We should realize that arrival at the perfect Utopia is not very probable, but it remains the only truly worthy goal.
— Chet Hawkins
Just so. — Vera Mont

I think it is probably better to aim for a possible optimum than assume an ideal. Once an 'optimum' is reached the situation can then be reassessed.

On the flipside I would disagree with what I said in terms of personal goals but stick firmly to it if attempting to apply to society at large.

I think it is probably better to aim for a possible optimum than assume an ideal. — I like sushi

What's the point of aiming for a compromise? If you want to go to Hollywood, you don't set your sights on Flagstaff and plan to reassess. If Flagstaff is as far you can get - well, it's not a bad town.... may, in fact, be better than LA. But if Flagstaff were your intended destination, you might only get to Albuquerque. Why not aim for the ultimate - even though you may have to settle for whatever you can reach?
Is there a theoretical or philosophical ideal? Yes; in fact, several, and they're remarkably similar. The reason it's called Nowhere is that it is assumed not to exist in a real time and place. It's an ideal. That's what you aim for, the standard against which you measure your actual accomplishment.

Why not aim for the ultimate - even though you may have to settle for whatever you can reach? — Vera Mont

You are less likely to kill people reaching for something that is impossible and less likely to justify their deaths by claiming to be holding to some utopian ideal.

By all means search for whatever inner utopian ideal you wish, but do not assume anyone else wants it nor that they would welcome it - that is the thrust of my point.

That's what you aim for, the standard against which you measure your actual accomplishment. — Vera Mont

Speak for yourself. Keep it to yourself too :) If everyone was walking around trying to be Buddha/Jesus/Mohammad/Whatever, I have strong reasons to believe the world would quickly become a dystopia.

On the flipside I would disagree with what I said in terms of personal goals but stick firmly to in if attempting to apply to society at large. — I like sushi

Changing society at large ... Have you already managed to pull off one, single change to society, no matter how small?

If not, then why do you expect to be able to do that in the future?

Choosing another society that has the desired change already, is much more realistic.

Dozens of millions of people have done it already. Doing so also requires some effort, but at least it is feasible.

I personally manage to avoid the top ten obnoxious annoyances on my own list of desiderata just by living in SE Asia instead of the West.

The West is slated to become even more obnoxious in the future but it won't be my problem. Isn't that a more realistic way of building your own utopia?

Changing society at large ... Have you already managed to pull off one, single change to society, no matter how small? — Tarskian

I warned against anyone trying to do so and am against anyone trying to do so. I am against Hitlers and Pol Pots who put plans in action for their own personal utopian ideal.

Understand?

By all means search for whatever inner utopian ideal you wish, but do not assume anyone else wants it nor that they would welcome it - that is the thrust of my point. — I like sushi

These are never individual endeavours. If you read the Utopian literature, you'll find that a lot of people, in different times, have had similar ideal societies. (Huxley's was a rather tiresome, but even so....)

As for killing people - -- what the actual.....? Any Utopian worth their salt knows that ends don't justify means; the means determine the ends.

If everyone was walking around trying to be Buddha/Jesus/Mohammad/ — I like sushi

If Christians tried to behave like Jesus, they would feed one another, not execute them. If Muslims tried to behave like Muhammad, they'd be a lot more disciplined and circumspect in their actions. And if a lot of Asians really tried to be like the Buddha, that might be a nicer continent, too.
(They didn't, we haven't - people just yell at one another about what their religious figureheads demand, while grabbing whatever they can for themselves - and the world is pretty dystopian already.)

Any Utopian worth their salt knows that ends don't justify means; the means determine the ends. — Vera Mont

The road to hell ...

If Christians tried to behave like Jesus, they would feed one another, not execute them. — Vera Mont

My point is they would fail and know they are failing. Imagine a world of people walking around thinking they are the saviors of humanity. I do actually think they would be more likely to execute one another (albeit by the hands of others maybe) than feed to support each other.

I warned against anyone trying to do so and am against anyone trying to do so. I am against Hitlers and Pol Pots who put plans in action for their own personal utopian ideal. — I like sushi

I think that the truth about Nazi Germany is even worse than that.

Hitler was merely good at voicing what a large number of Germans were thinking already. If Hitler hadn't done it, someone else would have. Nowadays, they conveniently blame Hitler because the German people were supposedly innocent bystanders. They damn well know that they weren't.

Of course, there is another complication. The Versailles treaty was indeed quite unfair to the German Volk. So, not all their complaints were necessarily far-fetched. So, at least part of the problem was actually caused by the French desire for excessive vengeance.

Even the German animosity against the international Jewry did not come completely out of the blue. The Balfour Declaration led the Germans to suspect that the Rothschild clan had somehow managed to throw Germany under the bus. That was, of course, still not a reason to blame that on all the Jews.

https://www.rothschildarchive.org/family/family_interests/walter_rothschild_and_the_balfour_declaration

Beginning in 1916, the British hoped that in exchange for their support of Zionism, “the Jews” would help to finance the growing expenses of the First World War, which was becoming increasingly burdensome. More importantly, policy-makers in the Foreign Office believed that Jews could be prevailed upon to persuade the United States to join the War.

If the Rothschild family was indeed instrumental in dragging the Americans kicking and screaming into world war I, then they did indeed throw Germany under the bus.

Their wikipedia page admits that the Rothschild family had been instrumental in funding the British victory in the Napoleonic wars but does not confirm their involvement in getting the Americans to join the war on the allied side in WWI.

Imagine a world of people walking around thinking they are the saviors of humanity. I do actually think they would be more likely to execute one another (albeit by the hands of others maybe) than feed to support each other. — I like sushi

That's what they did, and are doing. But not because they're trying to behave the way Jesus is fabled to or according to his advice; it's because they're trying to channel Jehovah. Their promised land in post-mortem. The Utopian ideal is a high-functioning, happy society on Earth, where people and the environment can thrive. It can only be approached by small incremental improvements, not massacres.

The Utopian ideal is a high-functioning, happy society on Earth, where people and the environment can thrive. It can only be approached by small incremental improvements, not massacres. — Vera Mont

I do not think it ever pans out like that. Incremental steps toward an impossible ideal are leaps compared to shooting for a better future. The measuring stick for an unreachable goal is infinite.

The measuring stick for an unreachable goal is infinite. — I like sushi

If you believe it to be unreachable. And yet, in order for the traveler to keep striding, the horizon has keep receding. "This still sucks, but it's as good as we can expect." really isn't enough.
Besides, when progressives actually manage to effect improvements, there are always regressives trying to tear it down, so there's always plenty to do.

I was suggesting "optimal" not "ideal". By all means strive for betterment. It is the idea that someone believes they know what the best is that irks me.

It is the idea that someone believes they know what the best is that irks me. — I like sushi

Yes, I get that. It's like someone believing they know what's 'optimal', but they don't specify any metrics or benchmarks. The ideal, like the optimal, is just a big picture that we try to colour in, one tile at a time, coherently, instead of throwing random pigments at the bits we don't like at a given moment.
I think we have a similar vision, couched in different terms.

Stop with the strawman, schop. My counter argument emphasizes the following
As daoists, epicureans, pyrrhonists, spinozists, absurdists et al know first-hand: humor & creativity, friendship & compassion also provide "relief" during the often tedious intervals between "sleep and death". — 180 Proof

Actually we seem to agree on this, though you would be hard put to say so because you seem like discord over agreement in your posts, and you seek it out in the most aggressive ways possible.

That's the basis of my "Communities for Catharsis" and "fellow-sufferers of compassion" notion. You can ask more about if you want, but it seems like you don't care nor have the empathy to even understand, so carry on with the discord :mask: :mask: :broken: :death:

Yeah, like e.g. "anti-natalism" (i.e. destroying the village (h. sapiens) in order to save the village (h. sapiens)) – I agree, schop. After all, "suffering" isn't a "problem to solve" but rather an exigent signal to adapt one's (our) way of life to reality by preventing foreseeable and reducing — 180 Proof

Now you are just reflexively trying to counter anything I say and strawmanning them in the worst possible terms to for cheap rhetorical point scoring :roll:. One must read charitably before one tears down. You've barely done that.

:lol: Whatever, man.

@Vera Mont Hopefully this will outline more or less my position: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72cPmjSOpgo

Okay. You have a certain set of assumptions about humans. Mine are slightly different, and my idea of a good society - one that aspires to incremental improvement in the life of every individual - certainly doesn't include brainwashing. Nor is there any reason for a good society to operate on a single model. If you're not happy and you're free to leave, I suppose there would have to be an alternative community to join that's closer to your ideal. There is no reason a number of communities with different organization and living arrangements should not co-exist.
Of course, as previously noted, this presupposes a considerable reduction in population. That's not something I advocate - that's something I predict.

Mine are slightly different, and my idea of a good society - one that aspires to incremental improvement in the life of every individual - certainly doesn't include brainwashing. — Vera Mont

That was an example of how everyone would be happy. the simple truth is people are different and as long as they are different utopia is impossible - hence clones or forcing conformity.

In no way shape or form are humans alike enough to inhabit - en masse - a singular society. If they choose to leave then it is clearly not a utopian society. This is why I was a little puzzled by Nozick using the term 'Existential Utopia,' which I take he means as an amalgam eventually resulting in a more or less homogenous society - but this would be just a progressive creeping towards the death of individualism in favour of conformity (albeit cloaked in its approach).

Mine are slightly different, and my idea of a good society - one that aspires to incremental improvement in the life of every individual - certainly doesn't include brainwashing. Nor is there any reason for a good society to operate on a single model. — Vera Mont

I think the general outline of the term Utopia is far more than merely a 'good society'. The push and pull between individualism and state authority is the biggest hurdle for utopian ideals. They all effectively resort to enforcing policies through the general will of the population, which results in (what seems to be) necessary division in any given society.

Note: I have not finished Nozick's chapter on this yet so many he will offer up something interesting.

Philosophical pessimism, as I have laid it out, encourages the development of communities based on real understanding and support, rather than superficial optimism. — schopenhauer1

And then calls doing so malignantly useless?

Changing society at large ... Have you already managed to pull off one, single change to society, no matter how small?
— Tarskian

I warned against anyone trying to do so and am against anyone trying to do so. — I like sushi

This seems a bit extreme to me. I see education as something that changes society, but I'm not against education.

It is the extreme I am against. If someone believes they have an idea that can alter society 'at large' then they are peddling some form of ideology. I do not care how good the outcome they are hoping for is I just know it will not come to fruition how they expect.

No one is a prophet, they just play at being a prophet. Just because we remember those whose faulty predictions seem to have played out roughly as they said they would, this does not discount the hundreds of others who appeared to have had equally valid arguments but whose forecasts turned out to be completely wrong.

There is no 'Social Science' in anything but name. When people forget this horrific things happen.

And then calls doing so malignantly useless? — wonderer1

The word used was "encourages" not demands or implores. Rather, if one is feeling isolated, lonely, and the only one suffering, it may be best to communicate this in a communal way with others feeling the same way.

THAT it is malignantly useless, doesn't mean we are thus malignantly indifferent to it.

The word used was "encourages" not demands or implores. Rather, if one is feeling isolated, lonely, and the only one suffering, it may be best to communicate this in a communal way with others feeling the same way. — schopenhauer1

So what if participation in such a community results in someone no longer feeling isolated, lonely, and as being the only one suffering? Would that person still be able to contribute to the community or would they need to persist in seeing themselves as the only one suffering to be recognzed as a member of such a community?

So what if participation in such a community results in someone no longer feeling isolated, lonely, and as being the only one suffering? Would that person still be able to contribute to the community or would they need to persist in seeing themselves as the only one suffering to be recognzed as a member of such a community? — wonderer1

The suffering wouldn’t be from being isolated, but rather it would be discussed communally without being gaslit, distracted from it, or ignoring it, facing it and recognizing it communally. If procreation stands as a political action for suffering in the name of X projects, this is political action against it.

It is the extreme I am against. If someone believes they have an idea that can alter society 'at large' then they are peddling some form of ideology. I do not care how good the outcome they are hoping for is I just know it will not come to fruition how they expect.

No one is a prophet, they just play at being a prophet. Just because we remember those whose faulty predictions seem to have played out roughly as they said they would, this does not discount the hundreds of others who appeared to have had equally valid arguments but whose forecasts turned out to be completely wrong.

There is no 'Social Science' in anything but name. When people forget this horrific things happen. — I like sushi

I couldn't agree that there is no social science, although I'd likely agree that there is a 'fuzziness' to the 'objects' of social science, which is considerably different than the fuzziness of objects studied in physics. It seems to me that consideration of social science (or at least pseudo social science) plays a big role in philosophy. Of course social science on its own is a huge area of study, and we can't really expect anyone to have a complete understanding of all the subjects involved.

In any case it seems that you are opposed to is something I would think better labeled as social engineering.

That's the basis of my "Communities for Catharsis" and "fellow-sufferers of compassion" notion. — schopenhauer1

And yet consistent with your (Ligotti's) defeatist premises that's still a MALIGNANTLY USELESS "notion", no? :smirk:

... if one is feeling isolated, lonely, and the only one suffering, it may be best to communicate this in a communal way with others feeling the same way. — "schopenhauer1

Yeah, of course, because (like in cults, asylums, prisons, marriages) misery does love company. :mask:

Of course, as previously noted, this presupposes a considerable reduction in population. That's not something I advocate - that's something I predict. — Vera Mont

:up: :up:

"Utopia?"

a post-scarcity, philanthropic AGI-managed (automated), sprawl-free municipality (arcology) — 180 Proof

Yeah, of course, because misery does love company. :mask: — 180 Proof

You should know!

That was an example of how everyone would be happy. the simple truth is people are different and as long as they are different utopia is impossible - hence clones or forcing conformity. — I like sushi

Why would people drag 'happiness' into social organization? Whether a person is happy or sad, grumpy or cheerful, bluff or dour, sociable or reclusive is entire personal. You can have personalities, proclivities, preferences and moods under any political system. What a good, or optimal or utopian society does is prevent people damaging, oppressing and exploiting one another; provide a means of settling disagreements, make sure every child is cared-for, nourished and educated, take care of the sick, injured and feeble, then allow its members to pursue their own path to happiness.
(Incidentally, the snapshot of happiness my mind invariably throws up is of three men fixing a tractor. There are other pictures, like a 10-year-old bringing home an A on a complicated science project and a young mother showing off her baby. Assuming physical and mental health, I don't see why the things and situations that make us happy need to be incompatible.)

The push and pull between individualism and state authority is the biggest hurdle for utopian ideals. — I like sushi

Yes. It's an obstacle, just as long as egalitarian, democratic means of participation in "the state authority" is not available to all citizens.

In no way shape or form are humans alike enough to inhabit - en masse - a singular society. — I like sushi

What is a singular society? We currently have a number of countries where large numbers of individual have been able work out a system that accommodates most, and that could include all but the most aggressive and greediest - since they're the ones hogging the resources.
This is one basic assumption about humans on which you and I disagree. All living things have needs in common; all members of a phylum have even more in common; all members of a family have even more in common; all members of a species are more like one another than they are like any other species. The natural (not culturally induced) differences in taste, ambition and temperament are so superficial that any well managed social group (such as a labour union, sports team, men's benevolent association, congregation, knitting circle or community garden) can accommodate them.

If they choose to leave then it is clearly not a utopian society. — I like sushi

Why can a good society not consist of many communities? All the bad ones and okay ones do.

The suffering wouldn’t be from being isolated, but rather it would be discussed communally without being gaslit, distracted from it, or ignoring it, facing it and recognizing it communally. — schopenhauer1

Long ago I was fortunate to be part of a community along such lines, although these days I get such needs met through talking with individual friends. Anyway, I'll PM you, because a public forum isn't a very good place for discussing such things.

I wouldn't know, mister sad sack, because I'm not very sociable anymore and yet, absurdist bluesman that I am, for decades I've been growing more cheerful with age. Memento mori et memento vivere. :death: :flower: