Quoting 180 Proof
Okay.
At this point, I haven't run into publications by psychiatrists who have used philosophy as a tool to combat mental issues. They mostly mention spirituality as a possibility.
The simplest solution is probably to reconnect to what the patient already has experience with, most likely, his religion.
We are talking about difficult cases here.
It is about people who are already deep inside the rabbit hole. They are getting professional help but it seems to be a real struggle. Psychiatrists may hesitate to try to medicate the problem away because that may simply medicate the person away.
Not really. It's a comment on dysfunctional societies.
Quoting Tarskian
The poor and afflicted have options? Other countries welcome them? Nor do spiritual advisors 'keep you afloat', unless you mean that some monastic orders run homeless shelters and hospices.
Quoting Tarskian
How nice for you to be able to do that 'at the bottom of society', buoyed up, no doubt, by your pastor.
It probably requires some usable skill, i.e. something even modest to make a living from. Totally unskilled is a problem. But then again, in just a few months time, you can for example become a licensed truck driver. That should allow someone of even modest means to move abroad and find gainful employment overseas, but maybe not in SE Asia. In countries with a somewhat more developed economy, it could work. It also depends on the passport that is available to you, because getting a work permit can be an issue in itself, but not necessarily everywhere. There are solutions but people who are pessimistic will not see these solutions but only see everything as one big insurmountable problem.
In Schop's conception, the animal being's (human/animal condition if you will) essential nature is to suffer dissatisfaction. Thus, a "utopia" would be the opposite of this, that is to say, a world where there were no needs or dissatisfaction whatsoever- and that would be literally non-being, or at least some kind of permanent Nirvana state.
As far as why bother thinking about it, "utopia" itself means "no place", meaning it was never meant to be a concept that can be attained, so if we are discussing concepts which can't happen anyways, I am just giving you one metaphysical version of this concept of a perfect existence.
Quoting Vera Mont
So you didn't directly address this version of utopia either. Remember, it isn't some ideal political state in this conception of imagined (not realistic) existence, but rather one whereby you can EVEN turn the dials down to make things more interesting (more suffering), or turn it back if its too much. You can decide if how boring, easy, or hard, you want it. You still have needs, but you can adjust the intensity. You still get bored, but the intensity of how you achieve your survival and entertainment is completely adjustable. As I said:
...especially if you have kidney stone, three kids and a wife working two jobs...
Okay, so then France will welcome all 4000 of us?
Quoting Tarskian
The people at the bottom of society don't have the same solutions available to them as people with three months' computer bootcamp and a prestigious resume. But spiritual advisors can keep them afloat with promises of pie in the sky when they die - only they'd better not hurry death!
Except China is not the most atheist country.
no, I didn't. Both non-being and dial-a-wish are perfect in their self-containment, so I didn't see anything to address.
The broader framework for that discussion was, "Is THIS universe worth continuing if it doesn't meet those type of perfected/utopian standards?". Of course my answer is "No!". And my follow-up if you say, "Yes", is "Why is your answer EVEN an excuse, just because you CAN?". Any answer you provide shows your own vanity (hobby-horse), regarding the issue of positive projects for other people to have to ENDURE (find a good job, relationships, pleasures, projects, travels, hard work, achievements, whatever it is you think other people must endure in this non-utopian world).
Not up to you or me whether the universe continues. Chances are, it will proceed regardless of our sense of its worth. If you don't want to stay in it, it's you prerogative to leave. When the effort becomes greater than the rewards, I'll take my own leave. I do not presume to direct other people, either way.
We can prevent it for others though, and follow the Pessimistic framework I laid out. That is to say, the default is that we should all by into the conditions of this universe (philosophies of acceptance.. Taoism, Humanism, Existentialism, Nietzscheanism, our current mode of Economics as Religions.. our everyday mode of living in this economic system). We can collectively view it in its correct context rather than participating in the Yay-saying.
As I said in a previous post:
1) We must see "what is the case" first:
a) This means, seeing the inherent and contingent forms of suffering of life.. The dissatisfied nature of the animal psyche, and the more magnified version of the human psyche with its degrees of freedom, choice, and self-reflection.
b) This means recognizing that the human is metaphorically "exiled" from the Garden of Eden. Unlike other animals, our degrees of freedom mean that we know we have choices, and deliberation, and we know that we know. Technically, we don't have to do anything, including life itself (suicide) or procreation. And this "seemingness" (at the least) of choice, means we don't necessarily move about unthinkingly by instinct, reflex, but by largely deliberative means. An extra burden.
2) We must proceed in the world with the recognition of "what is the case".
a) That means seeing other humans as fellow-sufferers. Imagine the power dynamics of survival. How would this look played out in various institutions of business management for example? In government? In homelife? For friends? For strangers? Follow it through...
b) Communities of catharsis. It would be easier to vent, complain, as a community. Instead of pretending that the next mountain hike, or the puttering in the garden, or House of God Worship session, or Netflix show is the answer, we understand what is going on here with each dissatisfied response and inherent lack.
c) Antinatalism.. The ultimate recognition that no one else should go through this, that it is not just/right to unnecessarily harm others, put them through the existence of suffering/harm/what is the case. That you enjoying a mountain hike or Netflix or gardening, or academic journal reading, or going over a paper on symbolic logic, thermodynamics, theoretical physics (this is for the PF crowd of course :)) or going to work and doing that project means someone else is forced into life. Follow the logic of the illogic of procreation and projecting one's own positive projects, whilst creating negative consequences for ANOTHER.
EDIT: You must understand, if you find the Pessimist framework I lay out as "Wrong", it doesn't matter, because you are ALREADY in the (de facto) optimist framework of the situatedness of the society your were PROCREATED into and are now following, and moving about in. The Pessimist is just saying that we should question THIS framework- the one we are de facto buying into, and to STOP the perpetuation of this framework. So if you are AGAINST the Pessimist framework, you are then for "anti-anti-current framework", which means YOU are advocating FOR something yourself (this framework, and its goodness/rightness/perpetuation, even unto others). So YOU have a position too, even if anti-anti-framework position... Game YES or Game NO, you still have a position, no matter what, about the game.
By all means, go ahead and do what you think best.
I don't believe there is a "we" for me to prevent or understand or influence.
It seems to me, the same thing applies to the Christian conception of heaven.
Interesting. I believe this all takes place in a certain setting we call society, no? Seems people (by default) have influence over you by default.
Habits arent automatisms. They continually adjust themselves to changing circumstances. It isnt habits that keep us from transforming ourselves but the lack of intelligibility of potential alternative ways of living. Even though it is the case that self and world are changing in subtle ways from moment to moment, we cant move forward coherently without some resonance between the new and the old. There is such a thing as continuing to be the same differently. In fact, it only occurs to us to begin labeling our alway of life in negative terms as a habit , as boring, as being stuck in place, when it has already being to change. ways that are unrecognizable to us. We use words like stagnant and boring to refer to this incipient alienness that keeps us from moving forward.
Quoting Tom Storm
The cycling is between modes of creativity, between phases of life where we know how to go on creatively and phases where we are stuck in place as a result of not knowing how to make sense of our circumstances.
They do, like it or not. And vice versa. But the influence of each on each is so diluted by numbers that it makes no discernible ripple in our personal decision-making.
In absolute numbers, China has the largest number of atheists in the world. There are countries with a larger percentage of atheists but the actual number of individuals is always a lot smaller.
France may not be the right place to go to. France is itself deeply mired in a cost-of-living crisis, just like most of the West.
At https://nomadlist.com you can find an apples-to-apples comparison of how much it costs to live somewhere. Examples:
- Chiang Mai, Thailand, $1020/month
- Barcelona, Spain, $5217/month
- New York City, $6989/month
The same income that puts you at the bottom in one place, can put you at the very top in another place.
Another issue that makes the problem even worse, is that in the location where you live, the local ruling oligarchy may take away 50-70% of your income, often even before it reaches you.
There are solutions for that problem too. For example:
Jurisdiction shopping as a digital nomad can improve your finances by a factor ten or more. It can move you from the bottom to the top of the local income ladder.
Both the cost-of-living crisis and the crushing tax burden are problems caused by the local ruling mafia.
So, choose another ruling mafia, and go where you are treated best.
That much!?
Then your claim was misleading. 14.3% of China is Atheist according to those numbers you gave.
The top five countries for atheist begin their ranges at 65%(Japan) upward to 85% (Sweden).
I'm not trying to jump down your throat - but you need to be careful when you make claims like that. China cannot be even vaguely thought of as an atheist country.
There's marginally cheaper, still:
- Pokhara, Nepal, $789/month
- Makassar, Indonesia, $875/month
So, yes, in theory, you can go bargain hunting for the last dollar to save on living expenses.
I can't be bothered, really.
Places that are rated below $2000/month are very noticeably cheaper already. You start getting a lot of bang for your bucks.
There's also the official policy on religion in China as well as the persecutions ("anti-religious campaigns") in recent history and even till this very day:
I consider atheism in countries like Sweden -- which in theory is higher -- to be way less of a problem because it is not enforced by means of an official state policy.
The site actually admits to being somewhat subjective:
In fact, their cost-of-living index may barely be any better than the notorious Big Mac index.
Price inflation measures (CPI) are also somewhat subjective. They are based on a basket of goods and services that may be significantly different from your own, if only, because there are compelling political incentives to manipulate that basket.
The site does not elaborate on the nationality of the people they crowd source their data from. Therefore , I guess that the nomad list data reflects some kind of nondescript "average".
I roughly benchmark their findings against my own recent personal experience. Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia do indeed have a substantially lower cost of living.
You have no frickin' clue, have you?
If you don't know how to pull it off, you may want to spend $13.99 on the introductory Udemy course:
The digital nomad lifestyle works out fine for a lot of people:
I am confident that most digital nomads face at least some challenges in order to make it work. But then again, that is exactly what life is about: overcoming even difficult challenges.
Just don't get seriously ill.
A medical bill here in SE Asia is typically a lot cheaper than your copay in the US or in the EU.
Even with the most generous insurance, you will still pay a lot more out of pocket than me.
Pharmaceutical products at the pharmacy are typically a hundred times cheaper here -- the market is dominated by generics -- unless you are into expensive brand names.
But then again, even brand name products are much cheaper than in the US or the EU. Global pharma sells their products at less than half the price here -- Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and so on. I simply pay a lot less than you for exactly the same stuff. Just Google for the illegal "Canadian pharmacy online" industry and look at their rock-bottom prices. Here, it is even much cheaper than that, and by a lot.
Furthermore, we get a lot of medical tourism over here.
People flying over from the US or EU to get their teeth fixed, or to get surgery such as a knee or a hip replacement at one of the private hospitals, because the total bill -- including airplane tickets and hotel -- will be much lower over here.
If there is one place in the world where you do not want to get seriously ill, it is the USA. You will probably go bankrupt, even when you have complete insurance cover. It is in the US that sick people are doomed, not here.
Every single aspect of life involves only one thing really, free will. This free will is the infinitely precarious order/chaos balance. If the universe and all aspects of it were not infinitely balanced on this single point, free will, choice, would not have the strength to move things, to choose. But everything moves and vibrates back and forth along the balance. The order/chaos balance is EVERYTHING.
So, perfection, or Utopia, they are synonymous is the goal of the universe. It is seemingly impossible. But that is only precisely because it is the most improbable thing in all of existence.
The SEEMING nature of this impossibility is not really relevant. Pragmatism is an approach to the perfect that stresses order as the right path. Idealism is an approach to the perfect that stresses chaos as the right path.
Order as a concept and meta emotion is ruled by one emotion (and there are only three emotions), and that is fear.
Chaos as a concept, synonymous with freedom, is ruled by one emotion (and there are only three emotions), and that is desire.
The balance is aided by the 'hidden' emotion of anger. Anger literally causes all of reality to exist by its tension against fear and desire. This possibly perfect balance defines a straight-line path to objective moral truth (perfection) or the GOOD.
So your post emphasizes a failed immoral point of view, in my opinion. You fail in both ways at the same time, the order way and the chaos way. That is to say you lessen the burden of moral duty by appealing to the great sin of moderation.
Moderation is a tacit acceptance of the balance needed for wisdom, but lacking in the awareness of the hidden third emotion, anger.
Real wisdom requires two very distinct facets to be defined properly. These are balance and maximalization. So, to be wiser and wiser, to approach perfection, we must increase fear, anger, and desire; all three; at the same time.
Perfection is the POSSIBLE and end result, the purpose, of the entire universe. It is the GOOD. So the GOOD is not the enemy of the perfect, finally. They are instead synonymous if wisdom is earned.
Moderation is an appeal to the sin of laziness. It is entirely understandable, and we are all afflicted by this delusion to varying degrees. Moral advancement, advancement towards perfection, is always the single hardest choice a person can make. That is a tautology. So, of course, many and most will denigrate the infinite effort required of us to pursue such a course. No matter where we are on the moral scale of progress towards perfection, the next moral step will be one that requires MORE effort than anything else we have ever done previously, by definition.
That is why moral progress and Utopia are so hard to envision and believe in.
But remember, please, not to be a fool.
Perfection-aiming IS NOT perfection-expectation. - me
That is my favorite self-quote. It shows us that the only moral aim is the perfect. And it also shows us that consequentialism is a lie. Do your best, aim at the perfect, and fail. Do not expect the consequence to be perfection. We are all playing the LONG game here, wisely. Only deontological morality is correct. Intent is everything.
Absolute numbers is irrelevant. The "most atheist country" refers to percentage. India has one quarter of a billion Muslims and yet no one would say Indian is one of the most Muslim countries.
Quoting AmadeusD
He does that on purpose.
Quoting AmadeusD
After being called out on his nonsense, he changes the topic and starts rambling about something completely unrelated. He does that every time. It is a smoke and screens tactic but not a very smart one.
I disagree. My disagreement is based on what I am referring to as order, which may or may not have a relationship with your reference (I believe) to dynamical systems.
Order is, in fact, conservative, and clearly so. That is to say the order of the universe ... probably ... answers favorably, compares favorably, to a Poincare recurrence theorem respecting effectively idempotent behavior. Big bang, expansion, (whatever happens next), some type of collapse or reunification, Big Bang again. Of course we cannot know one way or another, so I am not holding my breath to prove this. The belief is all I have.
I am only really speaking of order and chaos as emotions, and these translate then to fear and desire respectively.
Order is clearly conservative. Chaos is dissipative.
Order integrates society and people. Chaos disintegrates them. I would say that COMMON sense shows this is very true. Although I would also say that colloquially 'common sense' is most often just a subset of Pragmatism, order-centric beliefs and points of view.
Quoting 180 Proof
That is your assertion/belief. And I might point out that quibbling about the philosophical difference between 'direction' and 'goal' is rather disingenuous, and classical order-apology (my term). The terms are effectively synonymous. It, order-apology, means the speaker is too caught up in the trapped and circular sub order set rather than also embracing equal parts of chaos and thus able to escape any sub order trap excepting only the final order, objective truth. This subset at least appears conservative. To have a meaningful span of time before recurrence, order must be stronger within the system. This means of course that a higher amplitude of chaos/desire is required to break that cycle and return the trapped energy to the external order. The final external order is only perfection.
Quoting 180 Proof
I disagree again. My belief is that the entire universe has as a rule, the only rule really, causing all others, that everything in it should strive towards perfection, which can in the simplest sense be thought of as transcendence or unity plus. The plus part is what allows for transcendence to the next dimensional plane of intent. And if intent is not the verb/object of the new dimension, then it is integrated in some fashion with intent.
Further and quite obviously, the dream of the GOOD does not paralyze nor excuse failure but does indeed forgive it. We all err in choice. Every aspect of the universe errs in choice. Amid these infinite errors awareness is gained as only one virtue. Over time the clear goal/direction is towards that same perfection. What else would be the goal? You say only entropy? It is my contention that life as we know it goes the other way to balance entropy by coalescing it back into order. What we call life is a misnomer because the entire universe is alive or contains the seeds of life via free will and choice. But the increase of that moral agency is indeed the thing that will overcome entropy and stop what we now in ignorance fear, the unknown unanswerable mysteries that only SEEM to be sending us all into chaos.
Quoting 180 Proof
We agree on this point. But it takes nothing from my argument so there is no need to counter it nor disagree.
Quoting 180 Proof
I disagree. And over time it will be proven that intent at all levels, those intents driving hard action and reforms, AND the seemingly ephemeral 'thoughts and prayers' all have an effect. These 'thoughts and prayers' are tidal forces expressing the highest most effervescent form of sentiment and will of ALL. We are not yet evolved enough to sense the consequences from these efforts so we tend to scoff at such efforts. But my model of belief suggests they are the seed of a greater will to power. Just like imagination they do effect change even now and again obviously so. The more these practices are repeated and the will fortified within the ALL-self of the universe, the more and more they reinforce harder action/intents and help to cause them. In time the relative stability of this phase of moral agency (current human limits and such) will disintegrate because the desire will rise up and break the limits. Its all around us the wish for magic and superpowers and it is NOT going away. It will intensify until it is manifested.
That is the march towards perfection and the GOOD, by intent.
And that wonderful lifestyle is open to all the 712 million people who subsist under $2.15 a day.
Not one frickin' clue!
That is not a particularly fair question.
So, for a starters, according to you, people should not seek to improve their own lives because there are other people who are poor? So, in your view, everyone should be poor, because that is only fair, and that is supposedly going to help the poor. Misery loves company, I guess?
In my opinion, it works exactly the other way around.
It is only by improving your own life first that you could ever get into a position in which you can help others.
Furthermore, the internet is the great equalizer.
The internet does not bring equality of outcome but it does bring to an important extent equality of opportunity. Of course, this won't be true for people who do not believe it. If you do not believe that the internet is an endless source,of opportunities, then it obviously isn't ... for you.
Seek to, sure. Options available at the bottom of society: nothing even remotely as you so quaintly depict. All you need is faith? Get real!
Options on the internet are exactly the same wherever you are. People in rural Zimbabwe have the same options as you. That is why the internet is the great equalizer.
Most people copy other people. They are not capable of charting their own course. That is one major reason why they run around in circles. It is not that opportunities do not exist. These people are just not interested in them. They will only get interested in them when they can copy someone else seizing exactly that opportunity. This is not a problem related their poverty. This is a problem related to their incapacity to be self-directed. That is also why most people can only work for other people. They would not be able to work for themselves because they strongly prefer to wait for someone else to take the initiative.
In fact, this is normal. Humanity naturally operates in groups, i.e. roving gangs. Humans have a preference for following the leader, not as badly as cattle does, but still markedly so. That is why most people are employees. Most people will always be. They are uncomfortable being self-employed. They are uncomfortable building a business and employing other people. It is simply human nature. In humanity, maybe one person out of ten is self-directed. That is already better than with cattle, where I suspect that at most one out of hundred is.
Quoting Vera Mont
You misunderstand how it works.
Of course, it is not just because you believe that you can do it, that you necessarily can. However, it is certainly because you do not believe that you can do it, that you cannot.
You are probably waiting for someone, in order to just copy the details of his winning strategy. The problem is that he is not waiting for you to copy him. It would benefit you, but what's in it for him?
Clearly the collective efforts of procreation, government formation, and economic activity has all contributed to the 'YES MORE OF THIS!" side of the equation. Pessimism takes a different view. Can you fight "City Hall"? No, but sometimes it is the fight that matters most.
You're entitled to "believe" whatever you like but these "beliefs" are not supported by either corroborable evidence or valid arguments. You're merely rationalizing, not reasoning preaching, not philosophizing. We don't even disagree, Chet; we're playing different games, talking past one another.
No they aren't. For example, dying is not life's goal, only life's direction; thus, it's incoherent (or "disingenuous") to conflate them.
It did occur to me that there are great similarities between the utopia I have described in my op and the idea of Christian heaven.
The elimination of those negatives in society would yield such a paradise, you could have heaven on earth so to speak but I think it would take away from the wholeness of the human condition to be deprived of such emotion even if unnecessary such as that of sadness for how could sadness exist in heaven, if you could have almost anything without any true struggle.
In any sufficiently advanced civilisation where basic things like hunger were eliminated and food was on tap just like we have access to knowledge today in an instant via the internet. Unimaginable 200 years ago, yet the rate of progress is such that we perhaps could eliminate hunger or even diseases or illnesses like cancer and greatly increase our longevity we would be faced with the ultimate human challenge which is the outbreak of wars between different nation states.
Such states and its citizens would be required to be collectively enlightened to avoid wars by being more collaborative than confrontational when it came to differing interests. In addition a world government level of politics rather than nation states would eventually lead to a great minimisation of wars if not completely making them redundant.
An enlightened society without nation state politics but rather one world government, something like USA but on a global level would reduce wars or wars within itself because the interests of the whole would align with the interests of the individual we could eliminate wars entirely.
Quoting Vera Mont
A utopia could in theory be isolated from the rest of the world where a sufficiently advanced civilisation has no need to impose its ideals on other nation states and sufficiently strong enough to be unbothered by wars waged on it by other nation states or actors. In a society where the basic human needs are easily met with ease would be the starting point of such a civilisation.
Youre right about sadness you could be sad in such a civilisation but with most reasons being eliminated from the equation for such emotion to be felt such as: not losing your loved ones in a society where death was made redundant and everyone was equal in all aspects of the word such as physical appearance, wealth, health etc then the reasons for sadness would be far and few between but they would be there for example the experience of heartbreak due to the breakdown of a healthy relationship.
Quoting Tom Storm
If this obstacle was overcome by everyone in that society having the same vision of what a utopia should be then then there would be no need for authoritarianism, in fact it would be the opposite of what utopia entails. Perhaps in such a society the role of government would be minimal although laws would still exist albeit they would be irrelevant as this society would compromise of enlightened citizens who know right from wrong without laws telling them so.
War can be made redundant - along with the unimaginable waste of resources we currently plough into armaments, spying, vehicles and other expensive with no purpose but destruction and no possible fate but obsolescence. Not to mention the people, lands and infrastructure wars destroy. Of course, to accomplish that, a world government would be required with the power to arbitrate disagreements and a compact, mobile enforcement agency made up of armed forces from all member nations. (That in itself - an international fraternity of global police - would help to cement lasting peace.)
The human rights set out by he UN could work fine. Add mutual assistance among nations and a bar against oppressors who seek to curtail other people's rights, plus universal general education at least to Gr. 10 level, heavy on life science.
Since almost no three people can agree on whether or how such a world government should be constituted or how it should function, the whole thing will have to be handed over to a sophisticated AI program with control of the energy and a prime directive to promote the welfare of the planet, including humankind. (I know, lots of people would scream about that, too.)
Quoting kindred
On another planet, maybe.
Post agreement utopia where everyone in that society has the same criteria, ideal and vision where the only disagreements would come prior to its founding then AI would not be necessary in that regard. Yet this paints a static ideal of what a utopia is, for it is after all a perfect society without the need for a political class because those ideals would be entrenched in every individual.
Perpetual peace would be the norm and wars would be anti-utopian and unnecessary because in such a society there would be nothing to disagree on when it come to this fundamental such as perpetual peace.
There could however be disagreements but they would be constructive or philosophical disagreements such as that found in academia rather than political because there would no longer be a need for politics.
Pain and pleasure come together so we cannot have one without another one. They are related to our physiology and without them, we don't learn anything. Suffering is a broad concept. We can get rid of a part but not all of it. We can get rid of most of the diseases in the far distant future. Wars and poverty are our faults. We can avoid them when we are wise enough. Death is unavoidable though.
Quoting kindred
Technological advancement without ethical advancement leads to disasters.
Quoting kindred
Joy and sadness come together. Richness and poverty are our fault.
Quoting kindred
What do you mean with Utopia?
Very correct!
Quoting kindred
Very correct!
Quoting kindred
Very correct!
I do not believe that it is possible to eliminate wars entirely, just like it will not be possible to eliminate the mating season in which male animals fight over mating rights. Lions and other predators will also remain territorial forever and prevent other predators from hunting in their territory. Competition over territory and females, i.e. the very origin itself of war, is simply built into our biological firmware. Civilization is just a very thin veneer on top of the brutal truth. Male animals crave war.
No, that will take two generations of contentment and new horizons. The first fifty years or so would be full of strife, claims and counterclaims, old feuds and grudges, gripes about lost kingdoms, redistributed wealth, eroded superiorities, and the great big headache (even for AI) of placing all the displaced people and establishing universal reproductive rights for women.
Quoting kindred
What makes you think it would static. People don't cease to aspire, tinker and imagine just because they have have enough to eat and up-to-date vaccinations. People don't stop getting on one another's nerves, bickering and jockeying for advantage just because they're not allowed to subjugate others. People don't stop being human when they're happy - but at least they behave like better people.
Quoting kindred
Peace between nations is generally desired by most individuals. While some enjoy the idea of killing (they're not the ones recruited for the peace-keeping force), nobody likes trenches, field rations and having their limbs blown off.
Internal disagreements wouldn't be political, but there is still plenty to disagree about - the state of your neighbour's yard, his taste in music, the behaviour of his child and dog, the way he cut off, willy-nilly, a branch of your cherry tree just because it hung over his gazebo, and then, of course, how he stole the girl you were sweet on in middle school....
Quoting kindred
Lively international conference on all kinds of academic subjects - yes! - and the way forward in technology and how best to deal with the detritus of climate change damage.
As long as society agrees that men have no obligation to provide for women who only recognize that they have rights but do not accept any obligation, everything should be fine. If women have no obligations, then men shouldn't have any either. Everybody rows his own boat, while people with only rights and no obligations cannot sit in mine.
I am all for cynicism, but when it is based on faulty assumptions it can be quite dangerous.
Human males do not crave war. If this was the case there would be more war. I think it would perhaps be more fitting to suggest that humans crave conflict rather than war. If we craved war so much then we would pretty much all be dead by now via self-annihilation. As history has shown we are more prone to negotiate to prolong our survival because mutually assured destruction is just that.
The world is continuously at war in various places. Wars don't really stop. They just shift location. There are wars going on right now. We conveniently ignore them because we can.
Packs of wild dogs fight with each other for territorial hunting rights and mating rights. Prides of lions do that too. As humans, we are good at inventing feeble excuses for doing exactly the same.
Quoting I like sushi
Of course, we negotiate too. But then again, war is deeply ingrained in our biological nature. We will simply never stop doing it.
IFF, imo, it's a post-scarcity, philanthropic AGI-managed (automated), sprawl-free municipality (arcology) ... ideally, an O'Neill/McKendree cylinder (asteroid terrarium). :nerd:
The truth is we can SEE them more now than before. There is far less war today than 100 years ago. We have been gradually becoming more stable.
The way you put your point across you made it sound like if you looked out of the average window you would see death and pillaging on at least a yearly basis. This just doesn't happen anymore in most corners of the world.
Just because we have an aggressive element to our psychological make-up it does not define who we are. War is something we do, it is not anywhere near a defining part of the vast majority of human lives today.
I don't believe that.
Sovereign nations will always fight each other. It is a side effect of being sovereign. There is no referee for conflicts between sovereign nations. If there were, these nations would not be sovereign.
Quoting I like sushi
The current situation is not better than in 1924 or in 1824:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conflicts_in_2024
I believe that it is preferable to accept the truth about war. It is simply in our nature. If there is no reason for war, we'll conveniently invent one. Furthermore, there is an infinite number of unsettled disputes patiently waiting for their turn to erupt into bloodshed.
Quoting I like sushi
We introduced specialization thousands of years ago already.
On the one side, the farmers were sick and tired of roving gangs who stole their harvests. On the other side, not everybody wanted to fight. Some farmers just wanted to farm. So, in exchange for a share in the harvest, the farmers appointed their own gangsters to take on the other gangs.
If we don't do any of the fighting by ourselves, that is because we pay other people to do it for us. Someone has to do all of the killing required to protect the harvests. Apparently, it is just not you. In that case, you instead pay for someone else to do the killing for you.
You see things a bit like people who eat enjoy eating a steak but who swear that they would never kill an animal.
Yeah, but that is because you pay someone else to do the slaughtering and butchering of cows and other ruminants.
I personally don't have a problem with that. I am perfectly aware of the hidden truth behind the sizzling juicy steak on my plate. We are clearly carnivore. We kill other animals to feed on. So, if need be, just give me an axe, and I'll do what it takes to unceremoniously finish things off.
Why should women in a good society need men to 'provide for' them? Every member of a society has obligations, but they do not include submitting one's body to another's will.
What you believe does not change reality. I was not talking about a specific year, it was a generalisation. The scale and intensity of conflicts has changed quite dramatically.
The rest of what you said is probably just an attempt to bait an emotional reaction maybe? Either way, there is not anything substantial as an argument against the claim that the vast majority of people are not "craving war" as you put it.
I do not see people beating each other everyday let alone looking to join a war. I do strongly believe that many younger men are seeking some kind of 'evil' to fight in some way. Most are probably willing to fight for what they deem as 'good'. These items can be, and are, sometimes misdirected by nefarious characters and/or desperation which cause bogeymen to appear where there are none.
Quoting Tarskian
You know this how? More blind speculation. Saying things is just saying things.
The truth is I would actually be willing to pay more to kill what I eat. My personal opinion is if you are not willing to kill an animal you should not eat meat. I have expressed this view on numerous occasions to numerous people.
As an analogy of views on war. I just do not see this at all. I have travelled the world and not seen a single war break out. You, on the other hand, speak as if people are out there making war all the time. They are not. This is visible to everyone.
Quoting Tarskian
Omnivorous.
Quoting Tarskian
And this is a good point to argue against yourself in terms of currently living in a peaceful time. We have moved on from slavery and serfdom. I can already guess the response to this, so let me make clear I do not mean there is NO slavery NOR serfdom anymore, only that it is no longer the norm.
In the West, men have heard women loud and clear. That is why men don't provide anymore. If you manage to provide for yourself, fine. If not, then also fine. That is obviously not our problem, is it?
Quoting Vera Mont
It is "My body my choice." versus "My wallet my choice." If I do not get what I want, why would I give you what you want? If you don't like the deal, then you bring your body elsewhere, while I bring my wallet elsewhere. Simple, no?
It is pointless to make a deal with someone who just wants to take, take, take but in fact does not want to give anything in return. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Outside the West, there are still lots of women who eagerly want to exchange favors. They want a man to provide for them, while the man wants sexual access. The traditional pattern still works like a charm over here. You give something, you get something. You can't just take, take, take, and give nothing in return. On what planet is that supposed to work?
Yes, it is better to provide them with some good excuse. If it sounds somewhat reasonable, they will go for it. Provide them with uniforms, weapons, and training, and watch them ruthlessly kill the enemy. They just love it. They will see themselves as heroes.
I agree that motivating people for war requires good spin doctors. A good spin doctor is undoubtedly worth more than a good soldier.
That's how we turned vegetarian. When we moved to the country, my OG asked where he should build the chicken coop. I said, we're not having chickens. Why not? Because I won't kill them and I bet you won't, either. But that's hypocritical. Yup. So, let's try not eating what we don't kill. Okay. It's worked for 40 years, so, I guess...
But that's a digression from the question of war. If men want to go war, and men have pretty been in charge of things through history, why has there ever been conscription? I'm supposing that the men who run things and want wars are not the same ones who actually have to fight the wars. Most of the latter would prefer to be left alone to work their farms or looms or forges and play with their kids on a sunny day.
And this is your idea of a good society?
Quoting Tarskian
And this is your idea of a good society?
Quoting Tarskian
And that is your idea of a good society.
I agree. Being humans though, when we see something 'evil' we want to correct it as we are visceral creatures and physical force is a habit of animal nature for obvious reasons. The willingness to fight comes through the belief in the extent of the 'evil' perceived. Being highly social creatures we are more than just mere brute force though.
In your "good" society, you would get something for nothing. Fine, but not from me.
But then again, there are enough western men nowadays simping in the friend zone of an entitled boss babe. It is called "simpflation". The only male authority that these men have ever known is their single mother. That is why they gravitate towards bossy masculine women to duly bully them around. I am sure that you can easily find yourself that kind of feminized little man-bitch to domesticate and exploit ad libitum. If so, more power to you!
So, yes, for a lot of men, a "good society" amounts to getting the opportunity to simping around in the friend zone. I wish them all the best from SE Asia!
Youre failure to recognize the evidence all around you, and my valid arguments does not change their validity. You are saying nothing that argues the other way, just saying my offering has no evidence.
Proof is not possible for anyone. Belief is all ANYONE has, including you. Not realizing it and agreeing to that unprovable 'fact' is silly. You hide behind the probable and that is order-apology, cowardice. But the reverse is not true. That is to say, I am still quite rational and erudite, and I use logic every day (I am a software architect with 40 years experience).
I am saying belief has power because it motivates us. You would deny that unprovable fact? Again, proof is not the goal, but the evidence IS INDEED all around you.
In fact, the atom itself supports my theory.
Fearful orderly protons, manifestations of fear clump towards the neutral balanced anger mass of neutrons and thus the fear's higher energy forms identity (elemental character). The chaotic electrons are dissipated in the space surrounding the nucleus showing off their higher energy and the relationship between time and energy as well because they drift into the future like all desire/chaos does. As such every manifestation, even at quantum levels is nothing but this same pattern repeated over and over again in a hierarchy of meaning and mass, both.
Quoting 180 Proof
I can agree that we seem unable to relate well to one another. But no, I am reasoning these issues and not JUST rationalizing.
Reason can be defined as:
A basis or cause for belief, action, fact, or event.
A statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
The mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
The capacity of applying logic consciously to seek the truth.
The process of evaluating and manipulating ideas and facts.
ra·tion·al·i·za·tion
[?raSH?nl??z?SH?n, ?raSH?nl???z?SH?n]
noun
the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.
So, reason and rationalization ARE NOT contradictory in many cases. What it comes down to really is whether each party ACCEPTS or LIKES the logic used. It's just the same as whether or not you ACCEPT OR LIKE the evidence I claim is evidence.
You are stuck in order-apology and that is clear to me as it is about most academics. But reality is not trapped amid order alone. It has equal parts chaos, and anger/balance. If it did not, the imbalance at that fundamental level would effectively almost immediately disintegrate the universe. It's the built in truth that I refer to, the great tendency to balance, that is why everything is at it is. And these tendencies play out precisely the same as emotions do. All quanta want, fear, and are. The reason we anthropomorphize the universe is because there is evidence to see all around us that matter itself is emotive. The animists were always a better religion that modem faiths because they were more primal, based in mere feeling and observation. And by the way, observation is quintessentially an act of fear. It's true that all choices have some of each primal emotion in them but they are all limits as x approaches purity when we limit the action to one part of the whole behavior, like observation, or the need to be aware.
Quoting 180 Proof
I was conflating them in the case I referred to them, because they are the same in that case. I realize your case as well, and that is not what I am referring to.
It is the goal of this universe perfection. Every particle in the universe has that as a default goal. Directions are always thus a sub-effort within that goal.
How did you two get all sexist in this disucssion?
Let me try to state the state of things and see if that helps.
Gender is on a scale and the leftists are mostly correct about that. There is ample evidence throughout the natural world and in humanity as well. The truth of nature also shows us that extant phenotypes are plastic in how they change. That means humanity could evolve in any direction that could be supported with reasonable balance. Any sufficiently imbalanced system will not last very long at all.
For example, humanity could evolve into the hive morphology and there is some evidence that we are moving in that direction. Genders in the past were more highly polarized mostly because society demanded the clarity and simplicity of the polar gender manifestation and roles. Many middle ground humans were simply killed by their own families if their infant presentations were not clearly understood. That still happens today.
Humanity could also evolve into an asexual style. If we all decided that was cool, we could force nature that way, because plentiful evidence exists to show that is possible and still produces thriving species.
Humanity could expand technology and make it to where all manner of chimeras and oddities were possible as well. That is highly likely and some of this 'mad scientist' type stuff has happened and is happening now.
But the difference between the classical gender roles is really JUST order/chaos balance, again, like EVERYTHING is. Men are overly orderly and tend to be the hierarchy within all societies as a natural order. Women are overly chaotic and tend to be resentful of the order of men within all societies as a natural expression of their greater desire/freedom/chaos. Orderly societies can integrate and build BETTER than chaotic ones, so feminist or chaotic societies DO form, but they fail. They disintegrate as chaos is the primary drive.
You see this same exact pattern in general in the left and right wing of politics. Real conservatives and orderly types will usually band together into groups with a solidity of identity that is integrating. It also causes wars with external societies because those are OTHER orders. But the point is they can easily team up and hold the line in orderly fashion. Chaos cannot do that. It always seeks to undermine even itself, selfishly. It IS more creative and expansive. So there is value there. But wisdom, philosophy, balance, shows us that both are needed for the ideal to flourish.
The left and desire types are full of delusional worthlessness. They wallow in it. They all think less of each other and themselves and watching it happen in American politics and abroad, it is easy to see. They seem faithless and scattered. But they do come together on the freedom points, the openness, in general. Likewise, the right wingers will stick with identity over anything, mistrustful and even hateful of others. Identity, fear and order, are the source of bigotry. I think it's interesting that social media has propelled the scattered, goofy left into a powerhouse in modern times. If they could control their wallowing in worthlessness they would be much more successful, but, they cannot, by definition. The polarization of their policies forces them to be unwise. It's the same on the right wing, but different. They wallow in delusional worthiness, which is caused by fear. And then they become autocratic. bigoted, and too hierarchical. So, both side alone fail because alone they are unwise.
And everyone, please spare me the exceptions arguments. It's just a tendency (a big one) that more women are chaos leaned and more men are order leaned. There are many exceptions on a scale, of course, showing again the fight, the conflict of balance itself.
Anyway ...
In my opinion, reprogramming the biological firmware of humanity will result in something full of bugs, i.e. contradictions. The likelihood that reproduction will still be functional, is close to zero.
I tend to agree because humans have gotten tech than empowers their choice WELL BEYOND their wisdom. That means chaos will ensue for the near future and disintegrate all societies, plunging the world into more wars and such until an orderly regime rise again to assert a 'new world order'. But that is just as terrifying a specter because of the right wing over-expression of fear.
We have begun to discover that tolerance has a limit as well. If you accept too much chaos as daily fare, as we are now in the first world and the whole world in social media, then the chaos seeps into everything and as mentioned, the nature of chaos will cause self-indulgence and self-hatred.
More than ever society and humanity need real wisdom, a BETTER valid philosophy, that is not based in religion and encompasses all morality. It is the only valid way to approach Utopia anyway. And I do believe the approach to Utopia is wise, even if the chaos-types try for too much change too fast and they SHOULD be slowed down. Only (more) time will tell.
The history of society is one of growing degeneracy and growing depravity. You cannot even trust yourself because all of us grew up in the degenerated filth and got indoctrinated by it. The oldest record of the rules of morality is undoubtedly the most usable. You can find the oldest record of moral rules in the Torah and the Quran.
And the threat being perceived. The protection of loved kin and territory is also a strong animal instinct. But there is a huge difference between willingness to fight for one's convictions and loyalties, and a desire for war.
Quoting Tarskian
How does not being forced to procreate equate to getting something for nothing? Your reasoning, as often happens, eludes me.
Without even trying. I said a good society would let women make their own decisions as to the bearing of young. My purpose in saying so had little to do with sex and much to do with overpopulation. My naive notion of a good society is a community of self-regulating individuals who all contribute to and share in the welfare of the whole.
If a woman does not want to reproduce, she can easily achieve that by not making any deal or arrangement with a man. It is really not difficult to do. What is there so hard about staying alone?
I understand the sentiment. But I do disagree. Your take on it is quite order-centric.
Wisdom is not order-centric. Wisdom is balanced. So, going backwards to order-apology, order-centrism is not a GOOD path. It is partly Utopian of me to suggest that people CAN balance their chaos, because, as you rightly point out, depravity and desire-apology has increased steadily I would say since the 1960s until now.
But despite what a left leaning reader might think or believe, I am not right wing either. I do have hope and in a new morality that is more properly defined than the old faiths. I confess I have not read the Torah or the Quran, but, I have read many sections of them and listen for decades to scholars who supposedly made such efforts their life's work. I do not find balanced wisdom in these books, these old faiths, precisely because chaos is not handled well at all, and order is favored, which IS NOT wise.
I do realize that to integrate and build a better world, if people are going to be such failures, then order is a better path than chaos. But this is a thread on Utopia. As such it converges on real wisdom, real balance. That means integrating chaos properly.
My own efforts towards understanding and informing others about morality is based in the ideas I posted quickly and briefly in this thread. If those old ways were best, they would have worked better. But as my posts show, morality is hard. In fact, as choices become more and more moral they are harder and harder to make.
Any near Utopian society would require balanced order and chaos. But, prosperity should be for the good of all, not just hard workers or people who are smart or rich. IN fact it's rather obvious that wealth should be controlled such that everyone per capita has the same access to resources and services. Then, all the classical objections of the chaos crowd are vastly diminished.
Each political wing has its issues but there is always a flip-flop. The right wing loves personal order and then when a person like that walks out their front door they are all chaos and winner take all. That is deeply immoral. Conversely the left wing is all self-indulgence personally and then tries to solve that with rigorous order from the state. Both are unwise.
I actually like Socrates' or Plato's idea in the Republic, a Sophocracy. And NO I do not mean ruled by sophists (a poorly defined word). But yes a rule of golden souls, the wise, is BETTER. We must therefore identify wisdom and be able to test for it. We are not allowed to throw our hands up as a Pragmatist will and say, 'we are only human and all corrupt'. That is not wise. We MUST try. So, defining wisdom and testing for it will cause the ruling class to be BETTER than any other possible ruling class could be. That is a great first step.
In a well-regulated egalitarian society, it's quite easy. It's not even hard to have consensual intimate relations or protracted marital commitment without progeny.
In authoritarian, patriarchal societies, young girls are bartered like cattle and used as sexual objects/ reproductive vessels. That, too is a reality of bad societies.
I love the latter part of your idea.
But, no, the first part is not wise (to me).
No one is separate. We are all one. The so-called 'unity principle', my favorite term for oneness, means that we are indeed our brothers' and sisters' keepers. You are literally me and I am literally you.
So, although yes people can make choices, all of us have a valid say in every choice. And immoral choices need to be called out. So, patterns of immorality must be restrained.
But punishment and reward both are immoral. I will not explain that all the way now. This post is enough of a response. Suffice it to say that moral truth is that all choices are punished or rewarded in the feedback the choice puts on you by truth immediately. There is no need for society to heap more upon either side of choice. Almost no one understands, let alone admits to, this wisdom.
Restraint is not punishment. We restrain those who cannot help but continually punish themselves until we have had time to attempt to teach wisdom to them. So, restraint is different and can be better than punishment.
Prison is ridiculous. I personally love the version of restraint I saw in the 'Last Samauri' where the old warrior followed Tom Cruise's character around and made sure he did not do anything wrong. I think that would open up a new huge occupation and calling in the world for tough life coaches that is well needed. And the added impetus of invaded privacy for people that cannot stop making the same bad choices would be pretty strong motivation to change. Anyway ... on to Utopia ...
Many men are perfectly fine with casual sex, friends with benefits, or situationships with zero commitment.
In my impression, it is mostly women who complain that they "want more". It is rarely men who start the "What are we?" conversation. Men just want sex. If we can get it without putting in any effort or any money, so much the better.
But then again, that approach does not work particularly well outside the West.
Unlike in the West, women over here generally do not want to provide sexual-tension relief services free of charge. They expect something in return and they typically want children as well. All in all, their approach works better for me, because on the long run the service is much more reliable. If they keep getting what they want, I also keep getting what I want.
That may be fine or horrific, depending on who defines "immoral" and what they mean by restraint. If you mean stop people from beating and raping one another, I'm in agreement. However, forcing people to have more children than they can cherish, or than the ecosystem can support, I don't see as either moral or beneficial to society.
How did birth control turn into prisons?
Quoting Tarskian
And, again, what has your twisted idea of the nature of men and women to do with reproductive choice?
I know. I was the one arguing against what Tarkian said in regards to "craving war".
There is something to be said for the possibility of humanity slipping back into feudalistic tendencies with societal collapse. Maybe it will happen again. I hope not though.
"Utopia is when we can kill babies".
"Utopia is when my politics is in place".
Outstanding.
I agree heartily. The 'moral' police of Iran and China are horridly immoral.
Quoting Vera Mont
Again, I think I agree with you. No forced pregnancies. But, paying it forward as a species duty will probably not be needed much longer. Technology will eventually make artificial wombs I suspect and sooner than we think.
I am a proponent of extant overpopulation, meaning we are already badly overpopulated at about 4 Earths worth of sustainable population. I'd say it's moral greed to have more than replacement level children at this time. But as technology increases the amount of people can trend up, yet, I must admit if I have to drive behind EVEN MORE morons day by day, I'd still vote no on more people, even if tech can make them well fed and such without stressing the Earth. We are fast approaching too many rats in a maze that all go crazy and bite each other population density.
The birth control / prisons thing I am not sure I follow. Utopia visions would include weighing in on both of those issues, so, ...
Quoting Vera Mont
I mean tech is already at the level where, as Simon and Garfunkle say, 'They'd never match my sweet imagination ...' and what I mean by tech is porn or other aids that reduce that whole thing as a need. I am NOT saying I do not prefer or would not prefer an ideal real woman, but, I surely have not found even a tolerable one yet (and I am 58 years old). But most of that discussion is for another thread.
(I realize you were answering Tarskian, but I was replying so I did to that as well.)
Technically procreating babies will eventually lead to their death, so since we KNOW this...
Quoting Lionino
So apparently when you PRESS/FORCE people into this system (the one currently in place called existence/modern society/economy/governmental system/biological being), THAT is not politics? Naive indeed.
Outstanding.
Whom are you quoting? Nobody can a kill a baby that was never conceived, but one that was brought into the world though coercion or brainwashing is prey to every kind of hazard, aggression and abuse. Quoting Chet Hawkins
My original statement had been that women should be free to decide whether or not to have children.
I didn't go into tedious detail, but reproductive autonomy - which I thought was fairly obvious - includes accurate information, the availability of safe birth control, and freedom from coercion. Where these three requirements have been met, the birth-rate declined to a sustainable level. I assumed this was well known.
Your riff on justice, while perfectly valid, didn't seem related to that earlier remark. Quoting Chet Hawkins
I suppose there will always be some people who so yearn to preserve their DNA that if they can't physically replicate will resort to any means. But they would be a small minority. Most people, given self-determination, will either have not have children according to how much they think can offer a child.
A well-functioning society can make room for all kinds of reproductive arrangements. Some individuals are so wrapped up in their art or scientific research or spiritual pursuit that they have no need for close human connections. Some are sociable, but prefer the company of peers, rather than commiting to a family. They may not want any children at all; nor would they make good parents. Some people - indivdually, as couples, as extended family units or polyamorous compacts could produce, love and support several children. Some families that either cannot or choose not to reproduce physically nevertheless love children and are happy to adopt or foster someone else's mistake. This doesn't need to be complicated or litigious or onerous. A good society doesn't assign arbitrary functions to its members; doesn't interfere in their personal lives, except in order to protect the vulnerable and help the helpless.
Not so. Consider ...
Code of Ani c2500 BCE
Code of Ur-Nammu c2100 BCE
Code of Hammurabi c1760 BCE
Law of Moses (Torah) c1000 BCE
Analects of Kongzi 475 BCE
Twelve Tables of Roman Law 451 BCE
Law of Manu 200 BCE
Code of Justinian 529 CE
Tang Code of China 624 CE
Sharia (Quran) 632 CE
:up: Once people are educated, they generally have fewer or no children. The education just doesn't go far enough. When it becomes a moral issue and less economic/lifestyle issue, the education is at the optimal level.
**Good timeline, but it was the move to make the code of ethics attributed directly from a singular God of the Universe, who wants humans to act a certain way, that is the innovation (aka ethical monotheism). This of course, creates the problem of extremism, because of it's the God of the Universe, and not just the whims and demands of a king, however powerful, there is no way around it for those who believe it's binding. Since especially Islam is a "universal religion", it isn't regionalized or "nationalized", but then becomes a struggle (Jihad), and if the religion promotes violence in the name of protecting the religion from infidels, you have a serious problem on your hands globally, for groups that want to take that interpretation.
Greco-Roman ethics were tied to reason, and were amenable to various "Schools" and interpretations. They weren't permanent directive from the god(s). Greco-Roman religion (not philosophical ways of living like Stoicism et. al), was often a combination of the civic (pray to the city-state's deity or deities), the personal (one can take on mystery cult religions like Mithras, or other foreign forms of spirituality), and the familial (worship the household deities and build home alters). There were too many cross-currents of beliefs for there to be one strong ethical "way of life", for good or bad.
**You can attribute that to a combination of Judaism around the Babylonian Exile mixed with influence from Zoroastrianism.
Even the "Mandate of Heaven" and Confucianism was really more about following traditions and proper relationships (socio-political hierarchy), not necessarily about a "Code of Laws". Hinduism was not a monolith, and had several major (and hundreds of subsects) of various ways of following the gods. There were themes, but nothing quite "codified" in detailed prescribed belief and action, other than priestly rituals.
Yes, we can. A baby inside the womb is alive. What is this nonsense?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Dumb.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The reason for that isn't what you are trying to imply. And the consequence of it is not positive, it is in fact catastrophic.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, it is not. You have to learn how to use words correctly before starting an argument.
A baby is not inside the womb, or anywhere else, without conception. It doesn't exist; therefore it cannot be alive. That's pretty much the point ofcontra-ception. People really need to learn this basic stuff!
Quoting Lionino
Helpful advice. Please heed it!
The foetus starts after the nineth month and goes until conception. A foetus, especially a late one, can be called correctly a baby. A human the day before it is born is a baby, it just hasn't been born yet.
Quoting Vera Mont
Contraception is preventing the fertilisation of the eggs.
None of that is relevant, however, it is just poor usage of language to cause confusion. Physiologically, besides small details such as eyes and lungs, a baby the day before it is born is the same as the day after it is born. Killing a foetus one day before it is born is killing a baby.
You didn't look at the tutorial - or a dictionary. Take another shot? Human gestation begins at the moment of fertilization (conception) and proceeds to delivery, typically 280 days - approximately 40 weeks or 9 months. During that process, the newly conceived human goes through three stages of development: germinal, embryonic and fetal.
People really, really need to learn this basic stuff in middle school - especially if they're planning to weigh in on a political position on the subject or have sex any time after puberty. Quoting Lionino
My very point!
Quoting Lionino
Bingo! No conception = no baby!
Quoting Lionino
The small details, like eyes and lungs are completely formed two weeks before the projected delivery date, though a slightly premature infant may need a little more encouragement to start breathing and can take a bit longer to focus its vision. Premature babies - barring genetic defects and trauma - can survive without technological intervention 6-10 weeks before their due date; with medical help, premies as young as 24 weeks have a survival rate of 60+%.
So? Who proposed killing them? More to the point: where did you hear this nonsense?
Just as well the ova are not, or menstruation would be a mortal sin, as well as unclean. (That was a funny song, but a really awful movie.)
If you're worried about causing the death of a child, it is not. Don't start what ends in death. It's just taking your logic and applying it equally to the consequence of one's action.
Quoting Lionino
You willfully ignored what I said or just ignorant. That's okay, a lot of people can't seem to string together the basic fact that it is a political action. When you procreate a child, you are saying "YES" to certain outcomes for that child. You are voting for a certain "way of life", assenting to it, agreeing with it, promoting it, forcing others to follow it even. In fact, you can't do something any more patriotic than that. You wonder why procreation and declining fertility rates are discussed? Yeah, economics start to collapse without children to be monkey laborers to keep things going. But if you VOTE (procreate) YES, and force others into the system, you are voting for something.
There seems to be an aspect of control in this no? You want to control and direct a cohort and see the drama play out for your amusement.
At the end of the day, there is no relief, only sleep and death. Everything else is MALIGNANTLY USELESS as Ligotti would say (all caps included).
Someone lives for the quip at someone else's expense on philosophy forum, or the new book they want to read on "A Thorough Exposition of the Syntax, Semantics, and Meta-theoretical Foundations in First-order Predicate Logic with Modal Operators and Non-Classical Propositional Calculi: An Intensive Analysis of Completeness, Soundness, and Decidability in Formal Deductive Systems".
Just add Engineering, Programming, Advanced Mathematics, Physics, Soil Physics, Library and Information Science, Spectroscopy Data Analyst, Petroleum Geologist, Tribology, Actuarial Science, Metrology, Crystallography, Ocean Sedimentology, Nuclear Waste Management, Paleoclimatology, Bibliometrics, Combinatorial Chemistry, Geomorphology, Epidemiology of Rare Diseases.
Fuck it dude. You can mine the fuck out of the minutia and it still won't get you out of the MALIGNENTLY USELESS dilemma.
See here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
According to Islamic doctrine, the Quran is a retransmission of the Torah+Gospel without alterations (especially alterations to the Gospel). The two sides of the equation are not supposed to be (substantially) incompatible.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The idea is that the true code of ethics is preprogrammed into our biological firmware ("provided by God").
Unfortunately, we grow up in the filth of a degenerated society which indoctrinates us into adopting dangerous deviations to our true biological firmware.
If we assume that societal degeneracy and depravity only go upward, the earliest written snapshot of society and its moral rules will give us the most accurate record of what morality is supposed to be.
In fact, we would be better off with a snapshot from the hunter-gatherers that we once were, but they were not able to read and write. So, even though they knew the proper biologically preprogrammed moral rules, they were not in a position to transmit them to us.
If you wait -- later in history -- until people have already become farmers, their society may already be too degenerate to provide us with a usable template.
The Torah is a snapshot of a society that was somewhere in between hunter-gatherers and farmers, i.e. nomadic shepherds. Just like the Torah, the Quran sticks to early nomadic shepherd morality.
So, if you are somewhat aware of the fact that you have inadvertently adopted the filth and degeneracy of contemporary society, and you want to know the truth about our biological firmware and what the true moral rules are that we are supposed to follow, then you can use these ancient scriptures to reprogram yourself away from modern degeneracy, filth, and depravity.
As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death".
However you wish to interpret the relationship of the Torah & Quran, they are clearly not "the oldest records of moral rules" as you've claimed (and also they are subsequent derivatives from pre-Mosaic/non-divine sources).
We are talking about nomadic shepherds who were not yet embroiled in the nascent depravity of farmer society. There are older codes but these people already had cities surrounded by farmland. They cannot be trusted because in their case the ongoing degeneracy had gone too far already.
Our very best bet would actually be the morality of the hunter-gatherers. As I have already mentioned previously, these hunter-gatherers could not read and write. So, they were unable to transmit to us their moral rules.
The nomadic shepherds were still close enough to the original hunter-gatherers, and they could apparently read and write in order to transmit to us the true moral rules of humanity. In my opinion, in practical terms, that is our best bet.
I think this is often the case. Quoting schopenhauer1
I certainly see this argument. And many people don't even get the distraction of the minutia, the quips, the empty achievements.
Quoting 180 Proof
Yes. Do you think this requires a type of courage?
Absolutely. The indispensible virtue. With courage, cheerful-defiant pessimism (e.g. Nietzsche); without courage, resentful-defeatist pessimism (e.g. Schopenhauer) singing the blues :death: :flower: or crippling anxiety :cry: :sad: , respectively.
Regardless, the chaos side is rather pointless in isolation, and I suppose that would be rather obvious, although I would love to hear a meaningful dissent to that, mostly, I admit, to shoot it down in turn.
The thing about chaos is, if there are no rules, there is no real way to proceed, other than whim, desire, chaos. I suppose you could claim that that is the only real rule, that there are none.
But there is staggering evidence to the contrary amid all of existence. Rules abound and that should be obvious. And it is my assertion that all 'natural law' is only and always tied to morality.
Morality is based solely on the existence and persistence of objective moral truth. Our lot is only to grow in wisdom, which means first acting and failing to understand, then understanding, and then perfecting that understanding which includes preferring or desiring that which is objectively GOOD, ... ONLY. You can do a treatment of ANY virtue in exactly the same way I just did awareness/understanding and it would remain an accurate treatment, in line with objective moral truth, the GOOD.
ANY AND ALL specifics we discuss that are 'relatable' colloquially are NOT the best way to get at the truth. The emotional math that leads to a perfectly understood system reinforces itself in terms of acceptance. I suppose what I mean by that is that once you know a moral or believe it, you can still break it, but you suffer more knowingly then. Immoral actions after that point are bad intents in formation, deontological failure, which is a deeper kind of failure than consequential failure that is not intended.
Of course, all roads or choices contain a balanced consequence due to this objective moral truth. It means that the only punisher is YOU, yourself. The only rewarder is YOU, yourself. God or truth (synonymous) is just love, the system, truth, that sets up this trouble of free will, and the only thing in the universe, the burden of choice.
Since all roads can and do effectively lead to the GOOD, it would seem to be easy to follow any of them. But, it is not. Continual choices that are not closer and closer to the one best path (from where you are) will corrupt you and tend to repeat as addictive patterns. So, it is chaotic (desire-side) delusion that tempts us to believe that any old path is fine. Nihilism adds in its fear-based denial of meaning to further delude us. And the most harsh of all truths is that DESPITE understanding even a single moral choice remains the hardest choice to make in all circumstances. And that is exactly how it SHOULD be. The worthiest aim is Utopia or perfection (synonymous).
But Utopia is extant. It is only ours to choose or not, and by degrees, on a scale, not black and white. We should realize that arrival at the perfect Utopia is not very probable, but it remains the only truly worthy goal. This it is unwise indeed not to aim at Utopia.
Utopia is possible only if other people also strive for it. They won't. It is not useful to be bothered with what other people do. You can only control what you do yourself.
A legitimate moral rule is such that you still benefit from keeping it, even if everybody else breaks it. It allows you to create a personal utopia for yourself, regardless of what anybody else does.
The ancient moral rules of the nomadic shepherds are exactly like that. They do not require anybody else to follow them, for you to benefit from these moral rules.
Modern moral rules are not like that. That is one of the many reasons why they are not legitimate. They tend to dwell on all the "rights" you have. True morality is not about having "rights". True morality is about the obligations that you voluntarily accept.
If there were no rules, or chaos, the universe could not organize itself into galaxies, nebulae, suns and planets, compounds, molecules, life forms. From the laws of physics comes all that we are, all that we know. Chaos is not something we can experience. We experience disorientation, confusion, occasional temporary states of befuddlement. Chaos is not something we can see in the world. We witness occasional temporary states of disruption and disturbance in nature and our own organizations; transient events that interrupt the prevailing order. With our very limited access to information, we fail to predict the course of all events in the universe. These observations, the busy human imagination exaggerates into a big, noisy concept like 'chaos'.
People make themselves and one another miserable by looking for and by creating the anomalous state, the disruption of order; by breaking down the reasonable and sustainable organization of things and communities, by upsetting the functional relationships of people and their environment.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
It does certainly persist as an idea, a possible goal to achieve. And - carpers and whiners notwithstanding - many humans are fortunate enough and aware enough that between sleep and death, they experience fulfillment, pleasure, comfort, affection, satisfaction, amusement, surprise, awe, even moments of ecstasy. No wonder these happy people wish the same for their fellow humans and strive to bring it about.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Just so.
I like that "get" here can be taken two ways:
1) They don't "get" to have these distractions.
2) They don't "get" that these are just distractions.
If you meant it so, clever. If not, still fits.
@Tom Storm
Masking the reality with heroism is yet another coping mechanism. Nietzsche's performative resilience is existential gaslighting and a dismissal of what is the case.
Neither claiming nor implying such, how does "heroism" equate to "masking the reality" when a hero is usually someone who defies reality, fatally risking herself, rather than someone who denies reality? :chin:
Besides, I don't see what's wrong with, or dishonest about, cultivating any "coping mechanism" that actually reduces fear and harm more than it increases them.
Quoting 180 Proof
No "existential gaslighting" or "performative resiliance" the fact is, schop, there are philosophies of defiance ("unselfing") such as those mentioned above contrary to sophistries of denial ("suicide") like fideism, anti-natalism or nihilism. :mask:
Yes, poor people in the US go to SE Asia for the better price, BUT rich people from SE Asia go to the US for better quality.
Better quality of what?
Creating a false narrative cannot solve the problem of suffering. We must first recognize and understand the inherent suffering at the core of life before any meaningful action can be taken.
It is simply a realistic acknowledgment of the malignantly useless aspect of existence, as described by Ligotti, which includes suffering and the futile pursuit of meaning. From this recognition, we need to build communities centered on catharsis and empathy across all walks of life. Such communities would foster a universal understanding among those who suffer and a collective commitment to not impose these burdensor the "forced project" of existenceon others.
The Nietzschean emphasis on transforming suffering through willpower and attitude prolongs the system of suffering by shifting the burden onto the sufferer. It employs a gaslighting trick, suggesting that the suffering isnt inherent/structural and that its a result of the individuals failure to reframe their pain. This approach implies that it is the individual who allows suffering to persist, rather than addressing the deeper, structural causes of that suffering.
Philosophical pessimism, as I have laid it out, encourages the development of communities based on real understanding and support, rather than superficial optimism.
We rebel against a whole host of things:
Public policy
Bigwigs in power ("corporations" the "elite")
The economic system
Consumerism
Yet the biggest program we are supposed to accept is the "project" of life itself? This is amounts to rebelling against the biggest project/structure of them all. I see no problem to do this as we often do with any other unjust system.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Stop with the strawman, schop. My counter argument emphasizes the following
Quoting 180 Proof
as I've pointed out in my previous post which your (& T. Ligotti's) special pleading evades. To wit:
Quoting 180 Proof
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/925895
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yeah, like e.g. "anti-natalism" (i.e. destroying the village (h. sapiens) in order to save the village (h. sapiens)) I agree, schop. After all, "suffering" isn't a "problem to solve" but rather an exigent signal to adapt one's (our) way of life to reality by preventing foreseeable and reducing imminent disvalue/s. :fire:
Better quality medical care. Medical "tourists" aren't folks with lots of money available to spend on top notch care.
One only has to look at how ridiculously overpriced basic meds and procedures in the US compared to other western or foreign equivalents.
Many people are now waking up to the realisation that they can spend $5000 at home or have a 2 week holiday and get treatment for $3000.
Of course there are some cases where the equipment is not available - but rarely the knowhow.
I would even go so far as to argue if one is against suffering one is against life. Suffering is not 'bad'. I imagine a great number of people here 'suffer' when reading philosophical works, or 'suffer' as they struggle to express their ideas.
I think it is probably better to aim for a possible optimum than assume an ideal. Once an 'optimum' is reached the situation can then be reassessed.
On the flipside I would disagree with what I said in terms of personal goals but stick firmly to it if attempting to apply to society at large.
What's the point of aiming for a compromise? If you want to go to Hollywood, you don't set your sights on Flagstaff and plan to reassess. If Flagstaff is as far you can get - well, it's not a bad town.... may, in fact, be better than LA. But if Flagstaff were your intended destination, you might only get to Albuquerque. Why not aim for the ultimate - even though you may have to settle for whatever you can reach?
Is there a theoretical or philosophical ideal? Yes; in fact, several, and they're remarkably similar. The reason it's called Nowhere is that it is assumed not to exist in a real time and place. It's an ideal. That's what you aim for, the standard against which you measure your actual accomplishment.
You are less likely to kill people reaching for something that is impossible and less likely to justify their deaths by claiming to be holding to some utopian ideal.
By all means search for whatever inner utopian ideal you wish, but do not assume anyone else wants it nor that they would welcome it - that is the thrust of my point.
Quoting Vera Mont
Speak for yourself. Keep it to yourself too :) If everyone was walking around trying to be Buddha/Jesus/Mohammad/Whatever, I have strong reasons to believe the world would quickly become a dystopia.
Changing society at large ... Have you already managed to pull off one, single change to society, no matter how small?
If not, then why do you expect to be able to do that in the future?
Choosing another society that has the desired change already, is much more realistic.
Dozens of millions of people have done it already. Doing so also requires some effort, but at least it is feasible.
I personally manage to avoid the top ten obnoxious annoyances on my own list of desiderata just by living in SE Asia instead of the West.
The West is slated to become even more obnoxious in the future but it won't be my problem. Isn't that a more realistic way of building your own utopia?
I warned against anyone trying to do so and am against anyone trying to do so. I am against Hitlers and Pol Pots who put plans in action for their own personal utopian ideal.
Understand?
These are never individual endeavours. If you read the Utopian literature, you'll find that a lot of people, in different times, have had similar ideal societies. (Huxley's was a rather tiresome, but even so....)
As for killing people - -- what the actual.....? Any Utopian worth their salt knows that ends don't justify means; the means determine the ends.
Quoting I like sushi
If Christians tried to behave like Jesus, they would feed one another, not execute them. If Muslims tried to behave like Muhammad, they'd be a lot more disciplined and circumspect in their actions. And if a lot of Asians really tried to be like the Buddha, that might be a nicer continent, too.
(They didn't, we haven't - people just yell at one another about what their religious figureheads demand, while grabbing whatever they can for themselves - and the world is pretty dystopian already.)
The road to hell ...
Quoting Vera Mont
My point is they would fail and know they are failing. Imagine a world of people walking around thinking they are the saviors of humanity. I do actually think they would be more likely to execute one another (albeit by the hands of others maybe) than feed to support each other.
I think that the truth about Nazi Germany is even worse than that.
Hitler was merely good at voicing what a large number of Germans were thinking already. If Hitler hadn't done it, someone else would have. Nowadays, they conveniently blame Hitler because the German people were supposedly innocent bystanders. They damn well know that they weren't.
Of course, there is another complication. The Versailles treaty was indeed quite unfair to the German Volk. So, not all their complaints were necessarily far-fetched. So, at least part of the problem was actually caused by the French desire for excessive vengeance.
Even the German animosity against the international Jewry did not come completely out of the blue. The Balfour Declaration led the Germans to suspect that the Rothschild clan had somehow managed to throw Germany under the bus. That was, of course, still not a reason to blame that on all the Jews.
If the Rothschild family was indeed instrumental in dragging the Americans kicking and screaming into world war I, then they did indeed throw Germany under the bus.
Their wikipedia page admits that the Rothschild family had been instrumental in funding the British victory in the Napoleonic wars but does not confirm their involvement in getting the Americans to join the war on the allied side in WWI.
That's what they did, and are doing. But not because they're trying to behave the way Jesus is fabled to or according to his advice; it's because they're trying to channel Jehovah. Their promised land in post-mortem. The Utopian ideal is a high-functioning, happy society on Earth, where people and the environment can thrive. It can only be approached by small incremental improvements, not massacres.
I do not think it ever pans out like that. Incremental steps toward an impossible ideal are leaps compared to shooting for a better future. The measuring stick for an unreachable goal is infinite.
If you believe it to be unreachable. And yet, in order for the traveler to keep striding, the horizon has keep receding. "This still sucks, but it's as good as we can expect." really isn't enough.
Besides, when progressives actually manage to effect improvements, there are always regressives trying to tear it down, so there's always plenty to do.
Yes, I get that. It's like someone believing they know what's 'optimal', but they don't specify any metrics or benchmarks. The ideal, like the optimal, is just a big picture that we try to colour in, one tile at a time, coherently, instead of throwing random pigments at the bits we don't like at a given moment.
I think we have a similar vision, couched in different terms.
Actually we seem to agree on this, though you would be hard put to say so because you seem like discord over agreement in your posts, and you seek it out in the most aggressive ways possible.
That's the basis of my "Communities for Catharsis" and "fellow-sufferers of compassion" notion. You can ask more about if you want, but it seems like you don't care nor have the empathy to even understand, so carry on with the discord :mask: :mask: :broken: :death:
Quoting 180 Proof
Now you are just reflexively trying to counter anything I say and strawmanning them in the worst possible terms to for cheap rhetorical point scoring :roll:. One must read charitably before one tears down. You've barely done that.
Okay. You have a certain set of assumptions about humans. Mine are slightly different, and my idea of a good society - one that aspires to incremental improvement in the life of every individual - certainly doesn't include brainwashing. Nor is there any reason for a good society to operate on a single model. If you're not happy and you're free to leave, I suppose there would have to be an alternative community to join that's closer to your ideal. There is no reason a number of communities with different organization and living arrangements should not co-exist.
Of course, as previously noted, this presupposes a considerable reduction in population. That's not something I advocate - that's something I predict.
That was an example of how everyone would be happy. the simple truth is people are different and as long as they are different utopia is impossible - hence clones or forcing conformity.
In no way shape or form are humans alike enough to inhabit - en masse - a singular society. If they choose to leave then it is clearly not a utopian society. This is why I was a little puzzled by Nozick using the term 'Existential Utopia,' which I take he means as an amalgam eventually resulting in a more or less homogenous society - but this would be just a progressive creeping towards the death of individualism in favour of conformity (albeit cloaked in its approach).
Quoting Vera Mont
I think the general outline of the term Utopia is far more than merely a 'good society'. The push and pull between individualism and state authority is the biggest hurdle for utopian ideals. They all effectively resort to enforcing policies through the general will of the population, which results in (what seems to be) necessary division in any given society.
Note: I have not finished Nozick's chapter on this yet so many he will offer up something interesting.
And then calls doing so malignantly useless?
This seems a bit extreme to me. I see education as something that changes society, but I'm not against education.
No one is a prophet, they just play at being a prophet. Just because we remember those whose faulty predictions seem to have played out roughly as they said they would, this does not discount the hundreds of others who appeared to have had equally valid arguments but whose forecasts turned out to be completely wrong.
There is no 'Social Science' in anything but name. When people forget this horrific things happen.
The word used was "encourages" not demands or implores. Rather, if one is feeling isolated, lonely, and the only one suffering, it may be best to communicate this in a communal way with others feeling the same way.
THAT it is malignantly useless, doesn't mean we are thus malignantly indifferent to it.
So what if participation in such a community results in someone no longer feeling isolated, lonely, and as being the only one suffering? Would that person still be able to contribute to the community or would they need to persist in seeing themselves as the only one suffering to be recognzed as a member of such a community?
The suffering wouldnt be from being isolated, but rather it would be discussed communally without being gaslit, distracted from it, or ignoring it, facing it and recognizing it communally. If procreation stands as a political action for suffering in the name of X projects, this is political action against it.
I couldn't agree that there is no social science, although I'd likely agree that there is a 'fuzziness' to the 'objects' of social science, which is considerably different than the fuzziness of objects studied in physics. It seems to me that consideration of social science (or at least pseudo social science) plays a big role in philosophy. Of course social science on its own is a huge area of study, and we can't really expect anyone to have a complete understanding of all the subjects involved.
In any case it seems that you are opposed to is something I would think better labeled as social engineering.
And yet consistent with your (Ligotti's) defeatist premises that's still a MALIGNANTLY USELESS "notion", no? :smirk:
[quote="schopenhauer1;927423]... if one is feeling isolated, lonely, and the only one suffering, it may be best to communicate this in a communal way with others feeling the same way.[/quote]
Yeah, of course, because (like in cults, asylums, prisons, marriages) misery does love company. :mask:
Quoting Vera Mont
:up: :up:
"Utopia?"
Quoting 180 Proof
You should know!
Why would people drag 'happiness' into social organization? Whether a person is happy or sad, grumpy or cheerful, bluff or dour, sociable or reclusive is entire personal. You can have personalities, proclivities, preferences and moods under any political system. What a good, or optimal or utopian society does is prevent people damaging, oppressing and exploiting one another; provide a means of settling disagreements, make sure every child is cared-for, nourished and educated, take care of the sick, injured and feeble, then allow its members to pursue their own path to happiness.
(Incidentally, the snapshot of happiness my mind invariably throws up is of three men fixing a tractor. There are other pictures, like a 10-year-old bringing home an A on a complicated science project and a young mother showing off her baby. Assuming physical and mental health, I don't see why the things and situations that make us happy need to be incompatible.)
Quoting I like sushi
Yes. It's an obstacle, just as long as egalitarian, democratic means of participation in "the state authority" is not available to all citizens.
Quoting I like sushi
What is a singular society? We currently have a number of countries where large numbers of individual have been able work out a system that accommodates most, and that could include all but the most aggressive and greediest - since they're the ones hogging the resources.
This is one basic assumption about humans on which you and I disagree. All living things have needs in common; all members of a phylum have even more in common; all members of a family have even more in common; all members of a species are more like one another than they are like any other species. The natural (not culturally induced) differences in taste, ambition and temperament are so superficial that any well managed social group (such as a labour union, sports team, men's benevolent association, congregation, knitting circle or community garden) can accommodate them.
Quoting I like sushi
Why can a good society not consist of many communities? All the bad ones and okay ones do.
Long ago I was fortunate to be part of a community along such lines, although these days I get such needs met through talking with individual friends. Anyway, I'll PM you, because a public forum isn't a very good place for discussing such things.
Ok :up:
I'm not sure why it isn't consistent. As I answered here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
If the perpetuation of an unjust system is seen as problematic, then a collective understanding of the situation, would make sense. This thread is about utopia. It is precisely that this isn't a utopia, that it is unjust to perpetuate and force it. Absurdism is a response, similar to existentialism, but it doesn't see the problem for what it is. Only PP does that, and hence the correct modern approach to the existential situation. It need not be "defeatist". Rather it is acknowledging the situation and acting in a way that works within this knowledge communally through catharsis and empathy. It isn't distracting or ignoring or waving away the problem, but directly confronting it collectively and knowingly to better understand the plan of action in the face of it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Apparently, as your 'dogmatic ontophobic idealism' shows, you do not grok absurdism as expressed by (e.g.) PW Zapffe, A. Camus, C. Rosset ... Instead, schop, you fetishize the lyrical "antinatal" musings of a minor horror novelist and latter-day disciple of a haute bourgeois, misanthropic, dyspeptic pessimist (who also happens to be a great neo-kantian philosopher).
That to me does not define utopia but what some assume to be an Abrahamic Heaven somewhere up in the skies. I fully agree that suffering - as possibility if not actuality - is part and parcel of existing, and that to in any way exist in manners where no suffering can ever occur will be a strict metaphysical impossibility.
That said, as to the question of whether utopias are possible, go back far enough in human history and the world as it currently is can only be described as a societal utopia relative to the former times addressed. This not only technologically but, again, societally. If nothing else, I'm here thinking in relation to Homo Sapiens cave men.
So, to then claim that it is impossible for global humanity to live in a utopia by today's standards, this in say a thousand years from now (this were humanity to still then occur), can only be an unsupportable opinion.
Then again, that a future utopia by today's standards of humanity is possible does not entail the future actuality of such.
Satisfying people's wants and needs is part of the utopian ideal.
Quoting Vera Mont
Utopian. The very principle of a utopian society is one that is furnishing everyone's requirements.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes, but people still differ. the larger the population the prominent differences become as they grate harder on each other. With Dunbar's Number we know that societal ties breakdown over a certain population threshold. Separate communities in a utopian society cannot stably coexist because of this limitation.
Like I mentioned briefly in the video Nozick does speak of a 'existential utopian' framework, but it exists as a holistic whole separated from other different utopian models. The 'existential utopian' position is conducive with multiple existing utopian models but not with them existing as a holistic whole.
Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia Pages 317-20 should cover what I am referring to. Subheading "The Framework as Utopian Common Ground"
You're parroting a watered-down, feel-good version of stoicism and absurdism, dressing it up as "reasonable indifference," when it's nothing more than a coping mechanism for those too prideful to face the malignant uselessness of existence head-on.
The real question isnt about abstract notions of courage or indifference. Its a simple "Yes" or "No" to the continuation of this "way of life" of existence foisted upon people. Its inherently political because its a choice made on behalf of others- those yet to be born. You can throw around pseudo-intellectual insults and castigate those who dont buy into your hollow philosophies all you want, but the truth remains: your mindset dictates the rules of the game, and right now, those rules are designed to continue a cycle of unnecessary suffering.
So, spare me the self-congratulatory nonsense about "grokking" absurdism. The real courage lies in confronting the malignant absurdity head-on, recognizing it for what it is, and choosing not to perpetuate it- something your "reasonable indifference" can never achieve. That is to say, what I am proposing recognizes and deals with the structural problems as they are, and its political nature as a perpetuation of a "way of life" (voting "Yes").
Needs, yes. Wants are individual; all the society can or should do is provide the opportunity for people to satisfy their own wants.
Quoting I like sushi
Why the hell not? Native tribes on various continents managed quite well to remain separate, and yet trade and party and look for marriage partners.
Quoting I like sushi
Why should they? What - aside from cultural indoctrination - are these prominent differences? Even with cultural diversity, people can get along just fine. Toronto used to enjoy a thriving Chinatown, a Jewish district and market, the Italian strip, the Ukrainian and Hungarian, Greek and Caribbean, Irish and Portuguese neighbourhoods. Yonge Street got pretty raucous during FIFA playoffs. St. Patrick's day was a lot of fun, and so was Caribana. If there is no scarcity of resources or ethnic dominance to compete for, and nobody inciting one group of people against another, what have they to grate about? Anyone is free to associate with those they find pleasant company and avoid people they don't like.
Quoting I like sushi
And yet, cities and nations consist of many million citizens, and don't break out in civil war. Why does everyone need a direct tie to everyone else? How long has the place where you currentIy reside existed? If you can tolerate the presence of strangers there, in spite of whatever inequalities, injustices and annoyances exist there right now, why could you not accept them in a fair and benevolent society?
Of course a utopian or optimal society cannot be brought about in our present state of affairs. And maybe too many of us are too crazy to want it. Nevertheless, I believe it to be a theoretical possibility.
So, for all us dead men & women walking, to each his or her own: your cowardice (i.e. futility of preaching "nonexistence") OR our courage (i.e. agency despite existence), your defeatist pessimism (re: ideality) OR our defiant pessimism (re: reality): no doubt for many, maybe most, an involuntary unreasonable decision. :fire:
So you define a utopian society as being one that keeps people alive rather than one that also satisfies people's wants? I do not. This in itself part of the problem of utopian ideals. If we all envisage different things they also contradict each other.
I would very strongly argue that individuals are more important than some scheme that meets a minimal means of sustenance - which would also differ from individual to individual.
Quoting Vera Mont
Because they would not be able to communicate and negotiate well enough leaving many on the fringes of society. Too many will be overlooked (this is commonplace in any nation you look at today). If their are people missing out then it is not really much of a utopian ideal is it.
Quoting Vera Mont
Height, sex, weight, intelligence, personal preferences, tastes, fortitude, vulnerability, sociability, etc.,.
Quoting Vera Mont
Is Toronto a blueprint for a utopian society? Not sure what this is meant to be arguing against here. Sure, diverse cultures can coexist together to some degree with mutual respect and consideration.
Quoting Vera Mont
I stated above why there will be confliction. To repeat, people's wants and needs differ and this causes disharmony. In a smaller community these kind of disagreements can be resolved more readily as people know each other. If another group passes by insisting that their wants and needs outweigh yours then it gets progressively harder to negotiate as the more disparate groups are the more obstacles there are for communication on any reasonable level of understanding.
Utopian societies would not have inequalities, injustices or annoyances. This is what utopia means.
Utopia cannot be brought about under any state of affairs without causing mass harm, genocide, homicide or some means of 'levelling the playing field'. Even then, difference would arise and the whole process would begin again from square one; in clueless ignorance most likely.
I hope to convince you otherwise in due time. We do seem to have a pretty similar view in many ways, but I do not feel that you appreciate the danger of opting for some utopian scheme rather than just trying to improve the current state.
My thinking is based on premises that include our ignorance of what is better and worse for us alongside the distinctions between individuals rather than a reversion to grouped ideologies set out as universal principles.
No. I defined it as a society that satisfies peoples needs and provides opportunity for people to satisfy their own and one another's wants. This should not be such a difficult concept, since all functional societies have a mandate to do this. They just don't do it very well.
Quoting I like sushi
I say that if we don't have to fight over the necessities, we are better able to choose and create the luxuries. You say the luxuries must come with the package. You demand more than is possible and then argue that it's not possible.
A place where there is nothing left to try and nothing left to desire is not Utopia - it's death.
If you prefer fish and I prefer pasta, we don't need to fight over either. All we need are some very basic laws regarding personal liberty and responsibility. (Not the million contentious laws we have been trying to uphold and knock down in civilized countries.)
Quoting I like sushi
And all these differences grate on you? You want to kill all those 'other' people? Me, I find uniformity rather a bore.
Quoting I like sushi
And yet they did. And we do, with people around the whole globe. (We're even trying to communicate with other planets.) Even now, with all the strife over territory and resources and population movement. So why would we suddenly stop being able to communicate if the strife ended and there was nothing major to negotiate? I don't see the logic of people being on the fringes (whatever fringes are when the needs of all are satisfied) because they're less able to communicate with people they don't choose for company than the ones they do choose.
In fact, I don't see the logic of variety as an obstacle to social cohesion.
Quoting I like sushi
I'm not opting for it. The option was never open to me. I'm saying it's theoretically possible. And also that having a destination in mind is useful in choosing one's path; that a clear vision of how society should work is helpful in making incremental improvements. ....
.... in theory. In actuality, we're just hanging on the precipice of extinction by our fingernails. Survival is still possible, but it's not going to be any picnic.
What is a better way then? The problem is people believing they can solve this problem to the kind of degree you may be speaking of?
Quoting Vera Mont
I would say this is an instance of oversimplifying the problem. Hopefully the next response will outline this a little ...
Quoting Vera Mont
No? This is not about me. Kill? That is a bizarre interpretation of what I outlined.
Some may find uniformity 'boring' but what if others do not. This would be something that would grate between a group of variety loving people and those who prefer conformity (liberal and conservative principles as an example we see commonly enough in the political world).
The fundamental point being people have different preferences and will wish to live in different ways that conflict with others. One way to deal with this is with uniformity. This would create a common belief and worldview among everyone at the price of everyone being more or less identical in abilities, preferences, wants and needs, etc.,. Maybe there is some room here to argue more for this case but it would be a hard sell.
The very basic laws and liberties are not so very basic when others are looking in at them. What seems reasonable and fair to some may seem obnoxious and repressive to others. This is DUE TO the variety of views different people hold, so adhering to set laws and liberties would be a type of conformity.
It is contradictory to set liberal laws because these laws inhibit freedoms. Of course people can, and do, move the goal posts by stating they are 'protecting liberties' rather than 'enforcing them' but both essentially amount to the same thing.
If the only basics you mean are in fact the basic means of sustaining life and giving everyone equal opportunities this does not solve the issue either, it only pushes it down the road (which maybe just the way we do things as a species?). To explicate further, I mean there is a problem with deciding on how equality is measured. The difficulty, again, lies in individual differences and preferences. A carpenter has more use of wood than a potter, yet if we are looking at beginning from an equal footing then both would possess equal access to the resources clay and wood. This 'equality' is nonsensical and as services and resources are measured out between peoples the disparities will multiple. The problem will then become exacerbated as the communication and sense of relation thins in larger populations.
Quoting Vera Mont
We are talking about a proposed utopian society. You are advocating for aiming for a utopian society. I am saying it does not work and it is harmful too.
The difference between people's becomes exacerbated because we are limited to social circles of 150 (generally speaking). What one group may do can effect another far away - as we well know - and the distances involved are social more than physical. Meaning, a mile apart is nothing if the cultures and preferences are conflicting. If they live closer then they can come to understand their immediate nieghbours a little, but short term they would grate and longer term new preferences and differences would arise and the whole process would repeat again.
Of course one solution to this problem would be for conflicting societies to live at a greater distance from each other assuming both had limitless resources.
If you cannot see how variety is an obstacle to social cohesion I do not know what to say. I am not saying it is always an obstacle only that it can grow more easily when populations and groups form with different ideas to other members of the population. If there is variety in societies this will happen. If you wish to contain so social cohesion is maintained then this inhibits some liberties of some people giving rise to inequalities within the 'basic laws' of personal liberty and responsibility.
To Steelman the position of a society containing multiple ideas and views, I guess we could take the 150 community into account and then devise a scheme that allowed for a fluid communication between differing groups so as to balance out conflicts. Something like having communities structured in such a manner so as to optimise overlap between communities. The vaster the overall population though the more unwieldly the scheme would become (parallels with the modern world in some ways!) and even if such a scheme could be achieved successfully how long would it last? I ask this because such a monolith of societal networking would effectively reach a point where the integrity of the structure would buckle under the strain of expansions and diversification. With growing equilibrium a greater decrease in integrity would ensue. It may even lead to complete collapse, or possibly human society would actually find another way to hold things together.
Quoting Vera Mont
I know you are not opting for it. I have said that trying to improve things is fair enough, but I am arguing against (strongly opposing) the scheme of aiming for some proposed ideal. I can certainly see the attraction in thinking this AND have thought like this before in the past. Not any longer though. I just see people massively overreaching and potentially making things much worse rather than slightly better more often than not.
I have guarded this by saying I would wholly endorse this mentality for personal individual exploration and shaping ones own future, BUT not as a sensible approach for shaping society as a whole.
The 'clear vision; people may have of some proposed future utopia is too often simplistic and prone to tunnel-vision.
Quoting Vera Mont
Actuality? No. Not in the slightest. Well ... in terms of any species on the planet in general, and the entire (pre)history of the human race, we have always been on a 'precipice' of sorts. I can give you that and no more.
Did you look at the book by Nozick btw? It is an interesting read. I have mostly focused on the final chapter regarding 'utopia'. Perhaps if you find the time to browse it we can share thoughts on it and have some kind of common ground to talk on.
Is anything I have been saying made any sense whether you agree or not?
Well, if you're not inclined to kill people for being different, why assume everyone else is? Why assume diversity equals conflict? I have lived peaceably among enough people who are different from me and different from one another not to believe that.
Quoting I like sushi
It cannot be brought about in one fell swoop. I have several times stipulated as much: the good society is an ideal to aspire to and work toward, not a state that can be created wholesale.
We have too much deeply entrenched, deeply invested disparity of power and means for any reasonable distribution of the necessities. We have too many ideologies and creeds that deliberately promote strife. And we have too large a population for the planet to sustain in comfort.
The field will level itself as the result of our previous bad decisions, harmful intentions, wrong directions.
Afterward, the survivors will have to do something. They can make all the same mistakes and commit all the same atrocities again, or they can set off in a new direction. In my theory, it can be a better direction.
It all makes sense from a certain perspective, based on a certain set of assumptions. You may be right; humanity may be altogether irredeemable. I was speculating based on a different POV.
Quoting I like sushi
I will try.
Killing? Conflict does not mean 'killing'. There would be disharmony of a sort.
Diversity does necessarily involve conflictions. That is what differences are. They are different due to some degree of confliction. The greater the differences the more likely the possibility for conflict.
Irrelevant. I am talking generally not about specific personal examples here.
Quoting Vera Mont
Believe it or not I am optimistic for humanity :)
I didn't drag genocide into this discussion.
There would be all kinds of local disharmonies. So what? Any functioning society can institute a mechanism whereby people can resolve their arguments and restore harmony to the community. It's certainly not an existential problem.
Quoting I like sushi
Then why is every society on Earth not tearing itself apart over the existence of all those fat and thin, dark and fair, tall and short, clever and dull, brisk and relaxed men, women and others, some of whom like jazz while some prefer rock, some of whom eat rice while some like potatoes?
Quoting I like sushi
And yet consider us so short-sighted and intolerant that we can't live in a society with people who are unlike us, or share resources among occupations.
You brought it up on that particular point and I have no idea why.
I mentioned that to achieve utopia could involve something along those lines or some other means of levelling the playing field. Instances of these kinds of actions were obvious enough in the 20th century. We had communism pursuing economic equality and nationalist attitudes pairing up with genetic ideals on the other side of the spectrum.
Quoting Vera Mont
Because there is today. Remember what the argument is about please. I am stating that aiming for a utopian ideal is wrong and you are saying it is right.
Aiming for a utopian ideal would involve having a target to aim for, not merely the incremental pursuit of some better world. There is no current utopian state (I think we can agree on that at least?) so arguing about the present situation helps your position how? Everything I am saying to you is in regards to opposing the pursuit of a utopian ideal because I strongly believe I am justified in saying that it necessarily will lead to everything I have been saying for the reasons I have given.
I have not seen much of what I have said addressed yet. Like below ...
Quoting Vera Mont
Evasion and then silly examples of something that has nothing to do with the point I am making. Maybe read with some generosity perhaps rather than dismissive and lampooning scorn?
I said this:
Quoting I like sushi
We can see currently that rich and poor and differences in status or cultures does cause confliction. you can se this literally anywhere on the planet. When there is a problem with resources or large cultural disparities - basically conflicts of interest - then things can turn nasty fairly quickly. This is not new news to anyone. Understand?
That you are attempting to make out that I am saying something like people who are different cannot live together in peace is frankly idiotic. What I am saying is that as population grow and conflicts of interest appear then there is growing social strain - this should be apparent enough from what I have previously written surely?
Quoting Vera Mont
Bludgeoning your way through what I have said and then putting words in my mouth is not really going to help this discussion progress. Drop the empty rhetoric and make a point please. I am not interested in some combative debate where one of us pumps the air with our fists at the end taking delight is 'winning an argument' rather than exploring ideas.
Back to the argument ...
Aiming for utopian ideals does nothing to give us a roadmap to a utopian ideal, because it is a mirage. Your reference to me bringing up genocide and such, or some other means of leveling the playing field, was in regards to feasible pathways to a utopian ideal. The reason is the utopian ideal springs from equality and true equality can only be achieved if everyone is basically the same - which we are not.
The simple example of the carpenter was small illustration of this. I assumed you could extrapolate from that positions and see quickly enough how differences in beliefs, opinions and obligations would confound the problem beyond merely distributing material resources. If material resources could be distributed in a manner everyone was more than satisfied with - endless resources perhaps - there would still be matters of religion, pride in the group, politics, traditions and of course individual abilities.
Why this is all dangerous is because there is no road to the top of this utopian mountain. Anyone can look up and admire the idea, but to pursue it is folly where the road ends. And where the road ends could easily be far worse than anything down in the comfort and security of the valleys. We do not know. Our ignorance is the main point regarding our ability to foresee the future. Any new enterprise carried out reveals unforeseen problems.
Maybe ask yourself this question:
- If the head of state in your country decided to reveal an incremental roadmap towards some vision of utopia would you back them over someone looking to make some improvements to the existing scheme without any idealistic goal?
You know what I would choose and why in part (see this page of posts and the previous page too). I know what you would choose but I do not know why.
This is where we stand at the moment in this discussion as far as I can see. It might help if you repeat what you think I have been saying in your owns words? Then I can point out where you are correct or incorrect.
Anyway, thanks for your time.
Show me. In context, if at all possible.
Quoting I like sushi
Could - not must. OK
Quoting I like sushi
Instances of ideological conflict were obvious. To what extent they were utopian, or even sincere, is questionable.
Quoting I like sushi
Yup. Fundamental difference of opinion. Quoting I like sushi
Yup. "some better world" is too vague for my taste. Better than what? Better for whom? Better in what ways?
Quoting I like sushi
It wouldn't, had I done so.
Quoting I like sushi
Yup. That has to be one of the first problems needs solving - assuming there is time to solve problems before the whole house of cards collapses. Is it a conflict between two individuals, or between two equal sized groups of persons? Or between a very few people and an enormous number? I wonder how that would play out, hand-to-hand, without a mercenary army on one side.
Quoting I like sushi
What's causing the growing strain in your scenario? Differences among persons, disparity of resource distribution, ideologies or goading by demagogues with their own agenda?
Quoting I like sushi
There is nothing feasible about means that would destroy the ends they aim for.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes, and that's pretty much the point. Up front, I said that a utopian vision depends on eliminating wealth disparity, uneven distribution of resources and ideological indoctrination. You seem to assume these things are inevitable and unavoidable. I believe they will crumble with the current world order.
Quoting I like sushi
As I've said several times already: You can't get there from here, except with many, many baby steps (some of them backward). Nationalism and religion have to go. Politics has to change dramatically. Tradition is okay, in the form of parades and festivals, as long as it doesn't try dictate decisions for the future.
Quoting I like sushi
We are basically the same. Two arms, two legs, one head, opposable thumbs, warm blood, insufficient body-hair, big brain, needs air, water, food, shelter, mating opportunities, companionship, something to think about, something to do, respect of peers...
How basic is your basic? How short do you think we have to mow human potential to make people capable of tolerating one another?
Quoting I like sushi
In general, I would prefer a leader with vision. In particular, I would want to know what improvements they proposed to make.
Quoting I like sushi
All right. I won't do that.
I believe - or try very hard to believe - that you (and Nozick) are wrong about human nature.
Wealth may get us someway to equalizing these things, but they are not a good indicator at all. These problems will persist whether wealth even exists. Some will do, some will not do. That's the basis for the entire conversation, if one wants to think about it a bit further than 'wealth' which is a bit of a cop out when it comes to human behaviour.
All of them and more we have not even considered or expect.
Quoting Vera Mont
Well, what are you offering in the utopian ideal? Better for whom and how? Same problem only exponentially more problematic especially if it cannot actually be reached. What could happen is we hit an optimal for the time but people still push onwards towards some utopian ideal and essentially make things worse rather than better by doing so.
Quoting Vera Mont
Maybe your anecdotal evidence was not meant to represent the current state of affairs in Toronto then. Unimportant. Which only begs the question of why you brought it up.
Quoting Vera Mont
And this is achieved by aiming for a utopian ideal. How? I think it would be far safer and prudent to act with caution than to announce some ideal goal. It is pie in the sky thinking that leads to more severe upheavals.
Quoting Vera Mont
Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao. You may argue that they were not trying to create an ideal society, but I believe what they said they aimed to do.
If am being generous then tell me how any idealist can stop people from taking their plan on for themselves and running away with it. Lenin, via Marx, justified his actions because the outcome was the main focus. The violence was deemed necessary.
Quoting Vera Mont
So something akin to the communist view of a utopian society? If not elaborate.
Yes, I think disparity is inevitable wherever there is diversity. If there are differences there will be disparities. It is not merely that I THINK this I cannot possible see a situation where it is false. I can say that it may be more or less pronounced, but when it comes to larger populations I see no obvious way of coping with this problem (Dunbar Number playing out as it will). Of course, we can fantasize about some sci-fi future where we are all hooked up to some computer and able to expand our social capacities and empathy more ... but that is just sci-fi and sounds more like a dystopian society than a utopian one as it would - as all utopian ideals tend to - point towards reducing individualism.
Quoting Vera Mont
And as I have said many times baby steps towards an ideal are relative leaps and bounds compared to considered incremental steps that are not working towards some ideal fantasy.
How do national and religion have to go? Why? You cannot throw a bombshell like that without some kind of follow up unless you have realised you have lost the argument.
How is aiming for a utopian ideal not a 'tradition that dictates decisions for the future'? I you starting to see the contradictory nature of utopian ideals yet?
Quoting Vera Mont
What is rubbish. That we differ or that true equality can only be achieved if we are all the same? I was stating the extreme end in terms of TRUE here. Clearly if everyone is the same we all have the same ideas, wants and needs and therefore one or two simple rules would satisfy everyone as much as it would not satisfy everyone. How could any society be more equal if everyone agreed on everything?
I can sympathize with a lot of your arguments. An utopian ideal without any specificity is nothing more than a nondescript generality. So, for the sake of argument, Ill provide one specific to what I would deem to be an utopian society: A society where humans do not rape nor murder other humans. (Of note, I take non-coercive angry sex and the justified killing of other humans, such as in times of war, to constitute neither rape nor murder, respectively.)
In todays world, a society where humans neither rape nor murder is not possible. Theres too much immorality and endorsement of it from nearly everyone (e.g., our glorification of criminals in a good sum of the movies we watch with glee and, so, in the stories we tell ourselves) to make such a society viable.
But the question: Do you believe it is possible for future generations of humans to become more moral by comparison to the morality of humans today?
The economic and political specificity of the hows aside, I take it that this would in part require that people become better parents of their own volition, thereby resulting in future generations of people that have less childhood psychological trauma, that have less defense mechanisms as adults for the traumas they / we experienced as children, and that thereby grow up having more scruples. (Though only part of the story, I do deem this step requisite to any actualization of the aim just specified.)
If it is metaphysically possible for people to of their volition become better parents (say, maybe, in part due to changed societal constraints), then it is possible for next generations to become more moral. And were this to persist we would attain a society wherein people no longer rape or murder other people. And this, to me, would be a utopian society. One whose very notion and possibility many nowadays will scoff at.
In short, should this ideal of humans no longer raping and murdering other humans which is quite utopian be denounced and shunned by everyone the world over? This on grounds that some of the possible means toward such an end can only result in dystopias?
The assumption is believing this would be a good thing and that belief in morals existing/matters is important for a utopian society. Let's assume these two things as a given.
Even with this there is a question of how we can possibly measure morality let alone dictate what degree of morality is optimal. There is probably way too much in here to unpack so maybe asking another question would be more useful? If not answer it yourself and I can respond to that once I have a better idea of what exactly you are thinking.
Quoting javra
A perfect example of how doing something that seems good, like protecting children from trauma, actually results in something bad. Making mistakes and having 'traumas' as children is a good thing. Children need to learn how to deal with difficult situations rather than be protected from them. The assumption that such parenting would lead to more 'morality' in society could just as easily do the exact opposite.
Quoting javra
So we are playing out a hypothetical where the utopian society is where there is no sex crimes or homicides, but what about items like poor people starving, discrimination by religion/race/sex etc.,? Or are you basically framing this as a more progressively moral society will extinguish all of these inequalities to the point where we all see each other as being equal? If so, this is 'leveling the playing field' and I think it would fall apart fairly quickly in larger populations for reasons I have outlined.
Forgive me if I missed the point here. Maybe I am on the wrong track. Have a feeling I am?
Quoting javra
I see was on the wrong track :) but, if such an ideal comes at the cost of increased discrimination then is it utopian? Can utopia be a utopia if there is no equality in some areas? Certainly having no murder or rape sounds pretty damn good to me, BUT to blindly pursue this ideal would - obviously - overshadow other societal dilemmas such as resource discrepancies (including education, wealth, property, skillsets, access to materials, access to means of production, etc.,.).
In short, what you are proposing is a ideal but does not look anything like a utopian ideal as it is looking at societal problems as being ONE problem and in pursuing with the same vigor as a utopian ideal would leave other pressing matters floundering in its wake.
Pursuing the idea of adopting a optimization where murder and rape is reduced does not overshadow other possible lines of optimization. The ideal pursuit in one area ignore the others in a utopian framework unless everyone agrees that said ideal is the best ideal to pursue - in which case everyone will suffer its consequences equally and have no one to blame but themselves ... then again, I am sure some would still manage to point the finger as in times of strain any little differences in society are generally attacked/blamed.
If something we would refer to today as a utopian ideal was to come into existence in our lifetime, via some unknown paradigm shift, I absolutely do not believe anyone would purposely have instigated it. Some will always claim to have predicted this or that, but that is human nature. If things go our way we claim authorship, yet if things go against what we say we are even more quick to distance ourselves from immediate participation (the neuroscientific evidence for this is pretty conclusive)*.
* I am talking about an experiment where two participants had to press a button for correct answer, but one person had their finger on top of the others. The results showed that when the answer was wrong they were not likely claim authorship (when there was), yet when it was right they were likely to claim authorship (when there was none). Cannot find the paper atm.
https://equalitytrust.org.uk/the-spirit-level/
http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter2.html
https://jerichowriters.com/utopian-fiction/
https://www.ic.org/?srsltid=AfmBOopnTJ7l767Y98HDi5oF_NonWVLBuSCE0VPqxOn6zbplLCB0-kTY
Just some other people's thoughts on what a good society is.
And I'm tired of repeating my own thoughts. I did look at your philosopher, and much prefer John Rawls.
We are not likely ever to agree on this subject, so why waste any more time?
bye :)
To me this is a wrong framing of the question. One cannot in any way accurately measure quantitatively physiological pain, much less physiological pain. Yet they do occur qualitatively and we all (mostly) can discern that having a splinter in one's finger is vastly overshadowed by having that finger amputated without anesthesia, this in terms of pain - both physical and psychological. As to optimal morality, I don't see any endpoint in sight where morality becomes optimal - unless we start philosophizing about metaphysical issues and thereby entertain such notions as possibilities of a universally obtained Nirvana, which would be an endpoint to morality. But in more practical terms, the sky's the limit to better morality.
Quoting I like sushi
I wasn't addressing parents' reprimanding their children or the like but to all various forms of child abuse. I for the life of me can't see how, for one example, the raping of children can be a good thing (such as on grounds of preparing them for adulthood), yet it occurs far too often. Parenting aside, with sex trafficking of children on the rise in more developed societies today. Again, pointing to a lack of scruples.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting I like sushi
As in being equal in potential if not intrinsic value, not in height, sex, abilities, etc. And yes, as has always been the case so too it shall always be: one rotten apple will more easily spoil the bunch. It's why a functional society will always discriminate against rotten apples such as mass-murderers, for one extreme example. Maybe more pertinent in some ways, for tolerance to be ongoing there needs to occur a discrimination of, or intolerance toward, intolerant people - here with a slight equivocation in terms of "intolerance" - otherwise the formerly tolerant society perishes via its own complacency.
I still affirm that a tolerant society in which no one rapes of murders is by today's standard a utopia.
Quoting I like sushi
Ah, but I can see no way in which such a society can come about sans a restructuring of some sort of both (always human devised) economics and politics. As just one example, today's globalized economy of "greed is good" is antithetical to a moral society wherein greed is disparaged and one seeks to help out one's fellow man - rather than hording as much financial and social capitol for oneself at expense of others whom one couldn't care less for. The valuing of greed is antithetical to the valuing of empathy - and the valuing of greed is intrinsic to the lives of all today: if not directly then by constraining what one can do with one's life via societal (which I take to include both economic and political) pressures.
Quoting I like sushi
Within our lifetime I find it exceedingly doubtful, if not laughable. Still, I agree with this conclusion. It would by entailment need to be purposefully enforced by everyone (or at least the vast majority) from which the society is constituted.
Quoting I like sushi
And yet I deem self-honesty to be deeply entwined with scruples. The less honesty one has with oneself the less scruples one has. Trump as but one prevalent and unfortunate example of this.
As to the very notion of utopia, it reminds me of these lyrics from a song by Sting: "To search for perfection is all very well, but to look for heaven is to live here in hell." All humans have faults and so no human can be perfect, this by sheer fact of being human, if not, more generally speaking, a living being; e.g. perfectly innocent (in the sense of perfectly devoid of blame and hence perfectly guiltless). This then thoroughly applies to all members of any society, be it past, present, or any future one. But just as things in a society can get worse, they can likewise get better - over time, of course. (BTW, plenty of people seek redemption from their past and present vices - one can even say it's sane to so want - but far too many expect it to come from the skies as thought by the wave of some magic wand rather than through the hard work of it being actualized, to whatever extent, from within in one's future interactions with others and with oneself.)
A society - to drive the point home, say a global society - wherein humans neither rape nor murder is by today's standards a pure utopia (a nowhere place). I'd like to live there though I know I never will. Granting its future possibility, though, once humanity might get to such a place, new utopias will then present themselves. Again, here paraphrasing, to aim for perfection in incremental steps is all very well, but to assume a place where egos occur with no suffering is to always live in misery. So to me, there is no such thing as a final utopian dwelling to be validly envisioned. If this is what you conceive of by the term "utopia", then I agree. But, again, who would deny that a world devoid of rape and murder is not sheer utopia from today's vantage? That it's a worthwhile aspiration, however, is another matter - one that I personally endorse in so far as more of us ought to be looking into possible means of better approximating such, currently, nowhere place, i.e. utopian ideal.
I was thinking more along the lines of it just happening because it happens, not because anyone actively intended it. The kind of paradigm shift I am talking about is something like some imagining a society like today back in 1800 and aiming for it. It is inconceivable for this to happen.
Quoting javra
My point was more or less that what some called child abuse others call learning. The world is strange full of people with strange ideas. Overprotection is abuse of some kind. I see you are talking about more blatant examples here though alongside rape and murder, so fair enough.
Quoting javra
Me. And I did. Given that the term has a specific meaning fixing one ill in society at the expense of ignoring others seems reprehensible. I guess others would disagree because people grade different problems in society at different levels.
And to repeat. I am all for people pursuing their ideal self, it is just when anyone points at some utopian ideal as being the answer I cannot see any good coming from it. Undoubtedly I am sure all sane individuals like the sound of John Lenon's Imagine and perhaps in some far flung future such an existence will be possible, but to AIM for that kind of thing now seems utterly insane and logistically incomprehensible.
I have stated elsewhere that humanity could perhaps make some leap forward perhaps even with in our life times. I think it would be initially messy though - talking about the possibility of the singularity.
Inside I am John Lenon's Imagine, but outwardly I know it is better to stem liberal views because they can often cause way more harm than we intuitively expect.
I have attempted to steelman the "aiming for utopia is good" but it seems to end in a situation where humanity becomes something like H.G. Well's Eloi.
Quoting javra
Have I in anyway managed to cover this question to your satisfaction? I doubt I have! Feel free to reform it in some way as I cannot possibly begin to answer it without writing a few thousand words.
Jordan Peterson has an interesting opinion on that:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cIDopS5C1Ck
A wallflower guy might benefit from some training in narcissistic psychopathy, you know, sort of to balance him out a bit.
In other words, don't be too nice.
Seen some of his videos, gods help me!
Quoting AmadeusD
Aren't we all? Isn't that the purpose of this present endeavour?
Ah yep, fair. Would you like any that show his other side? Well, tbf, he has several - but he is often, quite extremely misconstrued. That said, there are plenty of examples of non-misconstrued videos of his that are batshit. LOL. Wondered if you wanted the humanizing aspect.
Quoting Vera Mont
LOL, yes I suppose so. Probably better if more and more understand these discussions to be such.
Why people care about 'agreeing' like it is something to be valued I have no idea. I would rather just try and understand opposing views and be happy with that.
Background; struggle with and recovery from substance abuse; helping other addicts - that sort of thing? I know nothing of his private life, hobbies or charities. It would take a great deal of benevolence to make up for the bilge he gets paid for spewing out into the public discourse.
Quoting I like sushi
It tends to keep the homicide stats down. Opposing 'views' can be hard on a society. Eg. "There is no such thing as witchcraft" vs "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Guess what ... I disagree :D
Theres a reason for the affirmation that the path to hell is paved with good intentions. I get that: the axis powers of WWII wanting to pave the way to a global utopia, ditto with communism, to not get into so many cults whose cult-of-personality ends up doing monstrous things, or else the intentions of Christian Nationalism, and so forth. As I previously said, I can sympathize with many of your views, including this one. But I do not find the truism of this just affirmed maxim to then indicate that one should not hold good intentions to begin with.
Quoting I like sushi
I dont know how else to phrase things in a succinct manner. To me there can be no utopia in the absence of a heightened morality shared by all, or at least most, constituents of the addressed society. I again find the possibility of a world devoid of rape and murder to be contingent on a great number of societal (both economic and political) changes toward more ethical and less corrupt systems. In the absence of this requirement for greater morality, what one ends up with is dystopias, which are a dime a dozen. So Ill just restructure the previously given expression: Is the morality of humans as a whole only something that can either get worse or remain the same for all time yet to come or, else, can it improve relative to its present day and past manifestations?
If this doesnt help, we might well be dealing with disagreements regarding any number of underlying metaphysical issues, such as with the metaphysical issue of whether morality is relative or not. In other words, if the good is something we make up as we go or else is something universal to all sentience. And Ill back away from any such discussion for the time being.
Heres an antithetical opinion: whomever makes a strict equivalency between morality and niceness can only in some way be an immoral individual. For instance, morality can require that one kill a murderer so as to prevent the injustice of, say, an innocent child being murdered; this in contrast to passively watching the murderer brutally murdering the child and doing nothing about it so as to not have blood on ones own hands or, just as bad, so as to not risk ones own death. And to intend to kill is to not be nice.
But, when it comes to the moral killing of another human, in the words of Winston Churchill: When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. For example, to insult the man, to unnecessarily brutalize the man, or else to piss on the dead mans corpse after killing him is to be an immoral killer of another man in contrast to being a moral killer of another man. Most soldiers know all about this, irrespective of whether they choose to be moral about their activities in war or not.
Agreed. I think in reality humanity is always going to overstep to some degree. It is necessary to make mistakes in order to learn from them. Judging the potential fallout from possible mistakes is mostly guesswork.
Quoting javra
I am a moral sceptic. I can pretend to believe this or that for the sake of an argument but in this case it is pretty hard to respond more without getting bogged down.
I am convinced we can move beyond the current 'moral' paradigm. What that would mean to anyone else if I could explain better I am unsure.
I find that quite fair. It's been good talking to you, btw. :up:
:up: :100:
It was a bt of a cheeky quip - I don't think its possible to call someone an asshole from their public output, unless its criminal/socially criminal. I've seen some examples of that from him, but far more examples of him being compassionate, understanding and vulnerable. Again, can provide those instances if you're interested in them.
I think you're probably somewhat mislead by what you've seen, if this is the case. In his public life, he presents a character almost the polar opposite to that which is glommed onto for criticism purposes. ONe prime example is his talk about 'socially enforced monogamy' being misinterpreted as if he's advocating for forced relationships or something. Far from it. Just one eg... He's an incredibly effective therapist and his general self-help stuff is honestly really, really really good for our times, and for hte crisis he's trying to address in mostly men. That said, It's not in any way going to improve your life, I don't think hahaha. Just generally like to ensure people get both sides of something like that, when so much bullshit is bandied about.
It's possible. I've proved this on several occasions. Their public output is how they want to be known by other people. His public output is toxic assholity. I'm just fulfilling his express desire by expressing the reaction he's worked so hard to elicit.
Quoting AmadeusD
I'm not privy to any of that. I hope his god takes it into account.
Karl Popper uses the terms Utopian Engineering and Piecemeal Engineering. I am STRONGLY against the former over the latter; as does Popper.
In brief, Utopian Engineering aims for a blue print of an ideal society whereas Piecemeal Engineering is more or less about contending with immediate negative attributes in society whilst also possibly holding hope for some perfect state yet not claiming it is achievable OR not believing it is achievable.
I believe you are advocating for Piecemeal rather than Utopian Engineering? It does seem to be what you have been stating previously, in which case I am far less resilient to this view.
Popper frames Utopia (rather than utopian engineering) as fatalistic. Very much like what Marx, Luxembourg and Lenin had in mind with the inevitably of Communism.
I don't advocate any kind of social engineering. I hope for social evolution.
You can read Utopia as 'No Place' and assume that means either that it can never be, or that it is not yet. Or you can read it as 'Good Place' and imagine what a good place would look like.
I see nothing fatalistic about either.
There is no inevitability about making a good society. It's not even probable. It's a long-shot at best. I just don't believe it's impossible.
It appears any misunderstanding of what you meant is due to use of terminology.
Thanks :)
Knowing what a place looks like and having a roadmap to it are separate ideas. I know what it looks like to me; i know how it works for everyone. I know you can't get there from here by pieces or meals or revolutions or engineering.
How is that possible. How can you say how your vision works for everyone? Is that not like stating you know what everyone want. I am guessing not, but you can probably see how easily this can be misconstrued.
It is just a fantasy, yes?
By the fact that it's not my vision alone: it's a distillation of historical information about social arrangements that were stable and equitable, of 2000 years of European folk tales and songs and of the yearning of utopian literature through the centuries.
Quoting I like sushi
There you again, confusing needs and wants. We all need the same things, adjusted for size and level of activity, and we don't have to know in advance what everyone wants. People are capable of expressing their desires and aspirations; they're capable of reciprocity and of co-operating on community projects. All they require from their society is freedom to pursue those aspirations - so long as they don't harm the environment or restrict other people's freedom.
Quoting I like sushi
Some people make a strenuous and sustained effort to misconstrue and contend, I suppose because that's what they want. Some people seek clarity and consensus, because that's what they want. The world is big enough for both kinds of personality and many more besides.
Quoting I like sushi
It's a theory. You can't get there from here without climbing over a whole lot of rubble.
I can agree that overall humanity does always seem to be reaching for a higher fruit. As evidence that it is a good idea to aim for a utopian society it just simply doesn't hold up though. Like I have said before, the whole John Lenon-esque vision is certainly an appealing idea to me. Personally I think it is good for the individual but obviously holds no ground in reality and any roadmap - as Popper points out - would take so long that our outlook may change the form of the initial idea into something unrecognisable.
Quoting Vera Mont
No confusion. The question is still left open about how you know what everyone needs?
Quoting Vera Mont
Sounds like a dig :D I just want to know the rationale behind your thinking; or lack of it. The irony is I think we are pretty much on the same page BUT the contradictory positions we hold within our views (mine are lacking too btw) are of a different breed. That is what interests me.
You oppose 'social engineering,' as do I to a degree, yet seem to hold some form of it in your head as you have a theory (a vision to work toward). I do not have a solid position on this matter as I have only recently started looking more closely at political philosophy.
Although I am pretty well convinced by Karl Popper regarding 'utopian engineering' I am not sure that reason is necessarily all there is to how 'piecemeal engineering' could work in an optimal manner. This is where I am lacking because I am pretty convinced that 'reason' is not a mechanical cognitive process - it is a difficult extrapolation from neuroscience though so more or less conjecture at this point.
Quoting Vera Mont
I think it is safe to say we are both opposed to "smashing eggs to make an omelet." :)
What would you die without? So would everyone else. What would you die from? So would everyone else. Supply the first group of elements and eliminate the second. Maslow proposed a good starting point.
Quoting I like sushi
A hoped-for destination, yes. So you have a criterion for judging each proposed step - is this getting us closer to the desired outcome or veering off in some other direction? Each legislation, each reform, each legal decision, each commercial transaction, each building construction, each technological innovation moves us toward or away from peace, health and comfort.
Quoting I like sushi
It's not that. I haven't called for revolution or a philosopher-king with unlimited power. The way things stand, I'd rather see a supercomputer in charge than the motley collection of humans who run things now. But my main contention is that the way things are can't keep standing very much longer. Tipping points loom hither and yon.
Fifty years ago, we were on the right track to social improvement, but largely wrong on the technology and infrastructure. The mechanics have continued headlong in the wrong direction, while the social improvement has been halted or reversed.
More people are miserable and going crazier than ever, and more people are under greater threat. i don't see a mechanism whereby this trend can correct itself. I see it heading for self-destruction.
Afterward, there likely to be survivors. The ones that don't eat one another will have to figure out how to survive in the ruins, in a hostile climate. Utopia will have a long, long wait, but at least it has a tiny glimmer of hope.
Well, no. The degree is different for everyone. I get your general point though. The problem lies in the application and logistics.
There are, and have been, efforts to reduce such problems and they have been reasonably successful. The social issues and social institutions are probably more pressing atm as they could likely need resolving before tier one issues can be fully completed.
Quoting Vera Mont
You are for "smashing eggs" then? I am confused. What do you mean?
Is there enough air for everyone to breathe? Is there enough clean water for everyone to drink and wash in? Is there enough food for everyone to be nourished? Is there enough shelter for everyone to be warm and dry? I don't see the problem -- except that a few people take a hundred or thousand or million times as much as they need, piss in the pool, and leave the other people to fight over whatever's left.
Quoting I like sushi
I'm not for or against it. I haven't been and will not be instrumental in the events; I have not been and will not be consulted in the matter. I see people stacking eggs on top of eggs on top of eggs and I predict that the stacks will topple over and the eggs will break.
Pain isn't a constant and it isn't just something physical that the nervous system tells from our body. It's what we feel it to be. Heck, even boredom can be painful. Besides, if you ever haven't felt pain, how can you know what it is. Ask yourself, how many of us have experienced real hunger. The human can go without eating for days. How many of us have gone out without eating for days? Not many. So what on Earth do we know about real hunger, about what starvation feels like?
And most of the things that cause unhappines or sadness aren't something the society can solve. It starts with our own acceptance of ourselves.
The bad experiences actually happening isn't what's necessary, it's the possibility of them (or the memory of them).
Usually the balance argument is about the fact that these things (riches, joy, etc) could never have existed without some poverty or pain.
In my opinion, the only thing holding a utopian society back the actual viability, which primarily depends on perfect individuals.
Religion has the answer for that question.
How do you think that would actually go down? Do you believe everyone would see this as fair and just?
And those who dictate who is 'perfect' bring in the next totalitarian rule ... no thanks!
The most likely reason to me, however, is simply that a government and country set up for perfect individuals would not actually work for real individuals.
You do bring up a good point, and that is that a government that claims its goal is perfection is probably just a dictatorship. I cant imagine that goal would mean more freedom to the people.
You are also assuming people WANT more freedom or that an equal amount of freedom is GOOD for them. Maybe?
I wouldnt want to live in a society where every offense in punished heavily. And who knows? Maybe the people think this is for the best. But I doubt it.
Of course they would. The antisocial greedbags know perfectly well that they are unfair to the the other people. When the society is organized badly, one class of antisocial greedbag is labelled 'criminal' and punished for that behaviour, while another class of antisocial greedbag is labelled 'the privileged' and allowed to get away with it. A well organized society doesn't accept antisocial behaviour from any of its members and trains its young to avoid and resist such behaviour.
Other than to say some people are greedy and so they should be forced to give up their wealth I am not really seeing much follow through with how you expect this would go smoothly or otherwise if governments implemented this scheme.
I am imagining we are talking about the basic needs for living here - which is costly. Do you think it is likely a significant number of people scrapping by would simply stop working? Would unemployment rise? What steps would be taken to ease the transition or do you imagine there would be no real needs for a safety net?
We would have to wonder what's wrong with them. I've met some people who had given up on "the job market" or become fed up with being exploited and disrespected; I've met many, many people who did not like the jobs they had to take to support themselves and dependents, or that they had wanted once and found disappointing over time (as well as many who chose, prepared for and love what they're working at), but nobody who didn't have any aspirations or proclivities at all. Some may want to make music or tinker with inventions rather than build houses or harvest wheat, and they would have the same resources and opportunities as those who like teaching or healing, because society benefits from creative individuals, as it does from productive and nurturing ones.
I've never met a child who didn't want to "be" some occupation they admired. It's society that either encourages and promotes an individual's capabilities or frustrates and hobbles them; society that sets examples for the young and rewards or punishes unfairly. Besides interests and talents and ambitions, humans also have a strong desire for respect and social worth.
Quoting I like sushi
Part 1. The only reason people need to work as hard as they do is produce surplus. Surplus for profit, for waste, for war, for the care and feeding and protection of top level users. Scrape off the excess consumption of the top 1%; get rid of all the money-handling, -hiding, -laundering, -lending, -litigating and -shuffling occupations; reduce coercive capability to policing (considerably less of that, if they're not having to deal with monetary crime) and peace-keeping (voluntary civilian militia is quite adequate) and you're down to less than half the work, or a 4-hour workday with time off for special family occasions.
Part 2. What businesses? Business is a bad idea that doesn't belong in a utopian society.
Quoting I like sushi
There are effective cures for hiccups.
Quoting I like sushi
Yet once more again: No government that exists or can exist today, or has existed at any time since the rise of city-states, can possibly implement this scheme. The best they can do - and that by a hard slog against determined opposition, even from the people it would most benefit - is introduce minor local improvements. Under the current global system with its entrenched rules, procedures and assumptions, no major change can be made to the structural or economic organization of any society.
You still can't get there from here, except by climbing over a mountain of rubble.
This is simply wrong. Unless you are making a clear distinction between 'work people enjoy' as 'non-work' and 'work people don't enjoy' as 'work'. I work fairly hard at my job and study hard too. This idea of 'surplus' sounds like a Marxist ideology rearing its head?
Quoting Vera Mont
Surely you can see the problem with these kinds of views and a slippery slope.
Any kind of 'for your own good' attitude aimed at population groups is an inherently bad idea. On top of that this idea of societal collapse vision is one step away from causing heaps of rubble as it was inevitable anyway (hence why I pointed out the danger of fatalistic attitudes previously).
Quoting Vera Mont
I think it can be quite surprising how minor changes can have a huge impact. The biggest problem with revolutionary schemes is that they are large in scope. I do agree that small minor improvements are the best way forward, but I am clearly more optimistic than you regrading their potential overall impact on society at large. Within the space of a couple of decades we've seen smart phones and apps severely change the face of communications and media distribution ... the hard part is relieving the hiccups! :)
Where does Goldman Sachs' annual profit come from?
Quoting I like sushi
No, I can't; I see a bloody great pit to fall into, and a long slow painful climb out again.
Quoting I like sushi
For the few years or decades they stay in effect, before the next reactionary administration or regime overturns them. See US Supreme Court decisions on voting rights and reproductive rights.
Quoting I like sushi
I have no revolutionary schemes.
What has that got to do with:
Quoting I like sushi
?
Quoting Vera Mont
And how is this not a fatalistic attitude? And this:
Quoting Vera Mont
?
Quoting Vera Mont
I never said you did nor suggested it. I actually agreed with you.
That should be obvious from the definition of profit.
Quoting I like sushi
I can only report what I see. I do not a see a 'slippery slope', which would suggest a soft landing.
It probably makes sense in your head but that is precisely where it has stayed. If you want to back track over the past couple of exchanges and remedy it I will continue.
I don't think that will be necessary. I have nothing to add or subtract.