Buddhism suggests that desire (hope) is the root of all suffering.

From the perspective of the philosophy of hope, Buddhism is largely a regressive force which encourages quietism and withdrawal from the world, thus impeding the achievement of Utopia.

From the perspective of the philosophy of hope, Buddhism is largely a regressive force which encourages quietism and withdrawal from the world, thus impeding the achievement of Utopia — Justin1

Not from what I have read and practiced. It simply suggests, based upon observations, that great desires lead to great sadness and that a better approach may be moderation (The Middle Path). Actually, there is lots of good insight here.

I wouldn't deny that Buddhism has some valuable insights. In fact I like very much the work of Buddhist Reginald ray.
But I do think, in the west at least, that Buddhism is a politically conservative force. I agree with Zizek's take on Western Buddhism.

I'm with you up to point 3. To get here you have to make a fundamental choice in metaphysics that you have not outlined your reason for.

To say we 'should' hope for something is to say that we are in control of what we hope for, but if we were in control of what we desire, where would the desire come from to act in the way you suggest? We would have to put it there. But why would we put it there, where would the desire to put it there come from, we'd have to put that there too... And so on.

There are only two ways out of this problem, Dualism (where there is an origin for our desires that does not behave in the cause-effect manner we observe in the physical realm), or Determinism (where our desires simply arise without our control, either as a result of some prior cause, or as a result of some randomness of quantum uncertainty, but either way, not because we put them there).

If your argument is going to hinge on what we 'should' desire, you'll have to tackle the issue of how we can decide what it is we desire.

Thanks Pseudonym, good points

The use of "should" does introduce unnecessary complications. Therefore, 3 can be amended to:

3. It is best to hope for the best thing that is realistically possible

or perhaps just

3. The best thing to hope for that is realistically possible is Universal Perfection
(in which case 4 becomes redundant).

This a moral or perhaps aesthetic claim rather than a metaphysical one.

Note that my claim that Universal Perfection is realistically possible is based on the following premises:

1. Nature (space, matter, energy and consciousness) does not have a static essence and is in a
continuous state of development.

2. Within nature there exists a universal cosmic subject.

3. The universal cosmic subject has a drive to move beyond itself to something better.

4. The universal cosmic subject influences the development of nature.

5. Due to 3 and 4, the universe is evolving towards a state of complete harmony and absence of
discord (i.e. perfection).

To justify these premises will take a lot of argument, so I suggest that for the purposes of this thread it is just assumed that Universal Perfection is realistically possible.

Another thread can be started on the justification of the above premises if there is interest.

5. Due to 3 and 4, the universe is evolving towards a state of complete harmony and absence of
discord (i.e. perfection).

To justify these premises will take a lot of argument, so I suggest that for the purposes of this thread it is just assumed that Universal Perfection is realistically possible. — Justin1

There lies the problem. All you have done is articulate a personal desire that it be such.

What I observe is a Universe that is changing by learning. That is all.

This a moral or perhaps aesthetic claim rather than a metaphysical one. — Justin1

OK, that's an improvement, but now we run into GE Moore's open question. How can you define Universal Perfection without using the term 'good', or 'perfect' which you haven't previously defined.
If we define this perfect universe with just a set of arbitrary conditions, then we've defined a particular universe, but not demonstrated that it is 'perfect'.
If we define it as the universe everyone would want most, then your 'should' term becomes meaningless because everyone is obviously desires this universe already.

What we need is some objective way of defining what 'good' is.

I suggest that for the purposes of this thread it is just assumed that Universal Perfection is realistically possible. — Justin1

Can I suggest that you do not even need this assumption. It is sufficient that things can get better or they can get worse, and one ought to move in the direction of better, even if perfection is never to be arrived at. Rather as one cleans the kitchen, knowing that the cook will immediately make a new mess; the goal is not that the kitchen be in a state of permanent cleanliness, but that the dirt is fresh.

Suppose that cosmos is made of species which they have conflict of interest, what is the best for one is the worst for another and vice versa. So the state of perfection is not reachable unless all other species except one are annihilated.

I agree that radical biological changes would be required, but not that all species except one would need to be annihiliated. Perhaps organisms could be engineered so that they all rely on inorganic liquids as a food source.

Thanks all for the great feedback. Based on it I have come up with two revised versions, a maximalist one and a minimalist one.

Maximalist Version

1. The concept of hope is an appropriate starting point for philosophy

2. Hope consists of a desire for an outcome and a belief in the outcome’s possibility

3. The best thing to hope for is a Universe that everyone would want most

5. The Universe that everyone would want most is Utopia

6. Hoping for Utopia entails striving for Utopia

7. Striving for Utopia provides grounds for assessing appropriate actions, beliefs and theories

8. In deciding what actions to take to realise Utopia, theoretical analysis, speculation and interpretation are essential

9. However, the objective of analysis is not to provide an indubitable foundation for knowledge or action

10. Rather, the objective of analysis is to provide a reasonable basis for actions, the efficacy of which is assessed by their effects on the progression towards Utopia

11. The point is not to interpret the world, but to change it.

Minimalist Version

1. The concept of hope is an appropriate starting point for philosophy

2. Hope consists of a desire for an outcome and a belief in the outcome’s possibility

3. Things can get better or they can get worse

4. It is best to hope for things to get better

5.Hoping for things to get better entails striving to make things better

6. Striving to make things better provides grounds for assessing appropriate actions, beliefs and theories

7. In deciding what actions to take to make things better, theoretical analysis, speculation and interpretation are essential

8. However, the objective of analysis is not to provide an indubitable foundation for knowledge or action

9. Rather, the objective of analysis is to provide a reasonable basis for actions, the efficacy of which is assessed by their effects on whether things get better

10. The point is not to interpret the world, but to change it.

10. The point is not to interpret the world, but to change it. — Justin1

Karl Marx's epitaph.

It's refreshing to see a new participant who has a positive attitude, rather than the more frequent nihilist drill. Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

We don't have to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I am not sure what "Universal Perfection means, though. Is Universal Perfection what is realistically possible? I would be quite happy if we just strove toward a good that is realistically possible, where people behaved reasonably well, if not perfectly.

Thanks for the welcome Bitter Crank.
I would define perfection as complete harmony and absence of discord. If you prefer a good that is realistically possible where people behaved reasonably well, refer to the "Minimalist version" in the post above.
Cheers

I have tendencies to entertain utopian ideas, but with good medication and regular therapy, it's under control. I would go for the maximal version, except for Kant's plank, "Nothing straight was every built with the crooked timber of mankind."

The thing that I most like about your scheme is that it calls for engagement (5.Hoping for things to get better entails striving to make things better). An abstracted, not-really-there approach is a losing strategy, typical of very negative thinkers who start from the position that we are going down the drain in the final flush.

One of the places one finds the abstracted, not-really-there approach is in some Marxist organizations who always inveigh against "reformist" activity of any kind. Odd that they should do that, considering Marx himself said the point was to change history, not just to understand it. "Of course, when they are the only Marxists in town (some small group of a dozen aging people in a town of 1 million) their role of keepers of the sacred flame is more important than their actually engaging in construction activity," he said sarcastically. (When I use the term "marxist" I am referring to political organizations, not to academics who consider themselves "marxists".) The academic marxists are a whole 'nother can of worms.

Your approach has the sunny disposition of St. Catherine: All the way to heaven IS heaven. Working towards the good is a fulfillment of the good.

Your approach is also good for those who are just hoping for survival, never mind even minimal utopia. For instance, throwing in the towel on global warming (and a dozen other environmental problems) adds to the likelihood of bad outcomes.

Question: can people be dynamic and attain "complete harmony and absence of discord"? As people change, discover new things, try out new approaches, abandon old approaches, etc. opportunities for discord arise. How does we attain perfect harmony and still allow for change? Must behavior become static?

Question: can people be dynamic and attain "complete harmony and absence of discord"? As people change, discover new things, try out new approaches, abandon old approaches, etc. opportunities for discord arise. How does we attain perfect harmony and still allow for change? Must behavior become static? — Bitter Crank

BC has a good question. Essentially, what is this utopia? Is it political harmony, personal harmony? Just like the Platonic forms, what is this perfection and what happens when you achieve it? The big existential elephant in the room is no one knows what the hell they are doing anything for. In the West, achievement (in economic activities, in hobbies, etc.) is a de facto answer. Don't stop to think about why the need to achieve, that's when the elephant appears quite starkly. You achieve, and then you need to achieve some more. Striving but for no particular goal. We exist so have to survive and entertain ourselves.

We exist so have to survive and entertain ourselves. — schopenhauer1

Entertaining ourselves--What a terrible chore! :D

Michael Ossipoff

The attainment of a goal or desire, Schopenhauer continues, results in satisfaction, whereas the frustration of such attainment results in suffering. Since existence is marked by want or deficiency, and since satisfaction of this want is unsustainable, existence is characterized by suffering. This conclusion holds for all of nature, including inanimate natures, insofar as they are at essence will. However, suffering is more conspicuous in the life of human beings because of their intellectual capacities. Rather than serving as a relief from suffering, the intellect of human beings brings home their suffering with greater clarity and consciousness. Even with the use of reason, human beings can in no way alter the degree of misery we experience; indeed, reason only magnifies the degree to which we suffer. Thus all the ordinary pursuits of mankind are not only fruitless but also illusory insofar as they are oriented toward satisfying an insatiable, blind will. — Schopenhauer article from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I think Universal Perfection could very well mean that there is no further change.
But I don't think that's going to happen for a long time (if it ever does)

Or course regrettably most people live like that.

I guess they want and choose to, and that's their business.

But they needn't. No one needs to. Not everyone does.

Since existence is marked by want or deficiency, and since satisfaction of this want is unsustainable... — Schopenhauer article from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Who says you need to sustain it?

All who discuss it agree that enjoyment or pleasure is fleeting. So what?

, existence is characterized by suffering.

...only if a person grimly and mechanistically and future-orientedly pursues his conceptualization of enjoyment, and unrealistically expects it to be perpetual, captured and preserved once and for all. As I said, it isn't necessary to live that way.

You know, you don't have to pursue enjoyment. Just act responsibly, ethically and considerately, and do the routine things needed to get by. Do you really believe that nothing enjoyable will happen or arrive if you aren't pursuing it?

...not that there's anything wrong with placing oneself in situations one likes, or doing things that one likes, or pursuing one's likes. Do you really believe that, when doing so, you have to be keeping score, awarding points, and measuring how long it lasts? There are things that a person likes, things that are interesting to a person. There needn't be a reason, purpose, meaning, goal or score.

Why make a big deal about it?

You talk about instrumentality, but there are things that you like for themselves. Instrumental living is for suckers. As everyone knows (but most seem to forget), tomorrow never comes.

What you and Schopenhauer are saying is a narrative--a verbal narrative (...and aren't they all).

Contrary to popular belief, verbal narrative has no relevance to experience.

You're talking about people grimly, future-orientedly and mechanistically chasing their concept of enjoyment and crying if they can't preserve it in a jar. They needn't live that way, but evidently they like to. To each their own.

As the cartoon character Zippy said, "Are we having fun yet?"

Michael Ossipoff

I think Universal Perfection could very well mean that there is no further change.
But I don't think that's going to happen for a long time (if it ever does) — Justin1

As I'm sure others have mentioned, there can't be agreement on what's perfect.

Let's be more modest and speak of adequacy instead of perfection

There might be an adequate societal world in another universe, another possibility-world.

Waiting for it here, or expecting it here, will only lead to disappointment.

Michael Ossipoff

Rather as one cleans the kitchen, knowing that the cook will immediately make a new mess; the goal is not that the kitchen be in a state of permanent cleanliness, but that the dirt is fresh — unenlightened

;) Nice!

What if the best thing realistically possible for you is not the best thing realistically possible for another?

The problem is you have to show why point 4 has merit.