Is utopia or perfection an impossible to reach ideal?

[Ren]

@dogman6126 You taking a side road is exciting! We thought we had dealt Utopia the final blow, and that all would be a tranquil cruise from then. So, in reaction to your message, let me ask you two questions.

First: what do you mean by theoretical possibility? If by this you simply mean that the concept Utopia is a logically sound one, I think everyone will agree, but this seems self-evident. I have reasons to believe you mean something more than that.

Second: with regard to Utopia being an actual possibility, how would you counter the proof I offered above? Looking forward to your response!

 

[dogman6126]

@dogman6126 You taking a side road is exciting! We thought we had dealt Utopia the final blow, and that all would be a tranquil cruise from then. So, in reaction to your message, let me ask you two questions.

First: what do you mean by theoretical possibility? If by this you simply mean that the concept Utopia is a logically sound one, I think everyone will agree, but this seems self-evident. I have reasons to believe you mean something more than that.

Second: with regard to Utopia being an actual possibility, how would you counter the proof I offered above? Looking forward to your response!

Hmmm....I should first say, sorry, I didn't read the thread. I was procrastinating at work when I commented here, lol. For your first question, it is along those lines, but with a little more umf. I would say there is nothing contradictory in the idea of a utopia, either in its own concept or in the concepts that are required to work with it for it to actually exist. For example, I think that a utopia, along with the idea of society, culture, life span development, ethics, etc. do not create a contradiction, at least as far as I can see. As for your second point, I think you are talking about this comment?

1. A Utopia is a perfect world.

2. A perfect world is a world made of perfect states of affairs.

3. States of affairs are not perfect by essence, but become perfect by being perfected through time.

4. Therefore, for a perfect world to exist, it would have to be made of states of affairs that have all become perfect.

5. But the world keeps presenting us with new states of affairs, which haven't attained perfection yet.

6. Therefore the world is not made only of perfect states of affairs.

7. Therefore the world is not perfect, and will never be.

8. Therefore a Utopia is impossible.

I would want to press premise 3 and conclusion 7. I would press three by pointing out that, if we are only limiting ourselves to conceivability arguments, then progression to the utopia is irrelevant. It is merely a question of existence in any case. If we want to talk about actual possibility, then this could be relevant. Even then I would try a counterexample like this. Suppose an alien race dropped down, scooped up a bunch of "ideal" people, and took them to a new world. This new world is outfitted with all the tech and societal structures required for a utopia, as these all knowing aliens understand them. This isn't derived by states of affairs progressing to perfection. As for 7, I have trouble with the "will never be" part. For all we know, new technological developments, like maybe advanced AI are what we need to create that Utopia. Since those never existed in the past, it is to quick to say it could never exist based only on the past.

I hope that's not to disappointing an answer! I meant my comment as more of a joke comment with a grain of truth to it.

 

[Ren]

Not disappointing at all! On the contrary, I welcome and enjoy objections to the proof. Let me attempt to defend it. You say:

Suppose an alien race dropped down, scooped up a bunch of "ideal" people, and took them to a new world. This new world is outfitted with all the tech and societal structures required for a utopia, as these all knowing aliens understand them. This isn't derived by states of affairs progressing to perfection.

I understand your argument, but aren't you begging the question when you speak of this new world as being outfitted with "all the tech and societal structures required for a Utopia"? It seems to me that in order to prove that Utopia is possible, you take the existence of Utopia (this "world outfitted for it, populated by all-knowing beings") as a precondition. In my conception, this ideal alien world would have to be subjected to the proof also. I don't think we can take the reality of the concept Utopia as equivalent to the existence of an actual alien world that has the features of a Utopia. But maybe you would distinguish a world "outfitted for Utopia" from an actual Utopia?

For all we know, new technological developments, like maybe advanced AI are what we need to create that Utopia. Since those never existed in the past, it is too quick to say it could never exist based only on the past.

Maybe, indeed. But if we conceive of the future as the "yet to be present", don't you think that advanced AI may guarantee the perfection of the present, but not of the "yet to be"? Do you think advanced AI might allow us to control the future, under all its shades of contingency, in such a way as to guarantee that all future states of affairs will be already perfect as they become actualised? I'm not sure, but I can't say you're wrong either. I would have to think more about this.

 

[dogman6126]

Not disappointing at all! On the contrary, I welcome and enjoy objections to the proof. Let me attempt to defend it. You say:


I understand your argument, but aren't you begging the question when you speak of this new world as being outfitted with "all the tech and societal structures required for a Utopia"? It seems to me that in order to prove that Utopia is possible, you take the existence of Utopia (this "world outfitted for it, populated by all-knowing beings") as a precondition. In my conception, this ideal alien world would have to be subjected to the proof also. I don't think we can take the reality of the concept Utopia as equivalent to the existence of an actual alien world that has the features of a Utopia. But maybe you would distinguish a world "outfitted for Utopia" from an actual Utopia?

I don't think I'm begging the question, but I am close. I don't mean to imply the world is already a Utopia, I mean to say that the pieces necessary for it are there. I identify what pieces are necessary by appealing to the logical consistency of the concept as related to the other concepts required for actual existence (same argument I used for theoretical possibility). So, I'm not taking its existence as a precondition. Rather, I'm taking it's possibility as a precondition. If there is no theoretical possibility, then my argument falls apart.

Maybe, indeed. But if we conceive of the future as the "yet to be present", don't you think that advanced AI may guarantee the perfection of the present, but not of the "yet to be"? Do you think advanced AI might allow us to control the future, under all its shades of contingency, in such a way as to guarantee that all future states of affairs will be already perfect as they become actualised? I'm not sure, but I can't say you're wrong either. I would have to think more about this.

I don't want to go for necessity with the AI example, only possibility. I'm using it as a case counter by concievability. It is reasonably the case that AI could grant the conclusion in your argument without the premise, just to counter the argument.

I think the umf of your argument is missleading. It looks like you try to represent an inductive inference as a deductive proof (given by conclusion 7, where I pushed at). It sounds like your argument functions more like this:

1. A Utopia is a perfect world
2. A perfect world is composed of a perfect state of affairs
3. Perfect states of affairs can only be reached by regular states of affairs becoming perfect.
- this allowed me to push with a case where the perfect state of affairs, in the context of humanity, was not the progression of regular affairs.
4. So, a Utopia can only be reached by regular states of affairs becoming perfect.
5. The world has imperfect states of affairs
6. So, the world is currently not a Utopia.

Now here, I think you're argument can go two ways. The first is weak, and is where I pushed with my second point on 7, but I think I just grasped your second direction.

7a. The world has been attempting to approach perfection, and has failed to do so
8a. If so, then the world could never reach perfection
- You might justify this by saying something like, the world has not been getting closer to being a Utopia, so there is no trajectory to suggest it is possible. Or you might say the world is asymptotically approaching perfection (harder to establish, but I might be sympathetic to that).
9a. So, the world could never reach perfection (Utopia)

Alternatively,

7b. The world continually introduces new non-perfect states.
8b. These states must all approach perfection from their non-perfect starting point
9b. If so, then there will always be at least one non-perfect state
10b. So, the world could never reach perfection (Utopia)
- argument by contradiction in premise 2

However, for this second one to work, I need to better understand how 9b works. Are these new non-perfect states introduced as discrete elements? If so, what is the rate they are introduced? At what rate can these non-perfect states reach perfection in an ideal state? Perhaps a Utopia is a world that fades in and out of existence as it deals with non-perfect states as they develop. I don't know....not really played with these arguments before....

Let me know your thoughts!

 

[infinite dreams]

Machine intelligence (programmed consciousnesses) could conceivably reach a state of perfect Utopian harmony.

Human beings? No way, no how, unless they're somehow genetically altered in such a way as to barely resemble human beings anymore. Way too many variables even between as few as two extremely like-minded individuals, to think that a state of zero- or near-zero conflict among an entire society could ever exist.

 

[Ginny]

I only skimmed the thread, so my idea is not "contaminated," sorry for the choice of words, it sounds way more negative than it is meant.

Using an epistemological approach, my idea was this:

Utopia is derived from the Greek εὖ-τόπος (eutopos) and οὐ-τόπος (outopos) [please disregard the accents, usually a Greek word only has one, hence the hyphen], and thus means simultaneously "good place" and "no place."

It is the idea of a place where everyone is happily coexisting, not in want of anything. But for everyone to live happily together, it would require (apart from the circumstances, so only from a societal stance, taking humans as they are now) sameness, in values and aspirations (there are probably more things I didn't consider). But the way we humans are wired, we tend to misbehave, to rebel, as we are attracted by difference. Everyone would have to be "good" in a "good" place, but this goodness would have to be indoctrinated and somehow enforced to keep all in line. Humans don't have an intrinsic knowledge of right and wrong, or good and bad, however you want to put it, it is leant and only manifests with the completion of the development of the frontal lobe during early adulthood.

It is this and especially the point of enforcement which make the system eventually impossible to acheive. Firstly, it would require humanity to evolve in such a degree that children are intrinsically born "good." (Plus, they'd have to have no curiosity, which is what drags the concept of original sin into this, not as a thing that happened, but the first conceptual human flaw.) Secondly, any system that needs enforcement is fundamentally flawes in that it needs enforcement in the first place. Furthermore, it is never balanced, treating infringements either too laxly or too harshly. The former requires the people to not want to misbehave, and the latter is what is the difference between Utopia and Dystopia.

I mentioned infringements, which means there must be laws. So, they would have to know what is bad in order to forbid it and to draw the line from good to bad. But isn't the only way to be "good" without effort an absence of badness? Isn't this also anothermeaning of Utopia, a place where badness doesn't exist? This would beg the question how there can be laws that draw lines between good and bad if they don't know what bad is, but only know good? This means that the place must only know good from the beginning of everything, and know no corruption, it must be isolated, it must be made.
Another possibility is that there are some few "incorruptible" people who know both good and bad, are taught good and bad, so they know for the other people what is bad to make and enforce laws. It would introduce an imbalance into the system, which is also likely to produce a Dystopia. And even looking ar the first possibility again, that made place must have been made by someone, who knows good and bad, but only taught good, which again begs the question how they never strayed from good.

What I mean to say is that this place cannot be inhabited by us, the curious rebels, who aspire to grow and always reach beyond the explored lines (no matter what lines). It is not in our nature to work peacefully in a hive-like system, at least not the way that we are and always have been since we became who we are now.

Well, obviously there are many more points to consider which I could branch out to from here, but I think I've made my point clear.

 

[Ginny]

An ideal, as opposed to Utopia, is aspirational, and doesn't require anything, nor does it mean that it can exist, or not.

Ideals represent IMO an aspiration towards improvement, and may retain some illusion of an aspiration towards perfection as well, but an ideal is just as unattainable as Utopia. But ideals are not delivering the illusion of attainable perfection, whereas Utopia requires it to exist.

And, what's more, perfection is differing from person to person. I consider perfection unreachable, because perfection is always considered as something presently out of reach. But human as we are, what is perfect is always reconsidered once it is obtained, because we are never fully content (at least not as a whole species, not all at once).

 

[Happy Phantom]

It’s a nice thought however I don’t think it’s possible if you are even somewhat intelligent. Some of the happiest, most content people I know aren’t that smart.

 

[Ginny]

It’s a nice thought however I don’t think it’s possible if you are somewhat intelligent. Some of the happiest, most content people I know aren’t that smart.

That's something I meant to get at, but I didn't want to offend anyone.

However, even dumb people can do bad things. Nonetheless, it definitely is a component. I probably should have some examples...

*think, think*...

Nope. Only dystopias come to mind, but they only worked because people chose to be submissive and weren't taught anything, or kept being drugged, or were always kept in a child-like stage of development, which primarily allowed any such submission to occur.

 

[Happy Phantom]

That's something I meant to get at, but I didn't want to offend anyone.

However, even dumb people can do bad things. Nonetheless, it definitely is a component. I probably should have some examples...

*think, think*...

Nope. Only dystopias come to mind, but they only worked because people chose to be submissive and weren't taught anything, or kept being drugged, or were always kept in a child-like stage of development, which primarily allowed any such submission to occur.

Agreed. Also human nature won’t allow it. Think apocalyptic event, or this.

Re: OP even if you moved to a remote island with essential items, an illness or injury will eventually occur, then what? Reminds me of Stephen King’s The Skeleton Crew (Survivor Type). “Cold roast beef.” lol

 

[Ren]

I don't think I'm begging the question, but I am close. I don't mean to imply the world is already a Utopia, I mean to say that the pieces necessary for it are there. I identify what pieces are necessary by appealing to the logical consistency of the concept as related to the other concepts required for actual existence (same argument I used for theoretical possibility). So, I'm not taking its existence as a precondition. Rather, I'm taking it's possibility as a precondition. If there is no theoretical possibility, then my argument falls apart.

I see now that you are indeed not begging the question with your reliance on possibility versus existence of Utopia as a precondition. I will pursue this, but let me first answer another part, as it will inform the argument further.

Alternatively,

7b. The world continually introduces new non-perfect states.
8b. These states must all approach perfection from their non-perfect starting point
9b. If so, then there will always be at least one non-perfect state
10b. So, the world could never reach perfection (Utopia)
- argument by contradiction in premise 2

However, for this second one to work, I need to better understand how 9b works. Are these new non-perfect states introduced as discrete elements? If so, what is the rate they are introduced? At what rate can these non-perfect states reach perfection in an ideal state? Perhaps a Utopia is a world that fades in and out of existence as it deals with non-perfect states as they develop.

Indeed, the alternative is what I was getting at in my original argument. Thanks for reformulating my proof in such a way as to make this more explicit. I see what you are getting at with the suggestion that these new non-perfect states might be discrete and (maybe) introduced at not such a fast rate, so that it might be workable to attain Utopia itself on a discrete basis, “fading in and out” as discrete perfection is attained, on and off.

For the sake of the argument, let us assume that new states affairs are introduced discretely, at such a slow place that that the “most recently actualised” state of affairs can be resolved into a perfect state before the incoming of a new, yet-to-be perfected state. Even then, we would be spending our lives most of the time in a world “in process of being perfected” rather than in a perfect world. And once perfected, the world would always be awaiting the occurrence of a new “de-perfecting” new state of affairs. So in a sense, the world would only be discontinuously perfect, or alternating between perfect and imperfect. But if this is the case, is this not enough to deem the world imperfect? A discontinuously perfect world seems to be a modest case for a Utopia.

Right now, my impression is that Utopia can only really be envisaged without our current conception of time and history factored into the equation. Which also means that a possible solution would be with reference to an alien world – the alien world to which you referred – that somehow exists “outside” the conception of time that we are (well, I am) currently taking for granted as weakening or negating the case of Utopia.

A timeless or “temporally alien” alien world as way towards a solution? Looking forward to your response.

 

[Ginny]

For the sake of the argument, let us assume that new states affairs are introduced discretely, at such a slow place that that the “most recently actualised” state of affairs can be resolved into a perfect state before the incoming of a new, yet-to-be perfected state. Even then, we would be spending our lives most of the time in a world “in process of being perfected” rather than in a perfect world. And once perfected, the world would always be awaiting the occurrence of a new “de-perfecting” new state of affairs. So in a sense, the world would only be discontinuously perfect, or alternating between perfect and imperfect. But if this is the case, is this not enough to deem the world imperfect? A discontinuously perfect world seems to be a modest case for a Utopia.

Right now, my impression is that Utopia can only really be envisaged without our current conception of time and history factored into the equation.

Do you think that it may be possible to have a utopian society if we got to one of those perfect states and then forgot about our past? It could be a factor that would help sustain that state, but our inherent curiosity would always make us repeat past mistakes, because we don't remember. On the other hand, our remembering past mistakes (which is what I was saying before) also is such a double-edged sword: we could strive towards improvement, but also be hindered in advancement due to there being people who succumb to "evil."

Which also means that a possible solution would be with reference to an alien world – the alien world to which you referred – that somehow exists “outside” the conception of time that we are (well, I am) currently taking for granted as weakening or negating the case of Utopia.

If there is an alien race interfering in our affairs, to make us become a utopian people, wouldn't it be the same as the enforcers I mentioned? We would have to be disciplined so we don't do bad things. But disciplining in itself can have a detrimental effect on our development, in the worst case ending in an uprising, destroying all the work that has been ongoing for God knows how long.
It depends on the perspective whether it can be called a utopian society, depening on the scope of your vision, whether it is known that we are governed by an alien race or if we are unknowing like lab rat (or something similar).
Once we know about Big Brother, it is not a utopian society anymore.


If we don't have a past, even then we wouldn't be able to reach Utopia, simply because of who we are. There will always be people who do something stupid, who think, dream. We will always want more.
We would have to not be human to be content in one state, doing the same thing every single damned day. We would have to exist under lab conditions, governed by an unknown force that keeps us happy from the outside, concealing itself as something we'd call "nature," secretly controlling everything we know and learn. We would have to barely have any instincts, for survival or procreation, because those are the things that lead us to do the dumbest of things. This is why we would need that unknown force, to keep us alive, and we would have to not question it, or the whole facade breaks down, because from the start, this Utopia is just an illusion we are fed so we don't question the system.

Edit: This sounds sooo paranoid. But as a species, this is what we do: we question everything, and that creates what we call progress.

 

[infinite dreams]

Edit: This sounds sooo paranoid. But as a species, this is what we do: we question everything, and that creates what we call progress.

Doesn't sound paranoid at all - it's the truth.

As to scenarios where some outside influence leads to changes that propagate a Utopian society - can a society be "Utopian" absent free will and the natural evolution thereof? I don't think it can but then I don't spend much time on the definition of "Utopia." So mileage may vary.

ETA: In fact I would label such scenarios "dystopian" - having many of the characteristics of a true Utopia but through bastardized means.

 

[Ren]

I like your messages @Ginny - they detail some concrete implications for human society which are somewhat lacking in my own posts (I'm not good at concrete). I will get back to you later today, I still have to pretend to be working at my job. Actually my NGO is kind of striving towards a Utopia of universal quality education, which is nice and pretty concrete. I should learn from that (but I never learn even from myself.)

 

[Ren]

If there is an alien race interfering in our affairs, to make us become a utopian people, wouldn't it be the same as the enforcers I mentioned? We would have to be disciplined so we don't do bad things. But disciplining in itself can have a detrimental effect on our development, in the worst case ending in an uprising, destroying all the work that has been ongoing for God knows how long.

What you're describing here definitely suggests dystopia not Utopia. But this is not quite the way I understood @dogman6126 's words. I think he meant that this alien race would not force us to be Utopian (this would be kind of contradictory) but rather offer us the means to achieve a world in which Utopia is at least partially realised. You are right to bring up the topic of their motivations: why on earth would they do that? But supposing that they would have a reason, I think the argument is still weak because new events would continue to stream in. There would be new state affairs to resolve, no matter how perfect the alien "equipment" provided ex ante to achieve a state of Utopia. When I suggested that he might be begging the question, I meant that ideally I'd like to have a solution to the creation of Utopia that doesn't refer in its premises to Utopia at all. But "an alien world that is equipped for achieving Utopia" does in a sense contain the conclusion within the premise, though there is then the distinction between actuality and possibility that salvages it somewhat. Oh no - I am becoming abstract again!

We would have to not be human to be content in one state, doing the same thing every single damned day. We would have to exist under lab conditions, governed by an unknown force that keeps us happy from the outside, concealing itself as something we'd call "nature," secretly controlling everything we know and learn

You are right, and this world would be horrible (and dystopian). But it would not actually be timeless, though. It would be simulated to feel timeless, by Big Brother or any other of the powers that be. The absence of a past you're talking about is not really an absence, it's more something like the eradication of historical records to make people feel like they have no past to hold on to. Whereas my point above was more along the lines of, "for Utopia to be possible it would have to be envisaged within an actually timeless world", a world in which "new events" no longer exist, in a way. Although I have a feeling that we could elaborate a lot more on what a "new event" is. Maybe it is possible to conceive of states of affairs that are felt as new by humans, but that are not actually additions to the substance of historical time.

"But as a species, this is what we do: we question everything, and that creates what we call progress". Indeed. Is Utopia even compatible with freedom? I want to say yes, because a Utopia without freedom can't be a Utopia, surely; and yet freedom will always push the perfection of Utopia beyond itself by questioning it. I've a feeling that our investigation is far from complete! So much the better!

 

[Ginny]

I've a feeling our investigation is far from complete!

Me too, and I'm looking forward to the collective ideation

What you're describing here definitely suggests dystopia not Utopia

Yes, it always starts in my head as a possible Utopia, but it always ends up being negative every time I start the simulation in my head. It's just always this combination of smart and dumb people which throws off any balance there might be. I don't know how I manage that, I'm not usually pessimistic.

Maybe it is possible to conceive of states of affairs that are felt as new by humans, but that are not actually additions to the substance of historical time.

Could you elaborate on that?

 

[dogman6126]

I see now that you are indeed not begging the question with your reliance on possibility versus existence of Utopia as a precondition. I will pursue this, but let me first answer another part, as it will inform the argument further.



Indeed, the alternative is what I was getting at in my original argument. Thanks for reformulating my proof in such a way as to make this more explicit. I see what you are getting at with the suggestion that these new non-perfect states might be discrete and (maybe) introduced at not such a fast rate, so that it might be workable to attain Utopia itself on a discrete basis, “fading in and out” as discrete perfection is attained, on and off.

For the sake of the argument, let us assume that new states affairs are introduced discretely, at such a slow place that that the “most recently actualised” state of affairs can be resolved into a perfect state before the incoming of a new, yet-to-be perfected state. Even then, we would be spending our lives most of the time in a world “in process of being perfected” rather than in a perfect world. And once perfected, the world would always be awaiting the occurrence of a new “de-perfecting” new state of affairs. So in a sense, the world would only be discontinuously perfect, or alternating between perfect and imperfect. But if this is the case, is this not enough to deem the world imperfect? A discontinuously perfect world seems to be a modest case for a Utopia.

I agree, it isn't all of what is hoped for when people thinking of Utopia, but I don't think this difference breaks the definition. Even if it is discrete/temporary, I think that utopia is state dependent, rather than time dependent. To explain, if you want to say that Utopia fading in and out is bad, then it would be due to one of three reasons. 1. It's not a Utopia because it didn't start as a Utopia, 2. It's not a Utopia because it ceased being a Utopia, or 3. It's not a utopia because it wasn't a Utopia at first and ceased being a Utopia later. I think we can reject one, because that would necessitate Utopia's never existing, and I think we can reject two because we can conceive of things similar to Utopia's, like Dystopias, and recognize that those can cease existing. Both could case if an asteroid suddenly obliterated the society. I think three can then be rejected on the basis of the first two.

Right now, my impression is that Utopia can only really be envisaged without our current conception of time and history factored into the equation. Which also means that a possible solution would be with reference to an alien world – the alien world to which you referred – that somehow exists “outside” the conception of time that we are (well, I am) currently taking for granted as weakening or negating the case of Utopia.

A timeless or “temporally alien” alien world as way towards a solution? Looking forward to your response.

I don't think I understand what you mean by "exists 'outside' the conception of time". If you mean because you want to connect time dependency to your definition of Utopia, then I addressed that in the above section. If you mean just disconnected history, then I don't think that's a problem in either case. I don't think being connected to history prevents Utopian development, and neither do I think that lacking a connection to history would prevent it. I could see arguments for why one or the other might be harder, but neither create necessity as far as I can see.

Really, I think the mere fact of a Utopia existing at all, even for an instant, would be enough to grant that Utopia's can actually exist. It's like virtual particles in physics. They may exist only for an instant (assuming QED holds), but that limited existence proves actual possibility in case.

Do you think that it may be possible to have a utopian society if we got to one of those perfect states and then forgot about our past? It could be a factor that would help sustain that state, but our inherent curiosity would always make us repeat past mistakes, because we don't remember. On the other hand, our remembering past mistakes (which is what I was saying before) also is such a double-edged sword: we could strive towards improvement, but also be hindered in advancement due to there being people who succumb to "evil."

It's a cool idea :wyotethumb:

If we don't have a past, even then we wouldn't be able to reach Utopia, simply because of who we are. There will always be people who do something stupid, who think, dream. We will always want more.
We would have to not be human to be content in one state, doing the same thing every single damned day. We would have to exist under lab conditions, governed by an unknown force that keeps us happy from the outside, concealing itself as something we'd call "nature," secretly controlling everything we know and learn. We would have to barely have any instincts, for survival or procreation, because those are the things that lead us to do the dumbest of things. This is why we would need that unknown force, to keep us alive, and we would have to not question it, or the whole facade breaks down, because from the start, this Utopia is just an illusion we are fed so we don't question the system.

Edit: This sounds sooo paranoid. But as a species, this is what we do: we question everything, and that creates what we call progress.

I think this is too restrictive an idea for Utopia. I don't think the state you're describing is necessitated by "the human condition". Rather, I think it's just a common result. Although, I am an optimist

What you're describing here definitely suggests dystopia not Utopia. But this is not quite the way I understood @dogman6126 's words. I think he meant that this alien race would not force us to be be Utopian (this would be kind of contradictory) but rather offer us the means to achieve a world in which Utopia is at least partially realised. You are right to bring up the topic of their motivations: why on earth would they do that? But supposing that they would have a reason, I think the argument is still weak because new events would continue to stream in. There would be new state affairs to resolve, no matter how perfect the alien "equipment" provided ex ante to achieve a state of Utopia. When I suggested that he might be begging the question, I meant that ideally I'd like to have a solution to the creation of Utopia that doesn't refer in its premises to Utopia at all. But "an alien world that is equipped for achieving Utopia" does in a sense contain the conclusion within the premise, though there is then the distinction between actuality and possibility that salvages it somewhat. Oh no - I am becoming abstract again!

Good summary, that's exactly my intention. And about the "salvages it somewhat" part, gotta say, you're right . There's a bit of philosophic hand waving going on there, haha. You can see that it isn't begging the question more so by seeing that even if the alien race gave us the proper set up and tools, it's still possible, in my argument, for a Utopia not to develop. The key is I'm saying it is merely possible that it would show up. If I was truly begging the question in this case, I think it would establish necessity.

As for a reason, maybe the aliens are interested in an experimental application of our very debate. They might merely have a scientific interest if our species is capable of developing into a Utopia.

You are right, and this world would be horrible (and dystopian). But it would not actually be timeless, though. It would be simulated to feel timeless, by Big Brother or any other of the powers that be. The absence of a past you're talking about is not really an absence, it's more something like the eradication of historical records to make people feel like they have no past to hold on to. Whereas my point above was more along the lines of, "for Utopia to be possible it would have to be envisaged within an actually timeless world", a world in which "new events" no longer exist, in a way. Although I have a feeling that we could elaborate a lot more on what a "new event" is. Maybe it is possible to conceive of states of affairs that are felt as new by humans, but that are not actually additions to the substance of historical time.

"But as a species, this is what we do: we question everything, and that creates what we call progress". Indeed. Is Utopia even compatible with freedom? I want to say yes, because a Utopia without freedom can't be a Utopia, surely; and yet freedom will always push the perfection of Utopia beyond itself by questioning it. I've a feeling that our investigation is far from complete! So much the better!

I do want to talk about the kind of Utopia we mean, and maybe that will address what I've not addressed directly. I think we could talk about Utopia in more than one way. Perhaps we could mean individual Utopia, where everyone lives perfect lives, and societal Utopia, where the society is perfect. I feel like the former would be much harder to attain, but the latter would allow for some of the wiggle room I'm looking for in the direction I'm pushing towards. For example, perhaps the imperfect states that continually develop, as @Ren suggest could be constrained to one level or the other. This would then make one or the other type of Utopia more reasonably possible, and maybe practically as well.

 

[Ginny]

I do want to talk about the kind of Utopia we mean, and maybe that will address what I've not addressed directly. I think we could talk about Utopia in more than one way. Perhaps we could mean individual Utopia, where everyone lives perfect lives, and societal Utopia, where the society is perfect. I feel like the former would be much harder to attain, but the latter would allow for some of the wiggle room I'm looking for in the direction I'm pushing towards. For example, perhaps the imperfect states that continually develop, as @Ren suggest could be constrained to one level or the other. This would then make one or the other type of Utopia more reasonably possible, and maybe practically as well.

I never thought about it being either one or the other, because to me it has to be a whole. You mean to actually split Utopia into two kinds of quasi-utopian states just to make it possible? Because one rules out the other, which makes the whole impossible? Or do you really think that there isn't one all-encompassing Utopia?

 

[Ren]

@Ginny I think it's not so much that Utopia would be split up into two quasi-utopian states, but rather than Utopia could be interpreted in two different ways (according to @dogman6126). But whether you choose the path of 'individual' or 'societal' Utopia, what you get is still Utopia as a whole as far as each interpretation is concerned.

It's really about how we decide to define Utopia. Which is a worthy question, in my opinion. Even this notion of "perfection" is in a sense quite vague.

 

[Ginny]

@Ginny I think it's not so much that Utopia would be split up into two quasi-utopian states, but rather than Utopia could be interpreted in two different ways (according to @dogman6126). But whether you choose the path of 'individual' or 'societal' Utopia, what you get is still Utopia as a whole as far as each interpretation is concerned.

@dogman6126 said as much, but to me these two interpretations make it quasi-utopian because they are mutually exclusive. Besides, in what way would it be interpretations? It ought to work both ways to be "perfect." Or am I wrong? If so, please explain how and why.