Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of the ways in which society has improved from the Dark Ages, to now, including modern medicine, stable governments, modern banking, modern technology, etc. arose as a result of people who dreamed of a better world, and then made it happen. What we have today would be beyond the wildest imagination of those living 800 years ago.
So, then, why is it that when someone proposes a change that they think will make society better, do so many people oppose it on the grounds that it is a "utopian ideal" and could never work in practice?
Are we to believe that the way things are now is the absolute pinnacle of human achievement? Or is it just that people are ruled by their fear of the unknown?
The bolded isn't true, and that's the answer to your question. People get sick of hearing the lie that society has progressed because of people sitting around and -- in your words -- "dreaming of a better world." What actually happened is people had needs to meet, and problems to solve to meet those needs, and solve them they did, and innovation happened (and is still happening).
It's the difference between innovation and the dreaded "solution to a problem that doesn't exist." The reason "utopian ideals" are mocked and rejected is that they much more resemble the latter.
The bolded isn't true, and that's the answer to your question. People get sick of hearing the lie that society has progressed because of people sitting around and -- in your words -- "dreaming of a better world." What actually happened is people had needs to meet, and problems to solve to meet those needs, and solve them they did, and innovation happened (and is still happening).
It's the difference between innovation and the dreaded "solution to a problem that doesn't exist." The reason "utopian ideals" are mocked and rejected is that they much more resemble the latter.
This - you beat me to it!
Almost all real and valuable innovation and improvement that’s occurred since the Dark Ages, or the Stone Age, was motivated by either genuine human curiosity or the need to overcome a real problem. Sanitation and sewage systems were not designed to achieve social perfection and utopia, but because the buildup of human waste in city streets and rivers had become a major health hazard over time.
When Kepler or Galileo peered through their telescopes and reached logical conclusions about the nature of the universe through calculation and observation, they weren’t thinking about how their findings were going to make for a better society.
Even the 19th century physician, Ignaz Semmelweis, who observed and then urged hand-washing as a life-saving practice in the hospital setting (and who was ridiculed for his discovery), wasn’t plotting utopia. He was a practitioner of the healing profession, as well as an intelligent, observant scientist. These were the factors that motivated him.
This stands in contrast to an ideology of social improvement, which is, for the most part, a variation on religious belief, in secular form. As has been pointed out, many such utopian experiments have been tried, and failed - horribly, and usually at great human cost. Many times, the cost was unintended, or if intended, was justified as the necessary cost of achieving the goal. The Spanish Inquisition and the Russian Bolshevik revolution had different phrases for essentially the same goal - a perfect, pure society.
Human society cannot achieve purity and perfection, simply because life itself is not pure and perfect. At the end of the day, life must be obtained at the cost of struggle and the consumption and exploitation of other life. The problem with ideology is that it is a fantasy which deliberately ignores and dismisses this basic fact of existence.
I want to swat people with a newspaper for thinking human life should be ideal. I could write a book on how crippling that idealism can be if not tempered with realism.
Almost all real and valuable innovation and improvement that’s occurred since the Dark Ages, or the Stone Age, was motivated by either genuine human curiosity or the need to overcome a real problem. Sanitation and sewage systems were not designed to achieve social perfection and utopia, but because the buildup of human waste in city streets and rivers had become a major health hazard over time.
When Kepler or Galileo peered through their telescopes and reached logical conclusions about the nature of the universe through calculation and observation, they weren’t thinking about how their findings were going to make for a better society.
Even the 19th century physician, Ignaz Semmelweis, who observed and then urged hand-washing as a life-saving practice in the hospital setting (and who was ridiculed for his discovery), wasn’t plotting utopia. He was a practitioner of the healing profession, as well as an intelligent, observant scientist. These were the factors that motivated him.
This stands in contrast to an ideology of social improvement, which is, for the most part, a variation on religious belief, in secular form. As has been pointed out, many such utopian experiments have been tried, and failed - horribly, and usually at great human cost. Many times, the cost was unintended, or if intended, was justified as the necessary cost of achieving the goal. The Spanish Inquisition and the Russian Bolshevik revolution had different phrases for essentially the same goal - a perfect, pure society.
Human society cannot achieve purity and perfection, simply because life itself is not pure and perfect. At the end of the day, life must be obtained at the cost of struggle and the consumption and exploitation of other life. The problem with ideology is that it is a fantasy which deliberately ignores and dismisses this basic fact of existence.
Ignoring relatively short-lived communes and other small-scale adventures in 'experimental living' that have existed at various points/places in the US...this country itself was conceived as a utopian experiment. As for the 'solution in search of a problem' argument...there are all manner of social ills that remain available to be solved by more creative people than humanity has yet produced. It's easier, in some sense, to arrive at solutions for concrete scientific problems--even if it requires an unusual level of acumen and dedication to obtain such answers. The problem with social problems is that people often disagree about the nature or even the mere existence of such problems--solutions can't be agreed upon if a common definition of the problem cannot gain widespread acknowledgement.
A great example now would be the notion of meritocracy. This country operates on the pretense of meritocratic ideals, but in practice, connections and unequal access to 'participation in the meritocracy' doom its functioning. Two potential solutions are to commit to purifying/reforming the meritocracy or abandoning the idea altogether (the latter solution would likely equal some variation of communism). But lots of people cling to the argument that unequal outcomes aren't necessarily evidence of unequal opportunity...and so will never acknowledge the systemic problems that exist.
Personally, I'm as nihilistic as it gets when it comes to questions of 'ultimate meaning' in life (there is no meaning), and although I harbor quite a bit of cynicism about the perfectability of the human species, I don't see why the we shouldn't make the effort to improve the human condition our collective project. Most people are too apathetic to the suffering of others, though, and it's a lot easier to hand-wavingly dismiss reform schemes as utopian than it is to actually attempt to produce some good on one's own. A campaign to de-emphasize meaningless status-based displays of one-upsmanship would be a good place to start. Given that our consumerist culture is somewhat dependent on the perpetuation of those displays, though....
Ignoring relatively short-lived communes and other small-scale adventures in 'experimental living' that have existed at various points/places in the US...this country itself was conceived as a utopian experiment. As for the 'solution in search of a problem' argument...there are all manner of social ills that remain available to be solved by more creative people than humanity has yet produced. It's easier, in some sense, to arrive at solutions for concrete scientific problems--even if it requires an unusual level of acumen and dedication to obtain such answers. The problem with social problems is that people often disagree about the nature or even the mere existence of such problems--solutions can't be agreed upon if a common definition of the problem cannot gain widespread acknowledgement.
A great example now would be the notion of meritocracy. This country operates on the pretense of meritocratic ideals, but in practice, connections and unequal access to 'participation in the meritocracy' doom its functioning. Two potential solutions are to commit to purifying/reforming the meritocracy or abandoning the idea altogether (the latter solution would likely equal some variation of communism). But lots of people cling to the argument that unequal outcomes aren't necessarily evidence of unequal opportunity...and so will never acknowledge the systemic problems that exist.
Personally, I'm as nihilistic as it gets when it comes to questions of 'ultimate meaning' in life (there is no meaning), and although I harbor quite a bit of cynicism about the perfectability of the human species, I don't see why the we shouldn't make the effort to improve the human condition our collective project. Most people are too apathetic to the suffering of others, though, and it's a lot easier to hand-wavingly dismiss reform schemes as utopian than it is to actually attempt to produce some good on one's own. A campaign to de-emphasize meaningless status-based displays of one-upsmanship would be a good place to start. Given that our consumerist culture is somewhat dependent on the perpetuation of those displays, though....
Technically, stating that there is no meaning is an absolute, and therefore a religion of sorts. The statement comes from the ego, is subject to the limitations of your senses and cognitive ability.
During one of the great extinctions, the creatures that depended upon an oxygen starved environment over-reproduced, generated too much oxygen, and died off. They created the conditions required for the newer species that were oxygen breathers. The cognitive abilities of those initial creatures weren't up to figuring out what came next.
We live in Plato's cave. One cave is the larger cave of our joint perceived reality, within that we each live in our own cave niches of perceptions.
IIRC, one of the tenets of nihilism is that everything must be proven to the nihilist. One generally cannot "prove" the negative.
We need idealists. I'm one myself but have learned not to make perfection my main focus because of wasted effort and discouragement.
But idealists who complain about things they can't change take up space and cast gloom. They also stir discontent and sometimes chaos. Better to put the melancholy into writing poetry or something useful for society.
If people had to earn the right to be negative, then I'd say those who were putting forth the most effort into making the change they want, should get first soapbox. Oddly enough those seem to do the least amount of complaining. Leaders who rarely voice their dissatisfaction.
(Sometimes I wonder where they go when they have to get it off their chest.)
I think we have the freedom to create our own meaning of our lives and fulfill it with our actions. If people could be honest at others' funerals, they could tell you exactly what they perceive as the meaning of the deceased's life. Usually they don't.
No wonder some of us think life is meaningless. Pick it up. It's yours. Go ahead and give it meaning.
Idealism is more often than not a cover for emotion and self-interest. There are real idealists out there, but there are more fake idealists who use lofty language to push their agenda.
A small, small number of people regularly practice reflection, try to be consistent and not hypocritical, and advocate for things that may hurt their self-interest. Everyone else is driven by base emotions and advocate for themselves with varying degrees of sophistication.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
