Are earth based utopia's possible?
Writing out my beliefs to express to a member here raised a question about the rationality of a Utopian society on Earth (Atlantis included). Are these shiny models of who we hope to be, no matter what the origin or endpoint, not what amounts to unattainable goals that we strive for but cannot, for a variety of reasons, obtain?
Human nature is fixed. The Founding Fathers saw this and created an environment which catered to human nature while providing for a modest amount of structure to galvanize a society based on self reliance and supply and demand. The didn't strive for paradise and left paradise to the individual to carve out for him/herself whether on Earth or in an afterlife. The Founding Fathers, as private citizens, just wanted to be left alone todo what they wanted.
Socialist and Communist Utopia is unattainable because of human nature.
Objectivist Atlantis may well be the same. Sure 10, 20, or perhaps 50 people could get together to form their own group but the reality of human nature will cause that group to splinter, the more people in the group the faster the splintering.
At its core, is not Objectisim a lifelong effort to strive to be...just live every other belief out there? If you don't think so, how?
PS
I have to add, I'm not trying to stir things up by committing the Objectivist equivalent of blasphemy or to besmirch Rand, Galt, Objectivism or any Objectivist in any way. I do honestly wonder if human nature prevents us for reaching that high-bar that many people strive to grasp.
Human nature is fixed. The Founding Fathers saw this and created an environment which catered to human nature while providing for a modest amount of structure to galvanize a society based on self reliance and supply and demand. The didn't strive for paradise and left paradise to the individual to carve out for him/herself whether on Earth or in an afterlife. The Founding Fathers, as private citizens, just wanted to be left alone todo what they wanted.
Socialist and Communist Utopia is unattainable because of human nature.
Objectivist Atlantis may well be the same. Sure 10, 20, or perhaps 50 people could get together to form their own group but the reality of human nature will cause that group to splinter, the more people in the group the faster the splintering.
At its core, is not Objectisim a lifelong effort to strive to be...just live every other belief out there? If you don't think so, how?
PS
I have to add, I'm not trying to stir things up by committing the Objectivist equivalent of blasphemy or to besmirch Rand, Galt, Objectivism or any Objectivist in any way. I do honestly wonder if human nature prevents us for reaching that high-bar that many people strive to grasp.
My apologies.
People who can vote down something like this are counter-productive to discussion websites. Has conversation devolved that much here in my absence that differing views aren't tolerated?
The concept of utopia contradicts reality on many levels. It is the worldly equivalent of "Heaven" as the best correspondence to another poorly defined word.
The main contradiction?
Utopia is a static concept, and doesn't allow for change. If it did allow for change, it would not be utopia, because it was not the ideal.
Reality is dynamic, and does not allow for an ideal in anything. We can define ideals for specific things, especially in the realm of science. But those ideals are put as examples that define boundaries, not things to be touched or encountered.
Unless by "translation" you mean "carrying across", by "English" you mean the original language of the Angles, by "grant" you mean "entrust", and by "places" you mean "open space". Good luck with that.
As the amusingly erudite "Word Detective" put it (www.word-detective.com/2012/02/politi...
"Let’s just say that language doesn’t work that way, to put it mildly. While words often are built from roots with particular meanings to which prefixes, suffixes and other bits are added, the process usually takes centuries, the meaning almost always shifts along the way, and the results often have only a tangential connection to the original “meanings” of the constituent parts (and in the case of prefixes and suffixes, those “meanings” are notoriously vague in the first place). The “take it apart” approach also often leads to what is known as the “etymological fallacy,” the belief that if you can determine the “original meaning” of a word, you have found its “true” meaning. Thus, for example, many otherwise sane people object to the use of “decimate” to mean “severely reduce, damage or destroy” because the original word meant “kill one of every ten soldiers” (the method the Roman army used to punish mutineers). I’m not sure why people resist language change so fiercely, but, fortunately, language isn’t listening, and “decimate” in its modern sense is a very useful word."
Perhaps one day I shall life in a Utopia where people understand this simple fact.
Utopia is going to have a shifting definition because we are individuals. A consensus approximation serving as a definition among a group is not a solid one. It shifts as group desire does. Utopia is then, an always moving target. Possibly achievable temporarily, but not long term.
Dictionary.com
1. an imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia (1516) as enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc.
2. (usually lowercase) an ideal place or state.
3. (usually lowercase) any visionary system of political or social perfection.
Interesting. I haven't commented here till now because I keep thinking- One man's meat is another man's poison...
The USA lasted somewhat more than 250 years, not a lot longer than other major societies. We are headed downhill, as is china as it forgets the capitalist ideas it adopted. Britain forgot them a long time ago and has declined a LOT. I am not sure Venezuela even remembers capitalist ideas and it is paying for that now.
noun
1. an imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia (1516) as enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc.
2. (usually lowercase) an ideal place or state.
3. (usually lowercase) any visionary system of political or social perfection.
So if you want to be precise, Objectivism both describes an ideal state (def 2) and seeks a political system that is "perfect" (in its context) (def 3), despite not being an imaginary island (def 1).
Utopia, however, does not mean "no place" any more than "nice" means "ignorant".
I'm not willing to do that so the next step is doubt whatever you say or write. You see the problem. Multiplied by all the others who use words incorrectly it is an insurmountable task. The strict sense is utopia is a place than does not and cannot exist. Close enough or as near as possible is the definition of paradise. Those who attempt that goal are often accused though of mistaking Virgins for Virginians. To use an old bit of humor.
Sometimes incorrect definitions do lead to a change in the meanings and one common example is decimate 'to kill one tenth.' to the point there is now no word to describe the original meaning without asking each and every time. Which definition are you using? Podium in place of lectern is another. I don't bother. Million and a half words in the language there isn't the time. Intentional pop illiteracy is the result. Confusion reigns.
To me it's on the level with someone on the radio saying 'over and out.' It's one or the other and cannot be both at the same time.
The advantage of objectivism is mooted by inexact language. It's either correct or it isn't correct. A is A not S nor T - unless an explanation is offered. That demands much extra time and effort to no clear purpose.
The common flip answer is 'you know what I mean.' No i do not. I know what you said. What you mean becomes questionable unless you are of an age to be a millennial in which case that assumption is valid before word one is spoken or written.
Nor is it too pedantic to expect any comment to be understandable instead of questionable on it's face.
You will notice I always go to the dictionaries and place the actual definition in plain view. I am not that close to the paradise of perfection as would have been someone like Churchill.
'Enjoy the day' however is correct and well meant. 'No thanks I've made other plans' is a suitably polite answer.
That's pedantic humor..
Paradise is entirely possible, eutopia is not. The question if correctly stated has now been answered.
Perfect is Teleios
even better
Paradise | Definition of Paradise by Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...
a very beautiful, pleasant, or peaceful place that seems to be perfect. : a place that is perfect for a particular activity or for a person who enjoys that activity.
One can obtain paradise we who live in warmer climes on the ocean often refer to it that way. parisio in spanish.
But you may not obtain eutopia by defintion it means No Place or the place that does not exist.
Amazing what sticking to the idea that words have meanings can do to make conversation meaningful instead of a series of huh duh say whats? Using PC or Pure Crap out of a post 1980 Millennial Fictionary is not a sign of an educated population but of an embarrassing mistake by my generation and other as we we shall inherit the title Generation of Failed Parenting.
Galt's Gulch was a place for like-minded individuals to get together. An Objectivism-based society is not by invitation only but must cope with all manner of people. But if the Constitution is properly constructed to prevent the kinds of corruption that happened in the USA (interstate commerce clause, anyone?) then not only would it thrive, but it would become self-perpetuating (by rewarding virtue and not rewarding vice the way modern governments do).
The trick, though, is getting there. In the USA you had a group of intelligent intellectuals with the right basic ideas, and a war of independence that allowed them to set the agenda. To establish an Objectivist nation is going to take either a long time of philosophic improvement, or a way to set up a new country.
That's fine but the group then has been absolved from the need to care for the injured individual who banged the sledgehammer without wearing Personal Protective Equipment. Having eschewed group responsibility he or she retains individual responsibility.
One may well ask was the feeling of freedom worth it? It's an individual decision. Life in a wheel chair is an individual result and not an unintended consequence.
Still I support their wish as long as I'm not paying for it.
I am not my brothers keeper. First of all it isn't my brother and secondly especially not when playing stupid.
Load more comments...