Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Zaptruder t1_iqqk9eb wrote

It's a vector, not a point.

You strive for utopia - you don't reach it.

Human nature is such that it will always want.

Bring a caveman into 21st century society and he'll think it's utopia for a while.

Bring a 21st century man into Star Trek society and he'll think its utopia too... at least for a while.

As individuals jostle for more individual freedoms, it'll rub against the freedoms of others, so tension and conflict will always exist in some form.

534

FrankTankly t1_iqtsbcz wrote

This

>It’s a vector, not a point.

Is such an elegant explanation. Well done.

41

Sphaerocypraea OP t1_iqrfe9r wrote

What if an imaginary person lived in a state of nature, in isolation from other humans? Would they simply cease to be human, if they had no experience of tension or conflict with other humans? I recall a comment to this effect by Hannah Arendt.

18

Zaptruder t1_iqrfu8g wrote

Only if you define humans by whether or not they exist, and whether or not they have social contact.

Which in both cases isn't typically how people define 'human'.

So, not sure why such an imaginary human would stop being human in that imaginary scenario.

12

ccaccus t1_iqrzaaq wrote

>whether or not they have social contact

Part of what makes humans human is their mental capacity. I'd argue that a person without sustained social contact would be rather inhuman.

3

Zaptruder t1_iqs34mh wrote

There are all forms of outliers among humans, along all sorts of dimensions.

I think we might casually toss around the term inhuman as hyperbole while still recognizing that they're literally still humans.

8

iiioiia t1_ir1qtb2 wrote

There are a wide variety of methodologies (and cognitive implementations of those methodologies) for IsHuman().

1

Sphaerocypraea OP t1_iqrg8g4 wrote

How do people typically define human?

2

Zaptruder t1_iqrgvbf wrote

Typically defined biologically, as a creature of the human species, with relevant genetics that beget various physical and mental traits, with acceptable variance to accommodate for genetic variance (i.e. a human missing arms or legs at birth is still human).

Anyway; back to I guess the point you're making? Objecting to the phrase: "Human nature will always want"?

It's a pretty accurate generalization of human behaviour and motivation systems. Exceptions allowed. But on a population scale would be so improbable as to not be worth considering (i.e. in a large complex society, we will not eliminate the human capacity to want more and to create tension and conflict. In an ideal society, the tensions and conflicts are mild and don't result in much harm).

6

Sphaerocypraea OP t1_iqrhijv wrote

I agree that’s how biologists define human. Can human also be defined by criteria of other disciplines? Or is it an exclusively biological concept?

2

noonemustknowmysecre t1_iqsefpg wrote

>. Can human also be defined by criteria of other disciplines? Or is it an exclusively biological concept?

Obviously biological, unless you're being poetic.

....are you trying to talk about "personhood"?

2

Zaptruder t1_iqri4rs wrote

Sure. It's a term that's used broadly in many ways depending on context, but it generally relates to the perceived unique conditions of been the biological human.

Anyway, what's the point of this line of questioning?

1

twistedtowel t1_iqs21d6 wrote

His odd line of questioning did make me think… is there an issue with people only focusing on the biological definition of human? Or even the incomplete definition of being human as i do believe many people leave out the emotional and mental aspects of being human because they are still not well defined scientifically (i would hypothesize).

6

MinervaNow t1_iqs3kie wrote

Counterfactuals like this are immaterial. Humans are by nature social. The hypothetical is in fundamental conflict with reality, so any takeaway from it is meaningless.

3

CoderDispose t1_iqs98ja wrote

We have discovered humans who never saw another human until they'd completely finished development, and they literally cannot learn to communicate with other humans. I don't know that I'd say it's necessarily meaningless, just very unlikely to apply to any of us.

Edit: I stand corrected - see below. Apparently some have learned communication to varying degrees

8

One_Hand_Smith t1_iqti5yt wrote

Contrary to popular belief theirs quite a few cases just like this, not all of them end up being unable to learn language, some can, others only partially, and some can't.

Almost always though they are stunted, but one girl managed to normalize enough to get married so it's not an absolute.

2

redditexcel t1_iqtf651 wrote

>literally cannot learn to communicate with other humans

"literally cannot learn to communicate with other humans"
Examples?

1

iiioiia t1_ir1r3q4 wrote

> The hypothetical is in fundamental conflict with reality, so any takeaway from it is meaningless.

Can you explain what you mean here? Just because a hypothesis doesn't perfectly align with "reality" (whatever that is, opinions vary widely), how would this make it impossible for meaning to co-exist?

1

ChaiWithCinnamon t1_iqzmsxg wrote

No, if they had proper previous human experience, and developed among other humans. Possibly if you consider cases such as Oxana Malaya. Though genetically, definitely still a human.

1

mR-gray42 t1_iquqsq2 wrote

>Human nature is such that it will always want

There are some positives to this if you think about it. People wanted to be able to communicate by a quicker method than by writing letters, so they made the telephone. They didn't want to go through some of the hassles horses and carriages provide, so they made cars. We weren’t content to just become immune to diseases, so we went to work studying them, making vaccines, and even eradicating illnesses like Polio. Yes, it's in human nature to never be satisfied, but sometimes people will see negative aspects of society and ask, “Hmm, how can this be improved upon?” It may not happen in their lifetime, but even asking such a question is a good start.

1

Zaptruder t1_iquqyra wrote

Yeah, I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing - it's just part and parcel of our genetic psychological makeup.

Anticipation, motivation, comparison (resulting in greater wants) are core mechanisms of our cognitive makeup that emerges from our genetic biology.

2

iiioiia t1_ir1rp2i wrote

Modern humans seem to have some sort of an innate aversion to engaging in intellectual activities that past people engaged in enthusiastically...I wonder if the world is becoming so complex and filled with propaganda and bad news that there is some sort of a mass psychological effect in play, like individual minds are individually shutting down certain processes, perhaps in a self-defensive stance of some sort?

Have you noticed any of this or am I maybe talking out of my arse?

edit: ping /u/Meta_Digital based on your comments.

2

Meta_Digital t1_ir21324 wrote

Yes, I think there is a different way in which people engage in our era as opposed to history. Likely, many people historically didn't do it and we didn't have the technology to be exposed to that anti-intellectualism yet, but nonetheless society produced intellectuals, which it is doing less and less today.

Personally, I think it comes down to dogma and taboo. Intellectualism isn't allowed to flourish as it once was. For many intellectuals, their expertise is a point of shame or brings out reactionary violence. My field is environmental philosophy, and I know I and my colleagues in the past haven't much appreciated being treated as extremist terrorists. I think this trend really started in the 19th century with the backlash against most of the great intellectuals like Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, etc. who challenged the dogma of the time. Today, the most cited scholar in human history (Noam Chomsky) was blacklisted by the media.

Also, since seeking utopia has been demonized so heavily, anyone who would otherwise be pushing for a better world is stuck modelling our dystopia instead. We see the backlash against environmentalists, feminists, Marxists, vegetarians, race issues, and really any critique of the authoritarian structures in society.

In the place of intellectuals, we get the worship of billionaires and other powerful figures. The climate today paints ideas like socialism or communism as a naive utopia while dreaming of living on Mars with Elon Musk or maybe driving in one of his dangerous and ineffective traffic solutions. In essence, we're allowed to think and dream only about what benefits the powerful. Anything else is seen as foolish or dangerous.

2

iiioiia t1_ir267m2 wrote

> but nonetheless society produced intellectuals, which it is doing less and less today

And of the ones we do produce, do you think it is possible that they are "of a different kind", perhaps in ways we are not able to discern?

> Personally, I think it comes down to dogma and taboo. Intellectualism isn't allowed to flourish as it once was.

Agree....and I (perceive myself to) notice this in many different forms....for example, on plausibly "intellectual" subreddits, people (including genuinely intelligent ones) refusing to engage in intellectual discussion. Do you think my read is off here? ("For many intellectuals, their expertise is a point of shame or brings out reactionary violence" suggests not?)

> I think this trend really started in the 19th century with the backlash against most of the great intellectuals like Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, etc. who challenged the dogma of the time. Today, the most cited scholar in human history (Noam Chomsky) was blacklisted by the media.

Agree!! And, it's a shame, bordering on surreal (at least in modern internet times) imho.

> Also, since seeking utopia has been demonized so heavily...

In my experiencing floating the idea in different venues (online and in person, across a decently wide variety of cultures) the mere mention of it tends to invoke laughter, and if that is challenged then....other weird stuff starts to happen. I've yet to encounter someone who can push beyond their innate reaction, although to be fair I haven't done too many experiments.

> The climate today paints ideas like socialism or communism as a naive utopia...

Maybe not the same thing, but I have noticed a pattern where if someone is in favour of a general idea, and if you go like "Ya, yes let's do that then....", people suddenly switch tack and are like "Whoa whoa whoa, <and then various reasons why actually pursuing the very goal they proposed is a bad idea, or their interest level in their own idea simply drops 90%>". It's very strange and may seem impossible, but I see it over and over.

2

Meta_Digital t1_ir2cl06 wrote

> And of the ones we do produce, do you think it is possible that they are "of a different kind", perhaps in ways we are not able to discern?

I think somewhat. Historically, intellectuals tended to be part of the privileged class, and though they often challenged certain norms, they just as often served to justify the forms of power of their era.

I think, over time, intellectuals in general became more critical of those power dynamics. Enlightenment thinkers were critical of religious dogma, liberal theorists were imagining an alternative to the monarchies of the day, socialists were critical of capitalist structures, and anarchists were critical of the emerging nation state.

Along with this deepening skepticism for the traditional structures of society came backlash. History could have probably gone one way or the other, but the way it went was a victory for the power structures against intellectual analysis. Today, I think, we're living in an era (a kind of Dark Age in a sense) where unjustified power structures have asserted themselves (mostly through violence, their primary tool) and seem invincible (and even inevitable).

The remaining intellectuals are fearful of speaking out too much, subverted to serve power unintentionally, suppressed entirely, or quietly sabotaged through language and information manipulation.

> Agree....and I (perceive myself to) notice this in many different forms....for example, on plausibly "intellectual" subreddits, people (including genuinely intelligent ones) refusing to engage in intellectual discussion. Do you think my read is off here? ("For many intellectuals, their expertise is a point of shame or brings out reactionary violence" suggests not?)

As far as social media, I think many experts in their field have little to gain and just don't engage. With misinformation so rampant and many of the people posting being either hired by corporations to serve their agenda or simply automated bots, it's likely not the best use of time.

In person, I find that intellectuals are more than happy to engage in conversation. Excited even, given how few and far between it is to find someone willing or enthusiastic towards stimulating conversation.

> I've yet to encounter someone who can push beyond their innate reaction, although to be fair I haven't done too many experiments.

We're trained by corporate propaganda (which we call advertising instead) to act based on our feelings even when it contradicts our ability to reason. That's the defining characteristic of a consumer, and I think it takes a somewhat exceptional individual to overcome that. The sciences have more and more been about controlling populations, and the methods being employed on us are extremely effective. That's what I suspect is happening, and why we can see it getting worse over our lifetimes as new methods are developed and perfected.

> Maybe not the same thing, but I have noticed a pattern where if someone is in favour of a general idea, and if you go like "Ya, yes let's do that then....", people suddenly switch tack and are like "Whoa whoa whoa, <and then various reasons why actually pursuing the very goal they proposed is a bad idea, or their interest level in their own idea simply drops 90%>".

I've seen this sometimes, and I wonder if it's a form of learned helplessness. We are certainly trained, from childhood on, to feel like we can't have any impact on the world. It's one thing to speculate about the future and another thing entirely to work towards that. This is a major problem I've seen in movements that want to change society for the better, and probably one of the major reasons why we've gone through such a long period without serious rebellion or revolution to the current conditions. At the same time, though, I'm seeing this less and less among younger people, so there might be a time soon that there is once again active resistance to worsening conditions.

2

iiioiia t1_ir2npsd wrote

> I think, over time, intellectuals in general became more critical of those power dynamics. Enlightenment thinkers were critical of religious dogma, liberal theorists were imagining an alternative to the monarchies of the day, socialists were critical of capitalist structures, and anarchists were critical of the emerging nation state.

I think of it as an onion that can be peeled, except when people peel off a layer or two (genuine or otherwise), they often find something (genuine or otherwise) so compelling that the possibility that there are more layers often slips their mind.

> The remaining intellectuals are fearful of speaking out too much, subverted to serve power unintentionally, suppressed entirely, or quietly sabotaged through language and information manipulation.

...~hypnotized

> Along with this deepening skepticism for the traditional structures of society came backlash. History could have probably gone one way or the other, but the way it went was a victory for the power structures against intellectual analysis. Today, I think, we're living in an era (a kind of Dark Age in a sense) where unjustified power structures have asserted themselves (mostly through violence, their primary tool) and seem invincible (and even inevitable).

I think the primary tool is propaganda - propaganda is an interesting word, because the unique way that each mind conceptualizes it (both in general but especially with respect to certain scenarios) is a function of propaganda itself. (Note: my usage of the word "propaganda" includes both deliberately nefarious kinds, as well as just plain old misinformation, regardless of motive).

> As far as social media, I think many experts in their field have little to gain and just don't engage.

Agree...but I am speaking of those that do, and among those there seems to be little diversity when it comes to behavior regarding beliefs/truth - many things come in a normal distribution, some of them are easy for the mind to accept (height), some are not (cognitive behavior).

> In person, I find that intellectuals are more than happy to engage in conversation. Excited even, given how few and far between it is to find someone willing or enthusiastic towards stimulating conversation.

Until one touches certain sensitive topics!

> We're trained by corporate propaganda (which we call advertising instead) to act based on our feelings ...

Agree...but I am proposing that there is a subset of ideas that ~no one can escape, that seem to be so intolerable to the mind, it melts down into logical and emotional chaos - we've all seen videos of batshit insane Trump supporters, I believe that ~all people can be brought to a similar state of mind (if perhaps to a lesser magnitude of accompanying bizarre behaviors).

> I've seen this sometimes, and I wonder if it's a form of learned helplessness.

Learned via propaganda is my intuition - my theory is: if someone starts talking about your plan but in a way that you haven't encountered before, or in a way that proposes opposing/modifying The System, fight or flight type heuristics kick in, and the conscious mind is helpless against that.

It's a wild and wacky world out there!!

2

ICFAOUNSFI t1_iqwo8j4 wrote

Here’s something that’s always bothered me:

If we’ll never reach utopia, why bother striving towards it?

1

Zaptruder t1_iqwofoh wrote

Because things get better by moving in that direction.

It's simply an idea - that we can aspire for society to be much better than what it is now; and we can imagine it, then deconstruct it, assess it, then see what we can actually do within the limits of our reality to move in that direction.

The alternative is having no direction, no guide post. Society lurches from one direction to another, without clear progress. Society moving on the whims of chance, as the games of luck and opportunity play out at high levels, and the rest of us deal with the fallout.

3

ICFAOUNSFI t1_iqwr15s wrote

I get it - so we aren’t striving for utopia at all. We are instead inventing a hypothetical “perfect world” to which we can compare our own world, and thus improve our own world to make it “more perfect”. We aren’t trying to fix it, just make it less broken.

2

Zaptruder t1_iqwtxk4 wrote

Yep.

Thing is, as we progress, we'll find the previous idea of the 'perfect world' wanting - either we'll have progressed enough to see how the concept was unattainable (i.e. we didn't factor in the issues that the solutions would create), or our values will have shifted such that previous ideation no longer seems like as great an idea as it did before - or we'll have additional requirements for 'perfecting' things.

And so we iterate and improve - thus a vector, not a point.

2

iiioiia t1_ir1s4r5 wrote

> It's simply an idea

Certain simple ideas seem to cause the mind to retract, as if it has some innate fear or something.

> The alternative is having no direction, no guide post.

Well, there's also ~authoritarianism, or basically rule by people who are not so lazy.

0

kontra5 t1_iqugi05 wrote

> Bring a caveman into 21st century society and he'll think it's utopia for a while. > > Bring a 21st century man into Star Trek society and he'll think its utopia too... at least for a while

No way. That's what you wish they would think. It heavily depends on which location of particular time they'd get exposed to, and even then, more likely the strangeness would (out of fear of unknown and strange that's innate) leave impression of dystopia. In any case it's very relative on many factors some of which I mentioned. Sorry to say your comment was not very thought out.

−1

Zaptruder t1_iquh6xa wrote

Sorry you expected a pedantic multipage exceptions list out for an off the cuff example, when some charitable interpretation would suffice.

If you time travel and teleport into a battlefield in any era, yeah it's not going to leave a particularly positive impression.

But I shouldn't have to say any of that; assuming that the reader has the ability to understand reasonable context.

0

kontra5 t1_iquyq1k wrote

I did not expect pedantry. There is quite a range in-between superficial and based on that (as I argued wrong) conclusion and pedantry. Feel free to let me know why you think one way or the other regarding, in this context of time travel, immersion into something significantly new, different (and weird and unknown) to result in first impression of utopia rather than the (again as I argued) likely opposite - dystopia.

0

ShalmaneserIII t1_iqq6axn wrote

Outopos or Eutopos- is it noplace or the good/true place. The ambiguity had to be deliberate.

158

Metareferential t1_iqqj5ha wrote

It was deliberate and it was a late addition by Thomas More.

See the letters he sent to Erasmus.

47

koloki8a t1_iqqc4h8 wrote

Utopia is the latin version of the greek word ουτοπία. “ου” and “u” are pronounced the same. So there’s no ambiguity really.

20

HamaHamaWamaSlama t1_iqr4lfh wrote

“Ου” is not pronounced like “u”, it is pronounced like “oo” (not “o-o”, but “oo”, as in boom). The “ευ” in “eutopia” is pronounced like “ef”.

9

koloki8a t1_iqrb0an wrote

Agreed yeah, I didn’t mean the english “u” but the latin “u” (same as italian “u”) are pronounced like the greek “ου”

5

DeathcultAesthete t1_iqr8vy2 wrote

Following the IPA, <ou> is indeed pronounced as /u/.

2

[deleted] t1_iqrb1l9 wrote

[deleted]

−2

DeathcultAesthete t1_iqred5r wrote

// indicate phonemes, the way a sound is presented within the speaker’s mind. <> indicate orthography. <u> in English is pronounced as /ju/, whereas <oo> as /u/. This distinction illustrates how orthography and pronunciation are two different things.

2

Provokateur t1_iqsmdmt wrote

We don't know how classic Greek or Latin were pronounced. Because, you know, we don't have audio recordings from 400 BCE. All we have is what it's transitioned into through 2000 years of gradual changes.

Maybe church Latin is pronounced like that, or Italian, but that doesn't tell us much about classical Greek or Latin pronunciation.

What matters is what Thomas More had in mind, which--as the comment above you points out--was intentionally ambiguous.

4

Archmagnance1 t1_iqtvi4d wrote

There are historical documents from the classical period that are about the pronunciation of latin. Ecclesiastical Latin is church Latin, hence the name, and Classical Latin is how it was (generally) spoken around the time of the texts.

A very easy example to point to is Ceasar being pronounced See-Zar like the salad or Kai-Zar. First is church approved latin and the second is classical.

Here's a couple videos by an Italian Linguist (english, italian, japanese, latin) who also does a lot of history content using primary sources that he can read.

https://youtu.be/x6Fg3RcYKJI differences between the types of latin

https://youtu.be/YlggQMFPjKw reviewing the latin used in Barbarians on Netflix.

1

j4trail t1_iqqbrkt wrote

The second one would be pronounced like 'eftopos', though.

12

CPEBachIsDead t1_iqqi8na wrote

In modern Greek, yes. It may surprise you to know that they weren’t speaking modern Greek in the premodern era.

23

Mr_G_Dizzle t1_iqqja8k wrote

Care to tell us how they would pronounce it in the premodern era?

7

Provokateur t1_iqsnkgd wrote

No one knows. No one has found a pronunciation guide from ancient Greece (and even if we did, it would be written in a language we didn't know how to pronounce, so it wouldn't help) and obviously we don't have audio recordings.

I've taken a few graduate classes in Classical philosophy, and in each the professor said that we don't have the correct pronunciation of terms, so we should just say it phonetically or however we prefer.

What matters is what Thomas More intended in the 16th century, which other comments speak to.

3

WaddlingTriforce t1_iqqmnjq wrote

Probably something like: "Eh-oo-t-ο-p-os"

(I'm not certain exactly how the omicron was pronounced)

And know that the "Eu" later became the sound "you" as in Euphoria or Euclid, so it'd transform into "you-topia"

2

Remon_Kewl t1_iqqvc3b wrote

Not only in modern greek. Pronunciation started shifting in the hellenistic era with the koine greek. Also, by the time this word was coined, the 16th century, the pronunciation was "eftopia".

1

CPEBachIsDead t1_iqts5up wrote

And do you suppose Thomas More was intending to harken to the Greek of his day or of the ancients?

1

Remon_Kewl t1_iqtu3km wrote

I'm gonna guess neither? Or he didn't really care, since utopia first of all isn't the greek form anyway, it's outopia, as others have said in here. Besides, it's not like the english pronunciation of eutopia is closer to the ancient Greek one than "eftopia". The point of the post the person above the one you answered to was that utopia and eutopia would be pronounced the same, which is false.

1

SidJag t1_iqq9u21 wrote

Madmen made millions aware of this duality: https://youtu.be/Xb9CM9Ffxzk

44

Mr_Kinton t1_iqs6ych wrote

Came here looking for this! A brilliant Rachel moment and an iconic line of dialogue that captures one of the ideas of the show.

9

Sphaerocypraea OP t1_iqqi8hw wrote

I hadn’t heard of the series ‘Madmen’ previously (I’m not in US and didn’t even own a TV during the years it aired); but have just read a bit about it and seems a fascinating study of 1960s America, maybe I’ll check it out.

Does the title of the series also reference Ancient Greece? (“For instance, I remember someone asking Sophocles, the poet, whether he was still capable of enjoying a woman. ‘Don’t talk in that way,’ he answered; ‘I am only too glad to be free of all that; it is like escaping from bondage to a raging madman.” - Plato)

6

Vladimir_Putting t1_iqqqrai wrote

One of the best shows ever made. But it's a slow burn drama.

Don't go in expecting thrills or action like Breaking Bad or the Wire.

"Mad Men" comes from a amalgamation of "Madison Ave" and "Ad Men". Mix that with their general patterns of behavior and you arrive at "Mad Men".

15

SnowyEssence t1_iqqojct wrote

Could be, but in the show it mentioned that they were called mad men because ad agencies worked on Madison Avenue in New York. They were called Mad Men for that reason. Though the protagonist Don Draper doesn’t really have any compass on where to go in life, but thats for another discussion.

6

Cyan-Panda t1_iqqi508 wrote

What about dystopia then? Edit: Apparently it's just "bad place"

11

HamaHamaWamaSlama t1_iqr73he wrote

The “ου” is wrongly combined with the word “τόπος” (place), in order to produce the word utopia whose definition corresponds to the Greek “ευτοπία” (pronounced ef-topia). “Eυ” and “δυς” (the dys from dystopia, pronounced like “this”) give opposite meanings to certain words, such as τόπος (place), τύχη ( “ευτυχία” as in having luck, “δυστυχία” as in being unlucky ) , γλώσσα ( “εύγλωττος” , roughly pronounced as ef-glotos, as in “rolls off the tongue easily”, “δίγλωττος”, roughly pronounced as this-glotos, as in “hard to pronounce” ) etc. It’s a fascinating language.

9

Meta_Digital t1_iqrxegz wrote

> Socialist, anarchist, ecological, feminist, egalitarian, free love, gay, lesbian and many other forms of utopias have been envisaged and attempted, whilst dystopias have become a more popular form of literary genre.

What a low bar for a utopia. I imagine a utopia being so much more... I dunno, ambitious, than something as basic as worker controlled economic systems, direct democracy, women's rights, acceptance of sexual preferences, etc.

I think we're in an era of such incredible pessimism that the notion of any spark of hope for the future is seen as naively utopian. Our imagination has been reduced to only seeing the worst case scenario as the realistic one.

11

MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iqqb4lb wrote

Utopia cannot exist because perfection is an imaginary human concept that will never occur in reality, man made or naturally.

Its like the concept of free will, no such thing. lol

7

dreddllama t1_iqqmv7w wrote

Did you read the book though??

6

MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iqqtbfb wrote

What book? This thread is about the article describing the concept and history of utopia.

−9

sunflowercompass t1_iqrcctj wrote

Sir Thomas More coined the actual term for as the title of the book.

While Plato's Republic describes an utopian government(as in aspirational, perfect society) he did not use the word.

8

tpx187 t1_iqqs1tp wrote

Elysium is a myth beyond the mountains are more mountains

1

MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iqqssnd wrote

"The tau that is knowable is not the eternal tau" - Lao Tzu.

4

gdmzhlzhiv t1_iqr4z0n wrote

Lao Tzu already dropping mad facts about the circle constant.

1

RPG_are_my_initials t1_iqreheb wrote

The first verse is actually the dao that can be spoken of, or the dao that can be written, or described, or other variations like that. The point is that it cannot be precisely expressed. That's different than inability to know or understand it.

By the way I'm not sure if you made a typo or you're making a Greek pun, but the old form of the word in english is tao not tau.

1

MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iqrxiwz wrote

You are very picky, go away you. lol

it means perfect knowledge is never perfect, always seek more knowledge, perfection is impossible. That's all we need to understand.

1

iiioiia t1_ir1stcz wrote

> it means perfect knowledge is never perfect, always seek more knowledge, perfection is impossible.

Are you describing The Tao, or something else?

1

iiioiia t1_ir1slvb wrote

> Utopia cannot exist because perfection is an imaginary human concept that will never occur in reality, man made or naturally.

utopia.equals(perfection) == true?

> Its like the concept of free will, no such thing. lol

It is not actually known whether humans have free will though.

1

Double_Joseph t1_iqqou8l wrote

That is simply not true though. Life thrives in certain areas more then others. This would make it possible to have a utopia. Has nothing to do with perception.

−5

MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iqqt1dv wrote

You do understand the definition of Utopia, right?

5

Drwfyytrre t1_irlf8tv wrote

Don’t be pedantic

1

MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_irlji2y wrote

Lol, really? You wanna redefine Utopia because its official definition is too "pedantic" for you?

1

Drwfyytrre t1_irv5hd2 wrote

Obviously a perfect world is impossible, everyone that talks of Utopia knows that, but a greater world isn’t, which is that dudes point. Perfect is the enemy of the good. Crime will never go out completely in a world with billions, but it can be reduced to a rarity

1

Double_Joseph t1_iqrrwp0 wrote

Yeah and it can still be possible. The universe is ever expanding and massive.

0

Searbh t1_iqqwuos wrote

But the idea of a perfect society is what is impossible in an objective sense since the criteria for perfection varies from person to person.

3

Double_Joseph t1_iqrrikq wrote

You are looking at perspective. Everyone has different idea. I am talking facts. It is possible to have an area that is perfect for making life thrive. Abundance of water, food, perfect climate. This would be considered a utopia. What are you all not understanding about this?

−2

Searbh t1_iqrucew wrote

A perfect society is not solely achieved by an abundance of resources.

2

boyden t1_iqqf5z2 wrote

'Not' 'place', can it be interpreted as 'Not a place'? And how it's not bound to a location or form, but a mindset?

2

CegeRoles t1_iqqtqkk wrote

A utopia might promise salvation, but the path leading to it is all too often built on savagery.

1

misterguydude t1_iqr28sx wrote

As in, we'll never achieve it. Hence, no place, as it doesn't exist.

1

b_dave t1_iqrdcrf wrote

Life was much simpler and abundant in those days

1

Gwenbors t1_iqrvyzq wrote

Utopia, not Eutopia.

1

[deleted] t1_iqs6ely wrote

Pretty good way of saying doesn't exist.

Aim, strive, but never arrive.

1

Thud2 t1_iqsb2yz wrote

I think a better translation would be a "place which isn't"

1

Bubbiesacat t1_iqscc9m wrote

I actually live in the hamlet of Utopia… can confirm I have not reached Utopia

1

Erlana t1_iqsxjdo wrote

‘If utopia is not a place, but a people, then we must choose carefully; for the world is about to change... and in our story, Rapture... was just the beginning.’

1

Bjokkes t1_iqt1veh wrote

I just watched Legend(2015, Tom Hardy), and Ron mentions Utopia and the meaning of it; that's a weird coincidence :p

1

csb710 t1_iquqmtm wrote

Am I the only one reminded of Mad Men?

1

Accomplished_Wall778 t1_ir0sgs8 wrote

Norman Cohn on Medieval Utopianism

>Each case occurred under similar circumstances - when population was increasing, industrialization was getting under way, traditional social bonds were weakened or shattered, and the gap between rich and poor was becoming a chasm. then.. a collective sense of impotence and anxiety suddenly discharged itself in a frantic urge to smite the ungodly.. and bring int being that final Kingdom where the saints, clustered around the great sheltering figure of their Messiah, were to enjoy ease and riches, security and power for all eternity.

1

My3rstAccount t1_iqu2wrt wrote

Ah, gnosticism vs kabbalah, yet we all worship the same god, and repeat the same stories over and over again.

0

MAN-99 t1_iqqa5yb wrote

Atlantis was also a theoretical place. That was supposed to be the perfect state. No one believed that it existed. It's so dumb to see people taking myths in face value.

−1

physis81 t1_iqsnm0m wrote

It wasn't a perfect state, it was destroyed supposedly, because of humanities tragic flaws.

1

apriorian t1_iqquo8y wrote

You mean like physicists when they create a model of the atom and discuss its merits and weaknesses?

−1

apriorian t1_iqq4j1u wrote

Yet Utopia is simpler to erect than a conventional society. Truth is always simpler. But it cannot be built on the carcass of this system. They key to to prevent freeloading. The conceptions of utopia relied on limited resources in unlimited abundance that made freeloading moot. Obviously a workable utopia needs to be more sophisticated. But the key to that is to remove all duty and the ability of anyone to impose duty on their fellows. It honestly is not that complicated.

−26

ShalmaneserIII t1_iqq6g3e wrote

For that to happen, everyone must be able to provide for themselves without the assistance of others- otherwise, you have some sort of duty to provide goods and services and ability to require them from others.

This goes to hell the moment someone wants to do more than subsistence farming, or when anyone breaks a leg.

22

apriorian t1_iqq7mv3 wrote

Am I to suppose from your comment you do not know how to organize a community without you or someone like you being dominent, it seems to be what you are suggesting. Which means that because of intellectual limitations you justify your rule of others. Have you considered that you inability to understand how to administrate a flat organization does not prevent another from knowing how? All I see is you trying to justify inequality and so I must assume you obtain some benefit from being able to impose obligations onto other people. Am I right?

−25

ShalmaneserIII t1_iqq83vb wrote

No, I mean if Bob breaks a leg, is anyone else under an obligation to help him? And if someone is making pottery rather than food, if people decide they don't like the pottery does the potter just starve or do people have to give them food?

22

apriorian t1_iqq8ite wrote

You are assuming conditions that would not exist. One cannot just take capitalism and democracy and remove duty. Of course one would run into problems. You might be honest and admit that people are in need all the time in the West and cannot get medical help. I was in Florida for a year and the news reported 6 people in ambulences that died as they drove from hospital to hospital without any of them permitting them in as their quota of charity cases was already filled. So, please, lets at least begin from a place of honesty.

Let me make a prediction, this is where you accuse me of being a communist. Am I right?

−16

ShalmaneserIII t1_iqq8qjx wrote

Okay, so do you have a duty to provide food to hungry people and care to injured people in your ideal society? Must you provide housing, education, etc?

9

apriorian t1_iqqavt2 wrote

The simple answer is absolutely not. I owe a duty to no one. But I reject your assumption an ideal society has beggars. But this is the problem isn't it? There are a huge number of people who embrace the idea of begging, who conspire to find ways of scamming society and getting things free? Do you disagree?

−8

n1a1s1 t1_iqqd96h wrote

bruh yes people want to get ahead and will do it by any means necessary

a utopia or perfect society is certainly not easy to create

9

apriorian t1_iqqfa5g wrote

OK, but which is easier, to create a car with no plan or design using faulty parts or by engineering the entire process?

Truth is always simpler than a lie.

Lets use a simple illustration. Lets assume democracy is the best possible system and money is an asset are two lies assumed to be true. Now if they are lies one predicts democracy will give us governments that are tantamount to evil and if money is not an asset we will get an economy that generates inequality, poverty and other ills.

You are free to claim these statements are true but then it behooves you to explain why they produce results that surely would be expected if they were lies.

0

n1a1s1 t1_iqqfsq5 wrote

idk what the fuck ur on about

society exists as it does and to change it to a perfect place is practically impossible

if you're claiming it to be so easy why are you here posting rather than doing it

8

apriorian t1_iqqgyc3 wrote

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you can figure out the answer to this question yourself.

−2

biedl t1_iqqgrpj wrote

Money is not a lie assumed to be true, neither is democracy. There is no absolute or objective truth about money. It's a human concept. It's a category error to call it a lie to begin with.

Your illustration is based upon aphorism and deepity.

4

apriorian t1_iqqh1yd wrote

Is that the answer you are going with or would you like to ask the audience if they have a better answer?

1

biedl t1_iqqh57f wrote

Ye, I see, you are not open to consider different viewpoints.

2

apriorian t1_iqqhbe6 wrote

I might be. I claim 4 is the answer to 2+2 if you can prove you have a different viewpoint and it is more credible we can move over to the tautological and analytical claims of my theory.

bTw you did not offer a different viewpoint you merely evaded the question .

1

biedl t1_iqqhioq wrote

I can only repeat what I already said, in hope of you at least trying to understand it.

You are committing yourself to a category error.

Saying that money is a lie and saying that 2+2=5 is a lie are two completely different claims. Only one of them can be evaluated as false.

3

apriorian t1_iqqisxw wrote

Irrelevant, but you seem intelligent enough to know that already. I did not even preclude the possibility the statement was not a lie, as you also well know but that is what you are evading. I have played these games a 1000 and more times before. I do not care you will not answer questions, atheists never do. Everything they do is based on making sure they are not accountable for anything they say or do.

You can keep playing your games all i am saying i am fully aware of what you are doing, i just do not care.

−1

biedl t1_iqqj3wk wrote

If your method fails a 1000 times, it's likely to be on you, instead of 1000 separate individuals.

It's not irrelevant, for your claim of money and democracy being a lie is mute, as soon as you understand that there is no intrinsic truth to either claim to begin with.

Try me. Ask questions.

3

ShalmaneserIII t1_iqqedzz wrote

So how do you prevent beggars?

5

apriorian t1_iqqfix4 wrote

The crucial thing is to understand how deep the problem is, it literally began in Eden, you can reject the divinity if you wish but the story perfectly encapsulates the problem. No man created the natural world and no man has a right to own any part of it, not publicly and not privately. So long as we permit this we have freeloading, that is the root of it. But as said, no one wants to admit how deep and pervasive the problem is.

−2

ShalmaneserIII t1_iqqfwev wrote

Okay, but do you have to own food to eat it? Or what of the food you gather or grow?

And it seems you're suggesting hunting and gathering?

5

biedl t1_iqqh284 wrote

Rights are human concepts. There are no intrinsic rights to humans. If a society agrees upon rights, man has rights.

4

apriorian t1_iqqh5sv wrote

Of course.

If a society can say a man is a slave and he is a slave the obverse is obviously true.

0

biedl t1_iqqh9nw wrote

Again, this has nothing to do with truth.

3

CegeRoles t1_iqqtehq wrote

So…what? You’re saying I don’t even have a right to own the house I live in?

2

apriorian t1_iqqva0b wrote

Technically yes but personal ownership is not the issue. The issue is owning a forest or waterfall or mine and robbing it of all its value. But even owning a factory and making money off the labor of workers is only justified because the employer was given the right to own the factory in the first place. But where does this right come from, who has the right to give anyone this right? Do you think a person has a right to claim a continent for his own or his monarch? Do you think a people have a right to say they own it, they can but the only way they can prove this is through killing anyone who challanges their right, as in war. But if they can do this why cannot a criminal do the same thing? Its precisely the same kind of behaviour.

0

CegeRoles t1_iqqzh2m wrote

The right is given to us via the social contract. We have all agreed upon on certain rules and conditions in exchange for the benefits of civilization.

0

apriorian t1_iqr2f13 wrote

You must have gotton me drunk. How could you have tricked me like this? Its not fair.

0

CegeRoles t1_iqr2p84 wrote

What isn’t fair?

3

apriorian t1_iqr3fz9 wrote

You guys getting me drunk and having me sign a social compact when i was not fully conscious of what i was doing.

How about if I told you that you all agreed to send me $100.00 next week, how would you feel about that. And do not tell me you do not remember. I said you did and so that is that, case closed.

0

CegeRoles t1_iqrm5nc wrote

Where exactly did you get the idea that the social contract was meant to be fair?

3

apriorian t1_iqrvwr9 wrote

I never said that.

1

CegeRoles t1_iqrx4qo wrote

Then why are you complaining about it?

3

apriorian t1_iqssepg wrote

I cannot explain what is in your mind or why, sorry.

I certainly was not commenting on an invisible, thing that does not exist.

0

CegeRoles t1_iqsv69y wrote

Could have fooled me. Your entire history is nothing but comments about an invisible thing that doesn't exist.

1

apriorian t1_iquusdx wrote

Could have fooled me. Your entire history is nothing but comments about an invisible thing that doesn't exist FOR ATHEISTS.

You give me a picture of your personality and i will share one of my God.

1

CegeRoles t1_iqr3wd5 wrote

So? No one will stop you from leaving. Go buy a boat and live in the ocean.

−1

biedl t1_iqqcx0g wrote

You say something about starting with honesty, while having no problem to poison the well repeatedly.

8

apriorian t1_iqqfma8 wrote

Then why are you talking to me?

0

biedl t1_iqqfuwj wrote

To tell you, that you aren't honestly engaging with your interlocutor yourself.

7

Sphaerocypraea OP t1_iqq8idh wrote

I think I understand what you’re suggesting, but I think your comment about duty needs to be qualified: What I think is bad is non-voluntary duty, not duty in-itself. Duties/obligations can provide many benefits and are necessary for any system of law to function, but they must be accepted and entered into by a voluntary choice. Like the idea of a social contract. For example, the choice to have children incurs a duty to care for them until they reach adulthood; whereas, being born isn’t a voluntary choice of the child, so the child doesn’t have any duty or obligation towards their parents unless they choose to accept one.

5

apriorian t1_iqq9dtb wrote

That is certainly a valid point, however I do not think designer or customized duties rise to the level of what a real duty is. I am not suggesting we do not say a man owes a duty to his family but this duty enforced by others is a far different thing than this care freely and lovingly exercised.

But the minute we start imposing duties on others, what have we but slavery. We can quibble about the degree and extent but the duty of one is always matched by the right of someone else. The stronger the duty and the broader it is the more like a slave one becomes.

My question is, why must the man have this duty, he can have a desire to care for his family by ought there to exist levers of power that forces this duty on them and why does society feel the need. I am not saying we do not have to pay our costs but I am against the language. I am against a way of thinking that ends up justifying a group of experts and elites dictating to a large group of subjects what their obligations are. I start from a position of equality and the existence of duty precludes equality.

3

wrongsage t1_iqqd59l wrote

Simply because life at its very core is a conversion of energy. That energy needs to be supplied. Since we are talking about a society, one would assume people belonging to such society would help with the resource management and distribution, even to those, who can not directly partake themselves.

How do you run a society without duties and privileges? And what is the goal of such community?

4

apriorian t1_iqqg32c wrote

The purpose of man is to create value. There is only one way to do this, through specialization. Equiton is a model community without duties. It is represented by an accounting system using equity in the form of preferred shares contracted to prefers, as a type of currency. Adding value to assets creates equity which represents a credit to the persons account.

Since Equiton is a creation of its citizens it is owned by its citizens who work to add value to the city though specialized activity. Because all persons benefit from the work of adding value there is no benefit to anyone being idle or prevented from working, which means there is no poverty and everyone is well able to pay for the things they need.

(And I am well aware that a two paragraph summary does not exhaust every issue and question regarding a new model of society).

−1

biedl t1_iqqmdur wrote

Why is the purpose of man to create value? How do you know the purpose of man? How do you know there is purpose to begin with?

6

wrongsage t1_iqrq9jy wrote

You need to provide a lot more details than that to make any sense. Because what you wrote does not conclude any of your points you made at the end.

There will be people, who can't produce value, who don't want to, who want to destroy the value instead of creating it. There may be competing societies who run on different systems. Just by having stake in the society (essentially socialism) you do not solve any of those problems.

From the very basics, you need education for any long-term community, and that in and of itself does not do well without duties.

1

apriorian t1_iqrvqxt wrote

Am I to understand from this you did not read the essay or you do not know how an experiment is conducted?

−1

Sphaerocypraea OP t1_iqqbfkg wrote

I also don’t like the word “duty”. It is associated in my mind with cold and repressive Stoic, religious, patriarchal and manipulative power dynamics. Could some kind of voluntary and chosen ‘obligations’ be admitted, rather than ‘duties’?

0

apriorian t1_iqqi9a7 wrote

IMO what is often referred to as the market is the only other option. We either force people to align with our agenda, or we permit each person to work and spend. It may seem overly simplistic but there is no other option.

1

Dejan05 t1_iqqitt0 wrote

You seem to be under the belief that all people are good and will help eachother, sadly they don't. Most people don't really care about anyone outside of their immediate relationships for one reason or another and some are ready to exploit others for personal gain, a utopia would have already existed if people as a whole were good enough for it to exist

5

apriorian t1_iqqj7el wrote

I do ehy? Interesting. But then you do not know i am past 70 and i started working on a theory when i was 17. My first intellectual insight i remember is realizing poeple were irrational and if you gave them a chance they would corrupt and destroy everything they were given. My entire life has been spent devising a system than no one, regardless how evil they were, could circumvent and corrupt it, but you are right, an evil person creating a system designed to allow him to freeload off of others will never become a utopia except for him. That much we can agree on.

−2

ThemrocX t1_iqqn4t8 wrote

I'm sorry to disappoint you but most of psychology and sociology have pretty clear answers to the questions you have pondered for so long. First of all you are wrong in assuming that truth is always simpler. The opposite is true: the closer the description is to the reality it describes, the more complex it becomes. This is also the reason for a few of the false assumptions you have: People are neither good nor evil nor are they irrational. Infact people are super predictable. 80 percent of our actions are steered by heuristics exactly because reality is too complex for us to grasp fast enough. This IS a form of rationality, but in complex scenarios it often leads to bad outcomes.

It is also why we are unable to construct a system that is impenetrable to corruption. Because corruption (as in a lack of balance, destabilising the system) is the very thing that keeps societies from dieing. A "perfect" system is a closed system, but a closed system cannot survive. It needs input, but every input introduces instability. There is absolutely no way around this.

7

apriorian t1_iqqobzx wrote

As to your last point, all you need to do to find a way around this is to change your assumptions.

−1

ThemrocX t1_iqqqa2c wrote

What good is changing your assumptions if the assumptions you are going to adopt are wrong?

5

apriorian t1_iqqr07o wrote

About as good as starting from the wrong ones in the first place.

And if you go back to my original comment you will note i did not specify for you to change your wrong assumptions into other wrong assumptions, there are an unlimited supply of them but that is no reason to keep choosing them.

But I am sure this is far too complex for you to understand so let me provide an illustration, you assume truth is not simpler than lies when logically it has to be, but you base this assumption on looking at the lies made about the structure or nature of reality and because the more you look the less you see that matches the original assumption about what reality looks like, you think truth is getting more complicated, no. What is happening is that you are covering up one misrepresentations with more complex misrepresentations.

Have you read about Ptolemic picture of the universe and how it made truth look more and more complicated. It was based on a lie.

−1

ThemrocX t1_iqqr6kd wrote

Fair enough (edit: wrote this, before the previous post was desceptively edited), but then let's talk about ehy you think my assumptions are wrong.

5

apriorian t1_iqqxr9k wrote

Am I to understand you think people edit a book they write to deceive the reader? Can you not conceive of any other possible reason why editing might occur? I actually number my edits so i can keep track of all the versions, this year i edited my webside 107 times, yep just this year. Believe me, I do not edit to deceive. But of course you have your reality and I have mine.

(Warning: this is an edit) .. I may go back to a post three to five times because to do otherwise means the later addition comes before the previous or original comment. So while conspircy theories are fun the truth is usually simpler if more boring.

1

apriorian t1_iqqrwh5 wrote

You assume you can defeat any system. Why? Because you think you can outsmart any barriers to freeloading. Everyone likes this system because it permits cheating and everyone thinks they are winning more than losing... the house always wins in case you are wondering.

If I said lets cut the pie and pick a slice blindfolded you would agree because you assume you could peek, if i said you cut the pie and will will take turns choosing a slice with you being the last to pick, you would not agree because you could not cheat. Am I right?

0

Dejan05 t1_iqqjafe wrote

I mean that's an interesting thought, best of luck you succeed in creating such a system

3

apriorian t1_iqqt4y6 wrote

You think a system is created by one person on a computer, the theory is but the system if you mean a place, requires people.

1