Are earth based utopia's possible?

Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 3 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
83 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 2 months ago
    The idea of an "Objectivist Atlantis" is not a goal of Objectivism. The "Gulch" was a place that temporarily served a purpose in the lives of AS characters. It wasn't an idyllic paradise/destination; more like a way station.

    Anyone looking for an "Objectivist Atlantis" will be very disappointed, or gain a better understanding of Objectivist philosophy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years, 2 months ago
      And how people think and act is not fixed by human nature. Ayn Rand advocated an individualist, proper morality, accepted by choice, and the integrity to follow it as the fundamental guidelines for living. Her philosophy has a content. It is not just "a lifelong effort to strive to be just live every other belief out there" and is not just a political philosophy of the nature of government. Every politics presupposes and implies an ethics.

      The Valley in Atlas Shrugged was a place to thrive for those who accepted proper moral principles, by invitation during a time of collapse of society. It was a fictional device to illustrate how the best live in accordance with proper moral principles, not advocacy of isolated, small hidden utopian enclaves of "paradise" to remain "untainted by outside influences". Ayn Rand advocated a political society based on Constitutional government with limited powers, with corrections to the original American Constitution.

      Those who do not read her philosophy and approach to life will continue to spread screwy misconceptions based on their own confusions.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 2 months ago
        I wish I was able to give you 10 points for that. Especially your last paragraph. At times, I feel like yelling, try to understand! Put it into context! Check your premises!

        Being human, I often fail to do the very thing I complain about. However, I usually get it right eventually.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 2 months ago
        True.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 2 months ago
          And what's with his "earth based utopias possible" line? Another plea for supernatural utopia? Ayn Rand was concerned with life here on earth, not "utopias" or mysticism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
            Sigh, still what I remember, and why you are the only person I ignore on this site. In truth, I shouldn't have given to curiosity and looked at what you're writing.

            In any event, I chose "earth based" specifically to refer to what happens here on earth (pretty simple meaning) regardless of its ideology and to avoid this conversation. Afterlife utopia removes will from the picture and its something I have no taste for. For the record any utopia-concept, to me, outside of personal satisfaction, is the same as the next- throughly unrealistic for human beings.

            Don't worry ewv, as you well know, I don't hesitate to write exactly what I mean no matter what you think of me or whether you feel I should be here or not.

            Lastly, you would honestly stand on Rands hidden valley not being her version of a "utopian" society? Feasible or not, she created that example because it perfectly illustrated her ideology in a practical sense (at least for the sake of her novel). Utopia = any visionary system of political or social perfection. (http://dictionary.com)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Enyway 3 years, 2 months ago
              I understand you are not happy with, and wish to ignore, ewv.
              There is a verse in the Bible (paraphrasing): “Go ye forth from the presence of a man when thou has perceived, NOT in him,` the lips of knowledge.”
              Basically translated: “Don’t try to argue with an idiot.”
              The fact that you replied to ewv's post makes me question, who’s the idiot?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 2 months ago
              Adding "earth based" is superfluous and irrelevant. We are not talking about other planets, and if we were the same principles would apply. Moral philosophy is based on the nature of man, not "earth-based" and not in principle restricted to earth, and no rational morality has anything to do with mystical doctrines in or out of the supernatural as one's home address.

              We have described what Ayn Rand was doing in that part of the novel and it isn't what you mischaracterize it as.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
                Only if you have one view. When you write a book you create situations to present your ideas, everything you make, ever character, every place, every action has meaning. This is the approach to the subject I took related to Rands valley, it was her idea of a perfect society.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 years, 2 months ago
                  Ayn Rand's depiction of the Valley was not remotely related to your misrepresentations throughout this page.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -1
                    Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
                    Plot a story. Create characters. Weave a tale.
                    It is obvious that you have no idea what I'm talking about and are, as you always have been, stuck in your own myopia as well as any impassioned thumper of any doctrine anywhere.

                    Back to iggy...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 years, 2 months ago
                  Ahh, the poetry wafted through the open window of the small neat bungalow. Richard Halleys 5th
                  Concerto being performed live by Richard himself. In the sun drenched valley nestled between towering peaks of colored granite, down the road from Ellis Wyatt,s cruising along in Midas Mulligan's Cadillac convertible heading to meet The judge :not a looter in the whole gulch! Enthralled by the handsome inventor of " the motor" sitting next to her.......
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
      Yes, but Rand envisioned that the only way for such a society to exist is 1) be very small and 2) be isolated and hidden so outside influence cannot taint the objective.

      Its a sad reality that human beings can only hope and strive to suppress and rise above their nature. Unfortunately, if we manage to do that we're no longer human.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 2 months ago
        I don't think Rand "envisioned" the Gulch as an untainted "society" locked in a 'group-think' mindset.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
          As an author she did envision to write her novel, we all do. I group-think mindset may well be what would work provided the group wasn't too large and they were all generous alpha type personalities. All it take is one person to start the domino's falling.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 2 months ago
            You can count on that one person to start thinking for himself and start talking to others.
            People are individuals. An oddball will always emerge. That being good or bad depends on the personality.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years, 2 months ago
              Ayn Rand did not count on people not thinking for themselves. She urged that they do, which is not automatic. Ashinoff's characterization of Ayn Rand as "group-think mindset" is a smear. She urged that thinking for oneself not be "oddball". When people practice the virtue of rationality, no "oddballs" who don't are a threat. The irrational who resort to force are dispensed with by government protecting the rights of the individual. But if people trying to be rational do not understand and hold the correct basic principles, none of it can work.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 2 months ago
            The Gulch was not Rand's vision of a utopian society. Perception of it, as such, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the circumstances that created the Gulch and the fundamentals of Objectivism.

            There are no utopian societies prescribed in Objectivism.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
              It was used an adjective not a noun.
              Utopia = any visionary system of political or social perfection. (http://dictionary.com)

              Rand certainly did use her valley as a utopia of sorts to present her vision of a society centered on her ideology. Author 101, anything you add to a story must somehow present the meanings you wish your story to convey: people, places, dialog, events, natural acts, etc all are tools to present a message. Rand used those tools just as any other offer does.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 2 months ago
                I understand what you're trying to say, but a "utopia of sorts" is a mischaracterization. The sliver of social interaction portrayed in the Gulch was not a societal ideal to be attained; it was an illustration of rational, objective behavior between specific characters.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
                  Agreed. still that was the basis of her ideal society. As stated originally I wasn't trying to stir things up. A question was put to me and in trying to answer it raised additional question, this being one of them.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 2 months ago
                    I don't know what part you are agreeing to. You keep suggesting that Rand represented the Gulch as an ideal society; I've consistently disagreed with this.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
                      "it was an illustration of rational, objective behavior between specific characters."

                      In a specific setting for a specific reason. They lived there in their own form of society, one Rand saw as perfect to illustrate her philosophy. Authors don't add anything to a story without a purpose.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 2 months ago
                        Yes, they lived there; but a "society" was not their goal...as expertly illustrated by the author in the context of her story.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • -1
                          Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
                          We'll have to agree to disagree there.

                          Community, which is what they had, is a loose type of society. They held common thoughts, attitudes and values. They shrugged to the same hidden area, settled together in the same relative proximity, and established a commerce system between them using gold.

                          Community - a feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals.

                          Society - people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  3 years, 1 month ago
                            There is a level of annoyance that stems from the mind of those who take a point (2 actually) from me when something like this is posted. I provided two definitions and explained how they relate to what I'm saying. I even agreed that we don't see eye to eye - which is fine.

                            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?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 3 years, 2 months ago
        If you think that human nature must be suppressed and overcome, does this mean that you think that human nature is basically evil?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
          Why is who we are evil? I never said that. The reality is we are self-interested, every one of us and thats not a bad thing.
          By suppressed or overcome I refer to Communism and socialism, each must have, by force if need be, their populations go against their nature to provide for others and acquiesce their individual authority to their own lives to a governing elite.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  sjatkins 3 years, 2 months ago
    As opposed to what, a society on some other planet or in a space colony or in a virtual world?

    What is fixed about human nature? We evolved to this point both through natural selection and an evolving of knowledge and its propagation across generations and other things such as cultural evolution. We are able to reason and understand much and increasingly even our own genetics. So I don't think human is static forever.

    Frankly I think we must evolve to survive and take some deeper control of our own becoming. The world and its demands is moving to fast to stand still.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
      The fixed aspect of human nature is self-interest. You do, chose to do, whats in the best interest of your own survival and happiness, this includes those you choose to care for. I contend that utopian ideologies and their objectives fail because they remove self-interest for the collective good and, inevitably end up oppressing people or killing people to lessen opposition..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 3 years, 2 months ago
    Need a solid definition of Utopia first
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
      I've already explained my usage and even presented the definition at least twice. I agree with those who said its attainable as a temporary individual pursuit (state of satisfaction) rather than a realistic possibility for a group of people.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Technocracy 3 years, 2 months ago
        I saw that AJ.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
          Ok, I can accept that. However, in the context of how I used the word (#2 or #3) and have explained my position in its use, my question(s) can certainly be answered. Those who deviated from the statement I made, I do chose my words for a reason, only muddied the waters to cause controversy. :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Technocracy 3 years, 1 month ago
            I know you choose your words carefully. I enjoyed reading Shadows. The 2nd and 3rd ones, trace back further than 1516 too.

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbroberg 3 years, 2 months ago
    To make a utopia on earth, new planets are great, but if we can't change ourselves, what luck might we need to change the external environment to suit our needs, wants, and demands? Planet Earth is a perfect location. As you said "the individual [...] carve out for himself".

    Also, it's pretty odd to psychoanalyze Christian mythology on a generally atheistic website, but you would need to forgive yourself for not being in paradise and then let go of the feelings of regret for listening to "the Snake". Sounds absurd? That's because it totally is. If you could let go of the thought of fixing the world, then you're in a good place, then you're in the Gulch.

    Remember the whole part about not living for another man, and not asking him to live for you? Yup.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 2 months ago
      The focus as always is on the individual. We can examine anything we want to examine as objectivism is the one mechanism that allows us to test our other belief systems. then keep, discard, improve them. The only judge is ourselves. You go to far in assuming the personal makeup of a group who are all individuals and if anything shun being part of any collective.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by rbroberg 3 years, 2 months ago
        A couple of points. A group is great. A collective is the comedic name for group of individualists. To shun any given group is still being a second hander. Anarchists and Nihilists, for example, are second handers, as a group, I would say.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 2 months ago
          If we all agree from our individual observations that banging a rock wall causes rocks to fall and some may whack our heads it is a group observation. Some like motorcycle riders will disagree with the groups observation on the need for helmets.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 3 years, 2 months ago
    Just as some schmuck once said that everything that can be invented has been, so the idea of a utopia is impossible, because the universe is constantly changing, thus making any temporary idyll obsolete. There will never be a utopia, just a series of waystations along the way to better and better outcomes on an infinite path of life.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
      Or a series of brick walls at the end of dead-end roads to hopefully learn from. The problem with most acted on utopia visions is that there's usually a lot of bloodshed, typically those who don't subscribe or somehow meet a qualification. I think this is why socialism is tried time and again, they keep thinking they learned from their past mistakes or that the new country where they are coming up is a bigger cash cow allowing it to finally come to fruition.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 2 months ago
        As China had down they but unlike China they don't want to admit openly than socialism is not a cash cow it's not even a penniless worm. It cannot support itself. When in China I had occasion to speak to some of the educated and uneducated in the Dailen shipyards. One wrote out some ideograms stating this how how you shoulld say the new system we have been led to by our leaders. Later I had them translated 'Capitalism with a Conscience." Dailen itself a city the size of SF and Oakland together had a remarkably vibrant shopping area. The most common stores were electronic or clothing oriented. Still in the bicycle age everyone had a cell phone many had small laptops.

        Back to the same individual he noted the great fear was changing too much too fast. He explained the education system for him to be in charge of overhauling huge ocean ships. Four years engineering, four years more marine engineering and four years business management with at least two foreign and one extra in country language required. The difference was he was assigned to those schools and tasks. He said,'If I need 500 welders tomorrow I make a call. 500 show up not one less nor one http://more

        My nephew in Australia buys a lot of items from China. He said no matter what I wish to sell in my shops I have only to contact their business representative with the need. Prototype within the month finished products within three months.

        Contrast that to the USA or for that matter Canada. One difference. China doesn't seem to know of the meaning of the word lawyers.

        Yet everyone has a cell phone and a bicycle and they all do regimented morning exercises prior to the work whistle.

        Interesting development from just a few decades ago.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 3 years, 2 months ago
    nurture vs nature...age old argument...original sin..."nature" is a false assumption...we are learnable...i am optimistic...rise above...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years, 2 months ago
    The problem with a utopian society isn't the place, but the people.

    America succeeded at first because they were able to separate the people who aspired to freedom and personal rule from those who were content to live in slavery. Because there is no more place on this planet to start fresh, there must be some event to separate those who once again desire a return to freedom and personal rule from those which do not. Natural disasters and wars have a tendency to do this to some degree, even though they are usually quite destructive in their methods.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
      Indeed. I'm sure I told this story here before, but I drove to Vegas once with an employee to attend Interop. This employee was from Bulgaria and thought socialism was the best thing since slided bread. After conversing for 4 hours we settled on the reality that socialism and communism are great if human beings weren't involved. Human Nature, ultimately self-interest, is fixed and as long as people are acting in their own self-interest there will be no voluntary consensus to anything any one way that takes care of everyone. His solution, kill of all humans and find another race of beings who nature is better suited to appreciating subservience.

      True story...very interesting.

      One constant - human nature, we can strive to change it, even fool ourselves for a while, but when it comes down to it, we do whats in our own best interest 100% of the time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by conscious1978 3 years, 2 months ago
        It's a contradiction to think that a human can change, suppress, or "rise above" "human nature". It's as simple as, humans are humans. The notion that we can act other than in a human manner makes no sense.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 years, 2 months ago
          He also equivocates on self-interest as human nature. Man as a being who must use his rational faculty to service is human nature, but what is in our self-interest, including the fundamental principle of ethics, must be discovered. It is not known innately as a part of human nature.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 3 years, 2 months ago
        we are all honey badgers by nature (it does what it wants all the time), and we only can cooperate if we adopt a system that keeps each of us the freedom to live our own lives without control from others.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years, 2 months ago
        Kill all human beings? That's not a little extreme at all...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
          Well, it was all his brainstorm to figure a scenario where socialism would work. You can see where people like Hitler found their justification.

          I figure if any ideology, any of them, seriously sought to control the world a culling would be in consideration, its the only way to ensure you're numbers dominate the dissenters.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 years, 2 months ago
    I don't think in recorded history there has ever been a utopian society.
    I have experienced personal utopia , although it is fleeting, many times.
    I will be prepared to enjoy with tremendous satisfaction, life at its zenith as it presents itself in the future. I know I am not alone in that regard with many others in Galts gulch online forum.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 years, 2 months ago
      Agreed. I have to admit I'm addicted to that rush (feeling of satisfaction).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 years, 2 months ago
        One of the top ten moments in my life occurred a couple of years ago. I gave my 3 year old grandson a painting I did for him. It was six of his favorite cartoon characters "the bubble guppies".
        He kissed and put his head on each of the characters. For me time stood still and the rush of a well executed plan and surprise , his reaction far surpassed my expectations
        I will never forget that experience.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by wiggys 3 years, 2 months ago
        AJ,
        as you know it has been tried many times and the success rate is zero, except in very primitive societies such as jungle people who have no enemy's. They exist as they have for who knows how many years in a state of unchanging existence.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 3 years, 2 months ago
          Maybe societies are dependent on a group of like minded people, and the basic principles of the societies change with the group. I think its a dynamic thing, and the societies last only as long as there is a preponderance of free market ideas.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 2 months ago
    In short if the idea worked why would it be given a name meaning something that can't exist?

    Now to be serious . Probably not until you can get all thinking people to agree on what constitutes perfect when most can't spell tweet.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 2 months ago
    Of Course Not or anywhere else. The meaning is No Place. The place that cannot and does not exist.

    But read the actual definition and then read a bit further

    Utopia (redirected from Eutopia)
    Also found in: Thesaurus, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
    u·to·pi·a (yo͞o-tō′pē-ə)
    n.
    1.
    a. often Utopia An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects.
    b. A work of fiction describing a utopia.
    2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform.
    [New Latin Ūtopia, imaginary island in Utopia by Sir Thomas More : Greek ou, not, no; see aiw- in Indo-European roots + Greek topos, place.]
    American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
    Utopia (juːˈtəʊpɪə)

    Ready I shall tell you where to find Eutopia. Two choices., Maybe more.

    The sound set of a Hollywood reality show?!?!?!?

    I had to stop there from LMAO and barfing

    Second Choice.

    The White House with a decent human being in the oval office.

    Second Hand Used car lot with an honest sales man or sales woman. uuurrrrpppp sales staff?

    A place where PC doesn't make you baaaarrrfffff.

    A place where the plumbing can handle a steady line of worshipers kneeling to the toilet gawd RrrraaaalphhhhHHHHH! You wretch you! and his sidekick Heeeeeaaaveeee!!!!

    I added those last one's in honor of the current occupant of the Offal Ophphphiss.

    Your Honor I rest my case if can take a joke bark at the moon.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 3 years, 1 month ago
    I have mentioned here before a concept that I have shared with some families close to me. I'd like to acquire some acreage within commute distance from town. We'd build houses on it and have a school house/office building as our shared focal. I wouldn't have much trouble, given our environment here in California, having other families close to us sign on with this plan. We've openly discussed it. I think we'd all get along. But, some of us have joked that we'd be in danger of being vilified in the local media and "Waco'd". Our shared motivation is raising our kids outside the public school system and in an environment where they'd learn to grow food and mend fences, along with a little critical thinking and calculus of course. This is my little, local concept of a utopia. My concern isn't us. It's everything around us.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 3 years, 2 months ago
    I have observed that "human nature" isnt that far from "animal nature"- unless we use our minds to make it different. We are all animals really, and act that way by nature. If we can get together an settle on a way to deal with each other that actually works in practice (which I would argue is adopting an objectivist set of principles), people revert to what I would call a "honey badger" mode of operation (the honey badger doesnt give a sh&* and does what it wants).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 3 years, 2 months ago
    A Utopian society, as commonly understood, even on Objectivist principles, is an impossible dream. As I understand it, a Utopia is where literally everyone (mystically) gets along: no poverty, no violence etc...A society based on Objectivist principles can only minimize, but not eliminate these things. There will always be a minority people who are wired to be violent, some extremely so. Being surrounded by a rational society will never change that, although it may minimize the borderline cases who may become violent through bad experiences. And there will always be people who simply are not motivated to work, and by definition will live in poverty, although that standard of "poverty" may, as it does today, be higher in terms of real goods than in a non-Capitalist society. And certainly a Utopian society would have no need for police or courts, certainly not something that fits with the limited government proposed by Objectivism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Watcher55 3 years, 2 months ago
    Yes it is possible. You do not need "perfect human nature" (i.e. everyone is wholly rational) for an Objectivist society. What you need is what the USA moved toward but didn't get to: a republic limited by a strong constitution, where the constitution forbids all kinds of the initiation of physical force.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 2 months ago
      However you have still not satisfied the definition of Eutopia in any of it's spellings. A different word is needed. Near Perfect or Paradise or I can live with this or a made up word Since we started with Greek

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Watcher55 3 years, 2 months ago
        The etymology of a word is not its meaning. However yes, I'd agree that an Objectivist society would not be a utopia, which is a place of perfection. While people still want to be moochers and looters (of any kind) there can be no utopia in the strict sense. But a society can be set up which gives no comfort to the worst of men and all opportunity to everyone else. That would be utopia enough for me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 2 months ago
          You can quibble about using inexact language but describing one definition and ascribing to the wrong word is just using the wrong word or the wrong meaning. Good enough for you does not mean it's good enough to have your intent understood by others. It's not our job to do that. It's our job to use the correct definitions and if you have not then your intent has failed. From that point we have to wonder how many other words you are using incorrectly.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Watcher55 3 years, 2 months ago
            Utopia
            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".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 2 months ago
              Try another dictionary or use the etymology. Many of them include the translation of the Greek to English when a or an is placed in front of another word. Imaginary places are not real therefore do not exist in reality are the result. I will grant you the followers of Plato may believe in imaginary places.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Watcher55 3 years, 2 months ago
                For the last time - etymology is not the same as definition.
                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years, 2 months ago
    Of course it does just as it eventually stops totalitarians.

    In a nutshell humans don't work for free. Give them a moochers share they are happy as claims. Absent that give them a looters share they are still happy to do the work expected. Give them any easy way out they take it. but if they absolutely have to work to eat...great things happen. Until they are fed.
    But some a small few work for other reasons. Those if not getting paid 'on the job' create a new job site.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 years, 2 months ago
    Objectivism is a worthy objective; however...we have a looooooong way to go before we might eradicate the recessive perverted genes we've inherited over our some 200K years on this planet...we seem to be a mix of other species inspite of our alleged separate beginnings. There is a host of other problems that prevent us all without exception to achieve a mind and Use it!; not to mention, being able to control nature and the effects the cosmos may play in our evolution.
    Assuming we accomplish all that...then yea, we might achieve some sort of balanced society, civilization and existence. But, I would assign a very low degree of probability to our success of these goals.
    It, indeed may be fruitless but I still think we each need to stride toward that goal post.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 2 months ago
    "I'm not trying to stir things up....."
    Oh, yes you are. But that's OK with me. Stirring things up is what makes the world of humans go 'round. At my age, I'm already in Utopia. Maybe that's what the elders thought heaven might be. The only responsibilities are those imposed on me by the PTB (Powers That Be) or myself. I do as I damn well please. But then -- Reality Check! Those damn PTB in Washington or Tallahassee (My village is pretty OK) keep intruding on my Utopia. Actually, AJ you answered your own question so well, that's there's not a heluva a lot more to be said on the subject.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 years, 2 months ago
    Anyone who comes peddling the concept of any group-think Utopia should be considered as dangerous.
    Hitler promised a utopia for those included in a mythical Aryan race to the expense of everyone else..
    Marx dreamed of one world-wide.
    Millions have died for the socialist utopian myths and many are still group-think slaves of the one called Communism.
    The promise, never the reality, of group-think utopias come in different forms and are always initially led by some charismatic creature such as Jim Jones.
    Can you feel the b-b-b-Kool-Aid?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Temlakos 3 years, 2 months ago
    Atlantis was a place of refuge. It was not a state of any kind, and worked (aside from "it's fiction") for one reason only: membership in it was by invitation only. Let me reiterate and re-emphasize: by invitation only. Furthermore, you had only one generation of adults, with a few children. Once those children grew to adulthood, the de facto Committee of Safety would have had some hard decisions to make, if the collapse hadn't occurred as soon as it did. To wit: do you shun the grown-up children who won't "get with the program"? Does shunning (a punishment characteristic of Amish and perhaps other Mennonite communities, amounting to banishment) become the common punishment for any crime? I also notice that Judge Narragansett did not say one word about holding anything in the nature of "juvenile court"!

    Crime is a part of human nature. Any society needs police to deal with crime. Atlantis had a military--meaning Ragnar Danneskjöld's ship--and something like a judiciary--Judge Narragansett's law and arbitration practice. But it had no police. It did not even seem to have a security force, beyond a resident militia. That worked for only one reason: John Galt carefully invited only those who wouldn't think of committing crimes against fellow refugees.

    So what do you do when the next generation achieves majority? Indeed, Rand did not even treat the subject of "legal majority" or "emancipation." So when a member of that next generation commits crime, what do you do?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo