• scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Interesting concept. Kind of like “is it really heaven if people you didn’t like while you were alive are also there?”

    Utopia can never be utopia for everyone because some people will want hierarchy and superiority over others. So with this requirement, utopia cannot exist. Maybe that’s why it doesn’t :D

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      “Utopia” doesn’t mean everyone gets what they want. People can want things to be worse while still living in a Utopia.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        I agree with your more sensible definition but it is a slippery concept.

        It’s a bit ambiguous what it means to say:

        unless it’s Utopia for everyone

        Is it Utopia “for” someone if it isn’t their idea of Utopia? Seems like you are saying yes.

        But if yes, then as long as current conditions meet anyone’s definition of utopia, then we’re all living in one.

        Which brings us back to the OP.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          But if yes, then as long as current conditions meet anyone’s definition of utopia, then we’re all living in one.

          No, Utopia has a defined set of meanings. If current conditions meet someone’s definition of Utopia, but doesn’t meet the defined set of meanings, it doesn’t mean current conditions are Utopia.

          • scarabic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            Where exactly is this defined meaning?

            utopia (noun) an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect.

            According to Oxford Languages it is very much in the eye of the beholder and not objectively defined.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              Let’s go with the Cambridge definition:

              a perfect society in which people work well with each other and are happy

              The Oxford Languages definition is incomplete enough to not be a valid counter argument - “perfect” doesn’t mean everyone 100% gets what they want. The only sensible interpretation is “perfect” from a societal perspective.