"You may say I'm a dreamer..."

[gall]

Hate to break this to you but utopia is the same as distopia...

In either there is always a group that does not agree and is left out or persecuted more than others.

There is NO perfect world in which peace and harmony will always exist.

Rather than even waste time with that sort of dream why not dream of a place that we can all get along in that doesn't require we conform to a one specific set of utopian or dystopian ideals.

The books 1984, and A brave New World tell the same story in two different ways. One could be considered utopia the other dystopia. I would not want to live in either of those worlds.

I know this is not a popular view but this is how I see it. Neither of these things can yield growth for the human race. Both are just systems of control disguised as something else.

I may call it a utopian desire, but I'll admit that is perhaps an imperfect definition of my intention. I understand that, especially within my own lifetime, I wouldn't expect even 1/4 of the population to accept even the most refined, educated, open minded and peaceful of ideologies, but I really do have a deep passion to try. Even I can just unlock the higher rationalities and cultivate a nature peace and love in just a handful of individuals, I would be satisfied, but only just barely.

Now whenever I talk about this type of thing I quite often get compared to 1984, or a verity of dictators, including most recently Hitler when I thoughtlessly mentioned that I wanted a "new world order" of sorts -- a scary image pops into people's head with ideas like that.

That's really nothing near what I'm after. I'm after gross national happiness, practical and at least somewhat comprehensive education, and a sense of hope and prosperity for all... I often get criticized for these desires require something of a passion for "radical reform". I am just simply dissatisfied with following the way the world tells me to go.

My biggest problem at this point (at least that I can find from self inspection) is a lack of deep wisdom, and a bit of social grace. I probably shouldn't call my desires utopian or a "new world order". I just recently began to interest myself in philosophy. I've just always noticed that in time, humanity always tends to do the right thing. Civil rights alone have made dramatic advancements in the last 500 years, quite obviously. Why shouldn't we be able to make at least significant advancements in education, peace, and prosperity in equal time???

Again, you may call me a dreamer, but perhaps I really "hope" I'm not the only one.

You are not the only one.

I promise. I don't use hope often but when I do I hope for peace and educational advancement for all human kind.

Still gonna plan for the worst while hoping for that best though.

[JoeSzymborski27]

I don't feel like typing a detailed response at the moment, but I have been engaged in a project of similar aim in recent years, though not particularly focused on that subject of late. I, however, conceive of the root cause of the problems you wish to address differently, and consequently view your approach as essentially useless. To my view, the matters in question are consequences of the specific way the human mind works, and as such, there are deep reasons why things are the way they are. To me, the cause is less 'what we think' than 'how we think', and so any solutions aimed at addressing questions of the content of human thinking is going to be ineffective and aiming at the wrong target.


Maybe I'll say more later. Or, maybe not.

I'm a bit turned off by your claim that my view is useless, because the funny thing is I agree with you. Sure some things may just be wrong, but it's how we perceive reality and what we do about it that matters. Our brains have incredible neuroplasticity and I one can be trained simply to think differently about thinking, then we might be able to get somewhere

[bennyboy]

Joe, I'm with you.

The difference is between the average person, and the "extreme" person. The average person can't really have a clean mind, or find peace. I think it takes either an unusual person, or very unsual circumstances, for a person to let go of the habitual thought patterns that piggyback on instinct. So over the whole population, only x% of people are ever really going to do that.

However, I very much believe that each individual has the chance to shed the monkey brain instincts, or subjucate them to the intellect, or whatever. ALL kinds of success leave someone in the top 1%: wealth, athletics, art, whatever. And people accept all those pursuits as valid.

And here's the clincher, for me. If you look at wealth, many MORE people are very wealthy than used to be. Many MORE people can run a 4-minute mile, or a 2.5-hour marathon, than used to. Many MORE musicians can play the hardest piano music with perfect technique and also deep emotion. There's no reason to think that all these successes can't be mirrored by an improvement in the way people think about life.

That bell curve moves very slowly, but I think the WAY people choose to think is evolving faster than the mechanism of thought. So the top 1% will always be separate from the rest-- but the normal guy can be where the top 1% USED TO be. And that's very encouraging.

[Aractus]

Aractus, thank you for your input as well. I have heard such a stance before. As with the handful of the leading American scientists, 83% of them are atheist or strongly agnostic, which leaves 17% of them with a personal god Of sorts. While I can appreciate freedom of religion, within my own search I have found absolutely no place for especially the Christian Bible's depiction of a God. Which leads me to pose the difficult question, not why 83% of leading physicists and biologists are atheist, but why 17% aren't, including your Australian fellow's example?

Now without a detailed personal background and psychological evaluation I can only infer a few theories. But I consider it largely to be a remnant of social tendency/cultural tradition. I mean of course there is the rather tired idea that if the gentleman were a physicist reigning from India, yet were still a leading astrophysicist, he would be incredibly likely to believe a quite seperate creed (and I've witnessed many leaders in feilds of science to be spiritual Hindus).

Now I appreciate the attempted connection between science and faith, but a lengthly scientific resume and great track record for producing leaders and their advisors does nothing to prove the faith based creed itself. Quite honestly to me it demonstrates what is wrong with our way of thinking perfectly.

That isn't the point that I was trying to make.

In fact, there's a range of people at our church. For instance, there's a couple that are both doctors - yet I don't think either of them have in their entire lives seen the inside of a Mercedes or BMW, they live more simply than I do, and although they've never - ever - said anything, it is clear to me that they must practise philanthropy because their "wealth" certainly doesn't go towards their lifestyle.

[Jiggerj]

What I'm getting at is a desire for... A new type of thinking. A type of rational discourse with which to create a sense of hope, love, morality, charity, education and peace WITHOUT the requisite of a mutually exclusive deity or set of beliefs. Something which any open mind can adopt to help make the world a more equal planet.

All good stuff you wrote, Joe. Unfortunately, when we think about improving humanity we always fail to take into account exactly what it means to be human (meaning that we cannot change what we are). The following is not negative or pessimistic; it just is what it is.

From the very first time man picked up a rock and used it as a weapon, please name for me a weapon that we've created where we've said, "This weapon is too dangerous, so we will never use it."

From spears to chemical and biological weapons, and the atom bomb, we have used everything in our arsenal. There is absolutely NO reason to believe that we WON'T kill ourselves off.

Mankind is greedy, lustful, warlike, selfish, ignorant, hateful, and intolerant. We want what we want and we don't care who or what we destroy as long as our needs are met. Sure, we make an effort to make it sound as though we care, but we don't.

If we cared we wouldn't be creating and burying nuclear waste that renders the ground unusable for 100,000 years. If we cared we wouldn't be sucking the earth dry of all its natural resources. If we cared we wouldn't be raping the forests to put up more houses. If we cared we'd stop fishing out the oceans for five years before we eat everything in them.

[Angrboda]

Nirvana fallacy.

[bennyboy]

Nirvana fallacy.

Stop just saying "fallacy" after things. That's a semantic fallacy.

[Angrboda]

Nirvana fallacy.

Stop just saying "fallacy" after things. That's a semantic fallacy.

Non sequitur.

[freedomfromforum]

So, Joe....

You like to write....

Right?

I'm more of a reader

[Cato]

What I'm getting at is a desire for... A new type of thinking.

No shit! My kids are 26 and 23. They both tried the 'new type of thinking' on me. Funny thing was, their new type of thinking required me to coddle them beyond the age of 18 (something that I did as long as they were continuing education).

You may call it secular humanism, and it may dip into a verity of already existing philosophies. In fact, I'm sure such a rationale is already in existence. But I want to ask you all what you think about such a cause.

Jesus tits! Verities of existing philosophies? Rationale already in existence? This entire paragraph of non-essential language, when all you had to ask was, "what do you thing of secular humanism". See how efficient that was?

Firstly, have you heard of something closely aligned with my agenda before? What might you label this philosophical suggestion as?

I find it a little odd that you start your third paragraph with "Firstly". Also, you have claimed no agenda, yet implore me to comment about it. If you have something to say, say it. Don't vomit random words and expect consideration. The subject-verb-predicate lessons we were to have learned as youths actually have application.

I was going to parse the remainder of your comment; however, it became a bit inane.