A utopian society, or more generally, a utopian universe is not possible.

The answer to this question is spiritual, however, and not rational. Any attempt at giving a rational answer will overstep the boundaries of the tool of rationality and therefore fail.

If you cannot accept a spiritual answer, you will instead have to keep rebelling against the absurd and eventually fail.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Various possible responses to deal with absurdism and its impact have been suggested. The three responses discussed in the traditional absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd.

You can achieve peace, first of all, by rejecting every rational answer to this question. Next, you can pick a spiritual answer which adequately appeases your need to know; which you never truly will anyway.

A society without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death.

The angle of my question is not aimed at the human obstacles of achieving such a civilisation or whether it’s technologically possible but rather whether it’s philosophically possible. — kindred

Philosophically, it is possible. I know that our default response is it is not. But humans have had a time of innocence and ignorance -- albeit briefly. Freud's theory of the id, the ego, and the superego explains this.
With just the id, we achieve the pleasure similar to the utopia. But then the ego, intervenes and exposes us to the outside world.

philosophically possible. — kindred

An imaginary community run by philosopher-kings?

What would Joy feel like without pain — kindred

Joy, because it is not necessary to have or risk pain in order to feel joy. There's no such connection, which is good, e.g. you can use your ability to feel joy in otherwise painful situations as a means to survive. But it can also be misused and result in disaster, such as in Chicken Run

What did Milan Kundera say? You create a utopia and pretty soon you’ll need to build a small concentration camp.

Part of the problem with utopian visions is that people differ in what they believe should be in scope. One man’s utopia is another man’s stifling authoritarian state.

Emphatically NO!

This is because it is like asking for white to be black OR black to be white. If either were the case neither would exist. The kind of utopia many hope for essentially culminates in annihilation of everything as a 'solution'.

... without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death. — kindred

Suitable for flora but not fauna.

For this reason I don’t think Utopia is possible as life is about opposites ying and yang otherwise it would just be all yang and without ying. All black or all white. But what do you think ? — kindred

As long as suffering exists, life itself is a questionable endeavor- hence the Pessimists (and antinatalists) position. You will find no other philosophy so reviled, misunderstood, and scorned, yet still true.

What is questionable is wanting to continue suffering and calling it good and most perplexingly, necessary. All the ethical talk after this claim is just excuses. What are the implications if this world cannot in theory, be a utopia, let alone in practice? The best people got is variations of “no pain, no gain”. Knowing how it works doesn’t confer any more goodness to it. It’s simply coping, sometimes by excusing, but it shouldn’t be confused with having a legitimate justification. Shit still smells bad even if it’s put in the context of the necessary part of eating. The fact that shit helps grow food, doesn’t dismiss that it causes other problems like disease, etc. Knowing context doesn’t change the facts on the ground. It just reminds me of the aliens trying to convince you that everything is ok, and that they are trying to cook FOR you, not actually cook you. As long as you get tricked just enough for long enough to continue and even procreate, it’s working just enough for long enough for its continuation.

You will find no other philosophy so reviled, misunderstood, and scorned, yet still true. — schopenhauer1

Hallmark belief of a religious cult.

But what do you think ? — kindred

By definition a utopian society is impossible, otherwise it is not utopian anymore. But that doesn't make for an interesting argument. If you want to argue instead that an idyllic, harmonious society is impossible, carry on.

Hallmark belief of a religious cult. — Lionino

Like the Cult of the Grinning Martyrs?

You will find no other philosophy so reviled, misunderstood, and scorned, yet still true.
— schopenhauer1

Hallmark belief of a religious cult. — Lionino

:up:

Philosophically, it is possible. — L'éléphant

Philosophy cannot replace spirituality.

In fact, philosophy causes a lot of damage whenever it tries.

What the poor and other people in desperate situations need most of all is faith and hope. As long as they have faith that there is still hope, they will keep going. If you manage to take that away from them, you are effectively destroying them.

Philosophy was not meant to give hope to the hopeless struggling at the bottom of society. It does not do that because it cannot do that.

When philosophers try to overstep the boundaries of the tool of rationality and try to replace spirituality by philosophy, then they become a threat to the very survival of society and especially to the survival of its poorest and most vulnerable individuals.

:up: — 180 Proof

If someone gives Trump a thumbs up, must mean he’s right :roll:.

“Cant deny the rightness of a statement is determined by someone agreeing with someone else with a thumbs up”

“Whoever smelt it dealt it”
-Plato

Philosophy cannot replace spirituality. — Tarskian

What do you mean by "philosophy"and "spirituality" – what makes them fundamentally different?

NB: Greco-Romans of the Hellenistic era practiced their philosophies (Epicureanism, Stoicism, Neoplatonism, etc) as ways of life consisting of "spiritual exercises" (P. Hadot).

???

”Is a Utopian society possible?”

The angle of my question is … whether it’s philosophically possible.

What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death? — kindred

By philosophically possible I take you to mean theoretically or rationally possible.

I don’t think it is theoretically possible to even imagine this life without pain or deprivation or suffering. These things are part of existence. So any possible Utopia would have to incorporate responses to these as they arise (as opposed to eliminating them). Like instead of never feeling hunger, you would be able to find good food available when hungry; instead of no pain, you would be able to get good medical attention when hurt, etc.

So we would need technological advances and political advances, but most of all, true humble service and charity and compassion towards others to build and live in a Utopia.

But sure, it’s philosophically possible. If all 8 billion of us wanted to, we could decide to stop lying, stop stealing, stop assaulting, stop killing, stop hating and judging, stop oppressing - we have that in our bag of theoretically possible tricks. But none of us care that much, or love that much, or trust others that much, and all of us judge others too harshly, and make ourselves feel better or safer by putting others down or oppressing or killing them.

So a Utopia is probably ONLY theoretically (philosophically) possible.

What do you mean by "philosophy"and "spirituality" – what makes them fundamentally different? — 180 Proof

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/members/sigs/spirituality-spsig/what-is-spirituality-maya-spencer-x.pdf

What is spirituality? A personal exploration
Dr Maya Spencer
Royal College of Psychiatrists

Spirituality involves the recognition of a feeling or sense or belief that there is something greater than myself, something more to being human than sensory experience, and that the greater whole of which we are part is cosmic or divine in nature.

Religion formalises certain aspects of spiritual awareness into a coherent belief system that can be taken on trust, even if the person has no direct experience of the Divine.

Usually religion is manifest as a collective through church, mosque, synagogue or temple, and is involved with community as much as with individuals. This provides a real framework through which the ‘greater than me’ can start to be experienced.

What are the implications for mental healthcare? Patients consumed by anxiety or dulled by depression have little scope to cultivate a spiritual path when they are under the sway of distorted thoughts endlessly being repeated over and over in their minds. These thoughts are mistaken for facts.

Unlike philosophy, spirituality is not related to rational inquiry. Spirituality is a non-rational tool to stimulate survival instinct by connecting to something that is greater than ourselves and which is divine in nature. Philosophy is not meant to do that and therefore cannot replace that. Unlike spirituality, philosophy is not meant to assist with mental healthcare.

A society without pain, suffering, disease, wars, poverty or even death. — kindred

Without pain - no; so long as biology and physics prevail, biological entities equipped with a nervous system cannot avoid some pain. A good society would inflict as little pain as possible and alleviate as much of the unavoidable pain of its members as possible.

Without suffering - unlikely. The word is poorly defined in the first place; one 'suffers' unrequited love, boredom, nightmares, halitosis, bone cancer, the prattle of fools... so many natural human experiences are described as suffering.

Without disease - again, unlikely in an organic world. A good society would develop protocols and methods to deal with disease, so that it causes the least possible damage.

Without wars - sure. A single society need never go to war within itself. In a good one, the possibility would not even arise. However, if there is a second society, which isn't very good, that casts a covetous eye on the territory or resources of the peaceful society, war may be unavoidable.

Without poverty - easy as pie. A good society divides its pies, loaves, pickled herrings and apples equitably. There is no natural cause for poverty: if humans don't create it, poverty can't exist.

Without even death - no. Sorry: dying is an inherent attribute of life.

whether it’s philosophically possible. — kindred

Sure. Where do you suppose we got the concept and the word?

What would Joy feel like without pain, what would riches mean without poverty or what would health mean without sickness. What would life mean without death? — kindred

Everything an animal experiences is real. Lust, comfort, affection, hunger, relief, loss, confusion, joy...
It doesn't need a meaning; it just is. If humans didn't twist their brains around purpose and meaning and the deeper whatever, their life would be easier.

To live in a society where we were incapable of experiencing such things as unhappiness, sadness, pain would be the same as being colour blind to the complete palette of human emotion of what truly makes us human. — kindred

That's not what Utopia is. Utopia is just a country where you can live, be happy, sad, silly, creative, responsible, angry, competent, honest, amorous or whatever combination of traits, abilities, moods and potentials you are, without other people bullying you, taking your stuff, forcing their beliefs on you, refusing you help, or preventing you from making your best possible contribution to the welfare and happiness of your neighbours.

To live in a society where we were incapable of experiencing such things as unhappiness, sadness, pain would be the same as being colour blind to the complete palette of human emotion of what truly makes us human — kindred

Let me break this down in terms of priorities. Physical pain may be significantly reduced with medical advances, and perhaps even immortality is a conceivable possibility. But of all forms of suffering, I suggest the most profound is emotional pain, and this is a result of social conflict. Can we eliminate this source of suffering? Perhaps not completely, but we can make enough progress in understanding each other that we can make a huge dent in the frequency and intensity of experiences like anger and guilt. What makes us human is our creative capacities, and this does not requires that our mood colorations include intense feelings of suffering. Those are not a function of what it means to be human, but only reflect a stage in our development

With just the id, we achieve the pleasure similar to the utopia. But then the ego, intervenes and exposes us to the outside world. — L'éléphant

I think the opposite is the case. The more id -like, the more suffering ensues ( fear, rage, etc). The more effectively the primitive id is guided by anticipative sense-making, the better we are able to avoid profound emotional pain.

That's not what Utopia is. Utopia is just a country where you can live, be happy, sad, silly, creative, responsible, angry, competent, honest, amorous or whatever combination of traits, abilities, moods and potentials you are, without other people bullying you, taking your stuff, forcing their beliefs on you, refusing you help, or preventing you from making your best possible contribution to the welfare and happiness of your neighbours. — Vera Mont

I had a prior post that went over these two notions of utopia- a sort of metaphysical one and hedonistic one...

1) Schopenharian utopia. God could have created a world whereby there was no "need" for anything. All of creation was perfectly fulfilled in everyway so that it was like a nothingness Nirvana state of non-being. No lack of anything. No need for anything. This can only be imagined from afar, as we don't know what that really is as people living in a universe that is certainly not this state.

2) Common utopia. God could have created a world whereby we still had needs, but they could be met whenever we wanted. We could turn the dials to make it harder if we get bored, turn it back if we want to go back to easy mode. There is no suffering in the "want" sense of the word. We still "lack" but those desires can be fulfilled easily, without tension. Everyone is harmonious in their actions. There is no struggle.

But then here we come again to the "all too human" aspect that struggle is somehow "what makes us human and what makes life worth it". I contest this fully and wholeheartedly as being a gaslight-y kind of answer. That is to say, if you can't beat them, join them. That is to say, obviously, if we don't kill ourselves, we have to accept that this world with it's struggles has to be good enough. The struggles instead of being "an evil" are incorporated as "necessary" to make us "grow" or to make us "appreciate the good", etc. But what if these are just post-facto excuses for a less-optimal world that we cannot control? What if these are simply psychological justifications that we broadcast over and over the generations to make sure people don't get resentful?

What is questionable is wanting to continue suffering and calling it good and most perplexingly, necessary. — schopenhauer1

As you and I know, no one is really motivated to pursue suffering for its own sake. One endures suffering and hope it leads to a reward, a release from suffering. Is suffering necessary? If we aren’t motivated to suffer for its own sake , what does motivate us? I suggest placing an interpretation over life to make sense of it is its own motivation. An interpretation aims to make sense of things by bringing order to chaos, flattening and covering over discord and contradition. The buddhist notion of a compassionate, loving no-self is an example of how the fundamental desire for an a unifying interpretation produces an ethical stance of non-ego.

What about the pessimist-antinatalist view? The desire for non-being is just as much a unifying interpretation as any life-affirming doctrine. The pessimist-antinatualist wills the perfect and pure living thought of non-existence, and tries to live over and over through this thought, this vital organizing interpretation. The thought requires suffering in that it can only appear as a resistance to , or escape from the chaos it addresses. The weakness i see in the pessimist’s living interpretation of non-being is that it can’t apply its ordering scheme to enhance an understanding of human behavior, so it lives in a state of resignation, depression and self-imposed suffering.

As you and I know, no one is really motivated to pursue suffering for its own sake. One endures suffering and hope it leads to a reward, a release from suffering. Is suffering necessary? If we aren’t motivated to suffer for its own sake , what does motivate us? — Joshs

What about the pessimist-antinatalist view? The desire for non-being is just as much a unifying interpretation as any life-affirming doctrine. The pessimist-antinatualist wills the perfect and pure living thought of non-existence, and tries to live over and over through this thought, this vital organizing interpretation. The thought requires suffering in that it can only appear as a resistance to , or escape from the chaos it addresses. — Joshs

Well, you kind of answered the first part with the last part of your post. Why the need for motivation? You well know the Schopenhauerian insight into dissatisfaction. One is always playing a game that one did not and cannot choose. Accepting suffering is just the default because we have not killed ourselves. I don't see a problem with understanding this "unifying interpretation". Resistance, catharsis with fellow-sufferers, empathy with fellow-sufferers, and not unjustly putting others in the game of suffering seems to be the best course based on what is the case. Acceptance can be said to be the Lie for the Conspiracy to continue. Indeed procreation is political, as one is force voting for another that suffering IS INDEED necessary (for others to play out), just as you do. See, don't you like the suffering game? As long as it doesn't get too much in the red (which it often does for many people), it's great to have obstacles and then overcome them! Yay!! We are so arrogant in our hubris, not giving any pause to if the game should be played at all, if it is just to begin with. If perhaps acceptance isn't just a farce coping mechanism perpetuated down the ages..

One is always playing a game that one did not and cannot choose. Accepting suffering is just the default because we have not killed ourselves — schopenhauer1

Who is this ‘one’? Schopenhauer made the mistake of thinking the ‘I’ who wills as a metaphysical subject. But the ‘I’ , and with it the world it makes sense of, changes its meaning completely , but subtly, every moment. You are not the same you from moment to moment , so blaming whoever came before ‘you’ makes about as much sense as blaming the you of yesterday for your current woes. You have a chance to start over again with each tick of the clock, because it s a subtly different you and a subtly different world. The question is what are you going to do with that opportunity? I happen to think that the concept of non-being is a metaphysical chimera, a notion of death as pure nothingness that we invented and used as either a source of threat or comfort. But it is a human-invented illusion which only exists when we summon it as a thought. And when we summon it, it is fraught with suffering because built into the concept is a reminder that we currently fail to achieve what it promises. Imagine killing yourself , only to pick up right where you left off, with all your sufferings, questions, imperfects, but without the memory of your past history. I think something lien that is closer to the case than the metaphysical notion of pure nothingness. Them d of peace you’re looking for in the metaphysics of pure nothingness can only be found by getting in tune with the continual flow of change. Transcendence of suffering is an active, dynamic achievement that must be continually repeated. It’s about discovering the unities, patterns, relations in the flow.

God coulda this, god coulda that... No, he bloody couldn't, because God doesn't exist!

But what if these are just post-facto excuses for a less-optimal world that we cannot control? What if these are simply psychological justifications that we broadcast over and over the generations to make sure people don't get resentful?

It doesn't matter whether people are resentful or grateful, happy or miserable; the world is what it is. Whether you make up excuses or justifications for why this is the right way for it to be, or rant and rail against a cruel universe, this is what you have to cope with. Some of us are lucky enough to experience more pleasure than pain, or, indeed, very little hardship at all - and these lucky ones are most likely to tell the less fortunate to bear their burdens gladly; that some divinity has a plan for them, if only they persevere and look for the silver lining, keep the faith, whatever.

Each person can, in some way, however small, make their little bit of the world less awful, less miserable, less frightening - for themselves and others. Some have prodigious talents, resources and opportunities to make a bigger portion of the world better for many of his fellow organic entities. If people pooled their talents, resources and opportunities, they could create something very close to the fabled human-based Utopia.

God coulda this, god coulda that... No, he bloody couldn't, because God doesn't exist! — Vera Mont

I think you missed the entire idea behind #1.

If people pooled their talents, resources and opportunities, they could create something very close to the fabled human-based Utopia. — Vera Mont

I think Schopenhauer's point is that something akin to a Hegel-Marx materialist solution to human dissatisfaction is itself misguided. And by this I don't mean a specific system whereby it ends in a communist society, just the Salvation-Through-Economics/Government aspect. But yes, we can try.

Who is this ‘one’? Schopenhauer made the mistake of thinking the ‘I’ who wills as a metaphysical subject. But the ‘I’ , and with it the world it makes sense of, changes its meaning completely , but subtly, every moment. You are not the same you from moment to moment , so blaming whoever came before ‘you’ makes about as much sense as blaming the you of yesterday for your current woes. You have a chance to start over again with each tick of the clock, because it s a subtly different you and a subtly different world. The question is what are you going to do with that opportunity? I happen to think that the concept of non-being is a metaphysical chimera, a notion of death as pure nothingness that we invented and used as either a source of threat or comfort. But it is a human-invented illusion which only exists when we summon it as a thought. And when we summon it, it is fraught with suffering because built into the concept is a reminder that we currently fail to achieve what it promises. Imagine killing yourself , only to pick up right where you left off, with all your sufferings, questions, imperfects, but without the memory of your past history. I think something lien that is closer to the case than the metaphysical notion of pure nothingness. Them d of peace you’re looking for in the metaphysics of pure nothingness can only be found by getting in tune with the continual flow of change. Transcendence of suffering is an active, dynamic achievement that must be continually repeated. It’s about discovering the unities, patterns, relations in the flow. — Joshs

My only suggestion from the View of Pessimism is as I laid out in another thread:
@Tom Storm asked me for my response to the problems of modern secular philosophies (like humanism/hedonism/economics as religion/and existentialism..even Nietzschean nihlism):

I am wondering what his response to my response is. Never heard back :).

1) We must see "what is the case" first:
a) This means, seeing the inherent and contingent forms of suffering of life.. The dissatisfied nature of the animal psyche, and the more magnified version of the human psyche with its degrees of freedom, choice, and self-reflection.
b) This means recognizing that the human is metaphorically "exiled" from the Garden of Eden. Unlike other animals, our degrees of freedom mean that we know we have choices, and deliberation, and we know that we know. Technically, we don't have to do anything, including life itself (suicide) or procreation. And this "seemingness" (at the least) of choice, means we don't necessarily move about unthinkingly by instinct, reflex, but by largely deliberative means. An extra burden.

2) We must proceed in the world with the recognition of "what is the case".
a) That means seeing other humans as fellow-sufferers. Imagine the power dynamics of survival. How would this look played out in various institutions of business management for example? In government? In homelife? For friends? For strangers? Follow it through...
b) Communities of catharsis. It would be easier to vent, complain, as a community. Instead of pretending that the next mountain hike, or the puttering in the garden, or House of God Worship session, or Netflix show is the answer, we understand what is going on here with each dissatisfied response and inherent lack.
c) Antinatalism.. The ultimate recognition that no one else should go through this, that it is not just/right to unnecessarily harm others, put them through the existence of suffering/harm/what is the case. That you enjoying a mountain hike or Netflix or gardening, or academic journal reading, or going over a paper on symbolic logic, thermodynamics, theoretical physics (this is for the PF crowd of course :)) or going to work and doing that project means someone else is forced into life. Follow the logic of the illogic of procreation and projecting one's own positive projects, whilst creating negative consequences for ANOTHER.

EDIT: You must understand, if you find the Pessimist framework I lay out as "Wrong", it doesn't matter, because you are ALREADY in the (de facto) optimist framework of the situatedness of the society your were PROCREATED into and are now following, and moving about in. The Pessimist is just saying that we should question THIS framework- the one we are de facto buying into, and to STOP the perpetuation of this framework. So if you are AGAINST the Pessimist framework, you are then for "anti-anti-current framework", which means YOU are advocating FOR something yourself (this framework, and its goodness/rightness/perpetuation, even unto others). So YOU have a position too, even if anti-anti-framework position... Game YES or Game NO, you still have a position, no matter what, about the game.

God coulda this, god coulda that... No, he bloody couldn't, because God doesn't exist! — Vera Mont

This merely means that you cannot make use of spirituality to address deep mental anguish.

If you ever happen to need it, it will not be available to you.

If a society as a whole could survive without spirituality, the history books would definitely mention it.

They don't.

Hence, that is a hell of a gamble.

On the other hand, people are certainly free to think like that. Every misbehavior tends to be its own punishment. That is why there is no compulsion in religion.

Sorry. Yes, I think what you outline holds water pretty well.

b) Communities of catharsis. It would be easier to vent, complain, as a community. Instead of pretending that the next mountain hike, or the puttering in the garden, or House of God Worship session, or Netflix show is the answer, we understand what is going on here with each dissatisfied response and inherent lack.

I find this particularly interesting. How this might work.

I've often thought that a key reason people contrive families is to be distracted by an interactive domestic soap opera.

If you could wave a wand an never be born, would you wave that wand?

I think you missed the entire idea behind #1. — schopenhauer1

Which was? This can't happen, so why bother thinking about it?
So why bother responding to it?

But yes, we can try. — schopenhauer1

We could. It's harder now we've overcomplicated and pissed on everything, but I guess we could try.

Your response here is one of the more arresting things I have read here for a while.

But the ‘I’ , and with it the world it makes sense of, changes its meaning completely , but subtly, every moment. You are not the same you from moment to moment , so blaming whoever came before ‘you’ makes about as much sense as blaming the you of yesterday for your current woes. You have a chance to start over again with each tick of the clock, because it s a subtly different you and a subtly different world — Joshs

And yet people feel they can't start again because they are on a loop. Habits seem to become compulsion. How do we work with this? (Perhaps the last quote from you below is what you are suggesting?)

I happen to think that the concept of non-being is a metaphysical chimera, a notion of death as pure nothingness that we invented and used as either a source of threat or comfort. But it is a human-invented illusion which only exists when we summon it as a thought. And when we summon it, it is fraught with suffering because built into the concept is a reminder that we currently fail to achieve what it promises. Imagine killing yourself , only to pick up right where you left off, with all your sufferings, questions, imperfects, but without the memory of your past history — Joshs

I am assuming this holds if you believe that we are on some kind of eternal cycle. And/or that death is not the end. But if there is a loop we pick up again, doesn't this suggest being is ongoing and consistent in some way? A ceaseless cycle of boredom and suffering. Are you hinting at a Nietzschean solution to recurrence?

Transcendence of suffering is an active, dynamic achievement that must be continually repeated. It’s about discovering the unities, patterns, relations in the flow. — Joshs

That's an exciting notion. Can you say more about this but locate your answer around a tentative example or two?

This merely means that you cannot make use of spirituality to address deep mental anguish. — Tarskian

No, it means you don't need the deep mental anguish in the first place; you're imposing it on yourself for no good reason.

If a society as a whole could survive without spirituality, the history books would definitely mention it.
They don't. — Tarskian

Because history wasn't written until after people had been imprisoned by agriculture, walled cities and stratification of society.

Every misbehavior tends to be its own punishment. That is why there is no compulsion in religion. — Tarskian

Racks, disembowellings, beheadings and pyres in the public square notwithstanding... you're a free agent. Good to know.