|
Post by Ryan on Mar 25, 2010 20:45:43 GMT -5
I beg to question: if you were president of the world (hypothetically of course) would you not be unequal to everyone else in the world? While surely under your system poverty (and probably hunger) would cease to exist, but does that make the world perfect? What scale would you use to judge the quality of someone's work? How do you compare the quality of a landscaper's work to that of an IT professional. I know people who do both, and they work the same amount, but how would we globally recognize and rate the quality of every single job possibility imaginable? What if a new job were formed? then you would have to add a quality ranking system.
So I continue to question; how, if at all, can humans come to live in a truly perfect world?
|
|
|
Post by swan on Mar 25, 2010 21:04:27 GMT -5
That reminds me of something I was thinking of the other day about how when a company outsources its work to a third world country, the workers often get paid very little due to the amount of people looking for work. I thought maybe it would be a good idea for some organization like the UN to establish a world wide minimum minimum wage that would apply to all UN countries. It would essentially set the lowest possible minimum wage worldwide, but some countries (if they wanted to) could have a minimum wage that was higher but not lower. Theoretically it would help keep third world citizens from being taken advantage of and increase world wide economic equality. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Johncoyne on Mar 25, 2010 21:30:10 GMT -5
Perfection is impossible. No one is perfect. Everyone has flaws. No one is Chuck Norris (besides the Norris himself). I love it when people say that they want world peace and they go argue with someone. World peace implies that there is no fighting. At all. Without fighting, what is the world? The world without fighting is like... well... damn. I need a good analogy.
If you don't feel like reading that, I said that perfection is impossible. Perfection means no fighting. The world would be pointless without varied opinion and fighting.
|
|
|
Post by iwishiwasincollege on Mar 25, 2010 21:46:47 GMT -5
Ending Poverty and Hunger would not by itself make the world perfect. There are also issues of corruption and violence. Corruption could be solved with complete government transparency. It's great that we have things like CSPAN, but there should be a host that interprets in common language that an everyday american can understand what exactly is going on in the world, locally, nationally, and world wide, especially when it comes to government spending and new legislature. In this way, the general public can monitor and ensure the motives of their politicians. To end violence, we should create Peace Education for people to further understand the psychology, philosophy, and sociology that hurting others ultimately hurts ourselves. Surely I haven't thought of a solution for everything, but by implementing these policies I've suggested and other similar ones, I am completely certain that a world wide utopia is possible.
Oh, and as for how to compare the quality of a landscaper's work to an IT professional. Many economists already create formulas for these things everyday, and we could easily evolve these formulas to be more symbolic of a person's actual contribution to society. Instead of what we currently do which is allow the wealthiest people to decide their own pay rates. The wealthiest person basically goes and says, "ok, so i'll take 99% of the revenue and you can have some gas money. k? thanks."
|
|
|
Post by iwishiwasincollege on Mar 25, 2010 21:54:25 GMT -5
Having different opinions and arguing is a good thing. In fact, its perfect! It means that we're not zombies and that we all have different, unique opinions. Arguing and fighting are completely different things. Philosophers argue, but savages fight.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Mar 25, 2010 23:26:15 GMT -5
I will not argue that having different opinions and arguing is a good thing. I love it, without it I would never get new ideas, and would not improve my mental self. I would argue against the fact that it's perfect.
If the world was perfect there would be nothing to argue over. So surely arguing cannot be perfect if it is not part of a perfect world.
I do agree with your distinction between arguing and fighting (words is at least 1 letter more efficient than swords)
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Mar 26, 2010 10:11:29 GMT -5
Why are we so concerned with perfect? Ultimately, there is no universal standard for being perfect. That being said, a person's ideas and definitions of what perfect is are developed through their (and perhaps other) societies definitions and individual interpretation. Therefore, if the ultimate determinate for perfection is individual interpretation (which it must be, because you ultimately have to decide what you believe and think), everyone can be perfect, they just simply have to think and believe they are (and consequently, it is possible for everyone else to be "wrong"). In the same respect, the world can be perfect (for the individual, which is really all that matters, and if you say that is not true, that you are selfless in doing things for other people, do you not derive pleasure in knowing that you are helping others, and is that pleasure not what keeps you going?), the individual just has to believe and think it is. There seems to be a lot of misinterpreting definitions. What people are arguing as "perfection" can more readily be defined as "equality." If your idea of perfection is equality, then the argument makes sense, but make sure you define it that way. After all, I don't think that stratification in social class is a bad or imperfect thing. In fact, it is because of this division that I can do the things I want to, that I can have the opportunity for the kind of life I want to lead. And if poverty in other area's of the world means I get to live a life of opportunity, then I thank those other people for their gift. Perhaps it is selfish of me, but who's to make the judgment that being selfish is a determinate for perfection?
To try and head off any moral debate with respect to religion, consider each of the three major western religions. In each, the God is jealous and wants all people to follow Him/Her. And yet the believers still hold them in the realm of perfection. Their actions sound pretty selfish to me.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Mar 26, 2010 10:15:22 GMT -5
If you haven't read Plato's Republic, you might like it. Pretty much he says what it would take to create a perfect world, and it starts with killing anyone over the age of 11, because they are "corrupted."
The ruler would have to be a philosopher king, there would be strict classes based on intelligence and talent, and children would not know their mothers, because knowing the mothers creates bias. Everybody is a big ol' happy family.
That's the VERY summarized gist of it, anyway.
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Mar 26, 2010 10:23:43 GMT -5
But is there not bias even in a family? I would wager that bias is unescapable, regardless of how hard you try. And in having a class system, are you not automatically creating bias and conflict? If that were the case, then wouldn't it be a self defeating structure?
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Mar 26, 2010 11:45:33 GMT -5
Nope, because there's this "noble lie" they have to tell to every class that prevents that. He says that the people are born of the same mother but made of different metals, thus naturally separating them. It's a lie, but it's necessary to maintain the classes, which are necessary to maintain a society that can remain stable.
And by not knowing who your child is, you have less bias towards certain children. Of course you'll like some more than others, but nothing would equal the natural affection of a mother to her specific child. A man is matched to a woman for breeding, and breeding only. Pretty much, it's eugenics.
Read the book, it's really good.
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Mar 26, 2010 12:13:48 GMT -5
I understand your point and I will add the book to my list. I guess my only other question, at least right now, would be if the different classes would be valued differently? Does Plato offer a solution for countering the competitive side of people (between both the classes and the people within one class)? All people have a competitive nature, or in other words a Will to Power (see Nietzsche "Beyond Good and Evil"). Even within a class there can be competition. I care very deeply for some of my best friends, and even would venture to say that I love some of them, but I still compete with them and evaluate myself against them. Some I rank as better or more accomplished in some areas and I am more accomplished in others. There are even some who I would say surpass me, for now. I just don't think that people would be capable of always being considered the lesser, and just as there are power struggles in the tightest knit groups, and as there are power struggles between my friends and I based on contradicting views, I can see the same thing happening with this idea. So what am I missing?
I guess the other example I can think of is in religion. The big 3 western religions all promote love within the in-group, and even towards the out-group, and not trying to offend anyone, but the basis of each of them could be considered to be a noble lie, and I still see both internal and external conflict, even on a very small scale. It seems like almost a social rule that groups of people aren't capable of always getting along, a rule that strengthens with the number of people added to the group. And based upon the seemed view of perfection (which I don't agree with, but for the sake of the argument I will use it), if everyone is not getting along, then things aren't perfect.
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Mar 26, 2010 12:29:43 GMT -5
Well that's why to start this society you'd have to kill everybody off that's older than 11. They're raised so that they don't know any other kind of world.
Plato himself says this perfect world can't exist, because these requirements could never be carried out by the corrupted, selfish creatures we call man.
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Mar 26, 2010 12:43:49 GMT -5
But the claim you (or I guess Plato) is making is that corruption, i.e. competition, is taught. That I disagree with. I view all animals as being in a state of competition, and not all animals have the previous generation to teach it to them. Therefore, if these assertions are indeed true, competition must be innate, and so even if we killed off everyone over 11, the "problem" would still persist.
P.S. I don't think selfishness is always a bad thing (see my earlier posting on this thread). Sometimes I think it is required in order to be anything worth-wild. A "perfect" world it seems would be one without independent thought, but then what would be so great about existing?
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Mar 26, 2010 13:32:53 GMT -5
Haha I never said I agreed with Plato. I'm on your side. I'd never want to live in a world like that. ;P
There is still competition, though, I never said that there isn't. There's competition within the classes themselves, not between the classes.
But, he does eliminate the problems that corrupt our world. I'm no expert on the book, so like I said, you'll have to read it yourself.
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Mar 26, 2010 13:52:16 GMT -5
Ok, thanks for presenting the other side, I enjoyed it. I will look into the book when I get a chance and keep an eye out for your posts in the future .
|
|
|
Post by swan on Mar 26, 2010 14:09:46 GMT -5
My understanding of the republic is that the ideal society is not something to be taken literally, and the main reason Plato mentions it is so he can use it as a metaphor for the soul, which he feels should be governed by reason (and not spiritedness or desire). I mean Plato is certainly anti-democratic and he is kinda the father of totalitarianism, but I think the main goal of the republic is to determine why one should act in a moral way, and not what the ideal society is.
|
|
metoyou
Meteorite
A dream we dream alone is merely a dream, but a dream we dream together can become reality.
Posts: 34
|
Post by metoyou on Mar 26, 2010 14:28:03 GMT -5
ok, I see what you are saying. i guess I will just have to go read it myself and see.
|
|
|
Post by hutchy on Mar 27, 2010 16:55:32 GMT -5
The problem of a perfect world is that it is far too idealistic, what you need to be is realistic. There will allways be conflict, suffering and fighting it is inevatble. Besides a perfect world would be too... boring.
|
|
|
Post by randomname447 on Apr 1, 2010 19:41:07 GMT -5
Everyone might have a different idea of the "perfect world". So I humbly ask, if my "utopian vision" is perfect in my eyes, is it necessarily perfect in yours? or anyone else's for that matter
|
|
TsukikoSuoh
Meteor
Slytherin. And proud of it.
Posts: 50
|
Post by TsukikoSuoh on Apr 1, 2010 20:08:14 GMT -5
Everyone has a different view on what is ideal and perfect. Hitler thought a world without Jews or anyone who didn't fit his views (hehe I rhymed) would be a perfect world. BECAUSE everyone has a different opinion of what is perfect there is no true possible way to create or maintain perfection. it's as simple as that.
I know that I bring this up in a lot of my posts but it's always relevant: it's all a matter of perspective, what YOU think is perfect is not the same as what someone ELSE thinks is perfect; very few people agree completely on what perfection is.
So yes, in a nutshell my opinion is: there is no such thing as true perfection and thus we as a species OR as a society will never achieve it.
PDBAZ!
|
|