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.
Anyone looking for an "Objectivist Atlantis" will be very disappointed, or gain a better understanding of Objectivist philosophy.
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.
Being human, I often fail to do the very thing I complain about. However, I usually get it right eventually.
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)
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?
My apologies.
We have described what Ayn Rand was doing in that part of the novel and it isn't what you mischaracterize it as.
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...
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.......
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.
People are individuals. An oddball will always emerge. That being good or bad depends on the personality.
There are no utopian societies prescribed in Objectivism.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting. I haven't commented here till now because I keep thinking- One man's meat is another man's poison...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?