From: jimruttshow8596
The concept of utopian and dystopian thinking, particularly prevalent in Western philosophy, is critically examined for its inherent flaws and dangers. Instead, a “protopian” approach is proposed as a more realistic and constructive path forward [00:25:19].
Origins of Utopian and Dystopian Thought
Western philosophy, according to Alexander Bard, became “stuck with a sort of gnostic dualism” [00:21:47]. This dualism, evident in Christianity and Islam, is seen as the origin of utopian and dystopian ideas [00:21:50]. These religious traditions are criticized for “promising us the afterlife” and “finding the cheap way out,” serving as “perfect engines for feudal tyranny” [00:21:55].
In contrast, Eastern philosophy embraces a monist worldview, where everything is interdependent [00:22:39]. Key Western philosophers like Spinoza and Leibniz are highlighted as those who began to break from this dualistic tradition in the 17th century, paving the way for a monist perspective where “mind and matter are expressions of the same world” [00:22:16]. This monist worldview, later fully represented by Hegel and Nietzsche in the 19th century, is seen as “totally opposed to the idea of utopia and dystopia” [00:23:09].
The Dangers of Utopianism
Utopian ideas are problematic because a “perfect world cannot have change, because if it changes it becomes imperfect” [00:24:50]. Such a world is depicted as a “dead world” or a “still picture” [00:24:57].
A stark example of the dangers of utopianism is the Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, who, inspired by Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s philosophy, sought to “uncorrupt the world” [00:26:34]. Pol Pot’s PhD was on Rousseau, not Karl Marx, and upon returning to Cambodia, he was responsible for the deaths of two million of his countrymen, starting by targeting intellectuals [00:26:40]. This behavior is characterized as that of a “boy pharaoh,” a narcissistic figure who wants to be both “priest and the king at the same time” and believes he is “here to save the world from itself” [00:26:59]. Adolf Hitler is also cited as another example of this dangerous character [00:27:04].
The Dangers of Dystopianism
Similarly, dystopian worldviews, which posit a horrible future leading to “armageddon,” are dangerous [00:26:11]. It is argued that these narratives “actually creating a false narrative leading to that armageddon” [00:26:27].
The Alternative: Protopianism
In contrast to utopian and dystopian thinking, “protopianism” offers a dynamic and incremental approach to societal improvement [00:25:19].
Core Principles of Protopianism
Protopianism means “I tear down the world and I rebuild it every day, and I try to slightly improve on its construction” [00:25:22]. This iterative process is akin to good engineering, where products are continually improved through checking and slight modifications [00:25:30]. While “leaps” can occur, they are often seen as “leaps in hindsight” due to contingent historical events [00:25:47].
Voluntary Communism and Membranes
A key aspect of this approach is the emphasis on voluntariness and “membranes” [00:33:04]. This allows for communities that experiment with new ways of living, such as “voluntary communism,” exemplified by events like Burning Man [00:29:29]. These communities, or “proto-b’s,” are characterized by:
- Living in balance with nature: A commitment to regenerative practices and reducing material inputs [00:29:54].
- Rejecting exponential growth: Moving away from short-term money-on-money return as the primary metric of value in a finite world [00:12:45].
- Focus on well-being: Aiming to increase human well-being even with fewer material inputs [00:31:19].
The concept of a “membrane” implies that individuals must be able to “walk in and walk out of these systems” freely [00:33:09]. This avoids the totalitarian trap where participation is mandatory [00:33:17]. Protopian “gated communities” are envisioned as places where specific rules and “protocols” are implemented, and their success allows others to mimic these models [00:45:56].
Urban Planning and Autonomy
The pitfalls of utopian urban planning are highlighted by comparing it to Jane Jacobs’s ideas. Cities like Brasilia, designed to look perfect from space, are described as “horrible neighborhoods to live in for human beings” [00:36:38]. People often protest against such architecture by living in ways contradictory to the architect’s ambition, creating “life in between” planned structures [00:36:57].
Instead, a protopian approach suggests creating conditions that allow organic development. For instance, instead of paving pathways, architects should lay down a lawn and “see where the people walk,” then build pathways based on actual usage [00:33:55]. This approach respects individual autonomy and emergent behavior.
Technology and Discernment
Protopianism also addresses the role of technology. While not Luddite, it advocates for “considerably more discernment about what technology we allow into our lives” [00:39:13]. Communities might have rules, such as banning smartphones for children, a difficult decision for individual parents in a traditional setting but easier within a community with shared “normative value” [00:41:30]. Technology is seen as a “pharmacon”—a neutral tool that can be either constructive or destructive depending on human choices [00:40:51].
The Role of Complexity Theory and Dialectics
The application of complexity theory with Hegelian dialectics is emphasized for addressing complex problems. Solutions are not permanent but “temporary solutions through a dialectical process” [00:51:08]. This means acknowledging that progress is ongoing and iterative.
Pathos and Ethos
Human experience is understood through three narratives:
- Logos: The factual truth of what actually happened [00:08:48].
- Mythos: The stories humans tell about themselves and integrate into their fantasies about the future [00:08:52].
- Pathos: The “location of the story about sex and violence and the subconscious and you know the drives he desires of humans rivalry envy” [00:51:38]. Pathos is “never harmonious or balanced” [00:50:51] and needs to be “dealt with,” rather than suppressed, as attempts to ban it (e.g., in Christianity and Islam) lead to explosive returns [00:52:20].
Ethos, defined as “the right thing to do,” is not considered a narrative but a “result of the narratives” [00:53:15]. It refers to pure ethics, focusing on a “constructive mindset towards the future” [00:54:28]. This includes accepting the past as a necessity (“amor fati”) but embracing the future as contingent and full of freedom, where humans are “engineers of the future” [00:54:07]. This ethical stance is rooted in ancient Persian philosophy, where “asha” (like the Chinese “dao”) signifies understanding “how the world works” and engaging with it constructively [00:55:00].