I wrote this while reading Ayn Rand, and it probably shows.
Today’s world is filled with many people who call themselves
‘realists’. They consider idealists as not being pragmatic and accuse them of dreaming
of a world of utopia that can never be achieved. They argue that it is far
better to live in the real world mentally and not just physically, stop
dreaming and work to improve the world that is.
What is utopia? What is an ideal? The very definition of
Utopia includes the word ‘impossible’. It is supposed to be a society so ideal
that it cannot exist. The word idealism, fortunately, implies an achievable
quality. It refers to the ultimate, the best in an area or a field. It is a
superlative, but not necessarily an absolute.
But what is overlooked sometimes is that Utopia HAS been
achieved, again and again, in history.
Let’s take a historical viewpoint; Starting from the French revolution.
For the French peasants and lower-classes, Utopia meant the abolition of absolute
monarchy. Yes, it was achieved after prolonged struggle, and brought about the
system of constitutional monarchy. But that stage itself brought about some
problems that weren’t foreseen by the people, and so it could not be called
utopia as it wasn’t perfect and did not bring about perfect happiness. When
those problems were solved [struggles for equal allowance to vote] the system
of governance became a constitutional republic, which had problems of its own.
And so we have struggled through the ages fighting for utopia and here we are
with democracy. This is just an example of governance patterns. The same
repeats with everything in history. When Utopia is achieved, it becomes
non-Utopia, because of the inherent characteristic of human beings of not being
happy with what they have and always wanting more.
Now the connection with idealism; pursuing the ideal
inevitably leads to the utopian, if the seeker is the perfectionist [not if the
seeker is simply happy with the known
best and does not look to what has not been, but can be, achieved]. And anyway,
the known best never would have existed if there had not been such a seeker.
All this implies that if you want a [new and better] superlative standard of
comparison, you need to be an idealist looking for utopia.
The argument with realists; if you are a realist, how will
you dream? If you do not dream, how will you conceive daring new ideas? And if
you do not have any daring new ideas then how will new things be created? A
realist says that it is wrong to dream and believe in Utopia. But if you do
not, how will you move forward and develop and create new things?
To make and to create, you must dream and think both [and of
course translate it to action]. To dream you must believe that utopia can be
achieved.
And even realists do not deny that they want development and
growth.
Another [sub] justification for believing in Utopia is that
it sets you free of the world that is. The real world is a cage of horrors for
many; their escape is dreaming of a world where they are happy, of Utopia.
Thinking of and believing in utopia lets them experience utopia for real,
temporarily.
That argument ends here. Now to speculate a little further
on Utopia and its predecessor society. To achieve Utopia, you need a definite idea
of what it is for you. If you are a government, a nation, what is Utopia for
you? How will you decide what constitutes Utopia for the millions under you?
Indeed who are you to make that decision? Looking at it from a global
perspective makes the question unimaginably vast. The epiphany is that there IS
no collective Utopia, and indeed there is not even an IDEA of what a collective
Utopia is. It simply cannot exist. This is because the individual Utopian
ideals of billions of people 1. Cannot merge together to form one giant Utopian
idea and 2. will keep on changing; never to remain stable.
After all, Utopia is an individual thing. And individuals
never remain the same. Some part of them is always changing, and [quoting Ayn
Rand (without her disapproval of the idea)] they call this growth.
A slightly related question here is the general conception
of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. The query that rises here is how do you decide which is
which? How can you label something as right or wrong absolutely? Is that a decision
based on the popular conception of the public? It seems to be so. People have
all the power. This mantra is always used to justify democracy. Does this mean
that if the people all want a common thing it becomes right? If the people are
in favour of murder and assassination does that then become a virtue? Or are
there some timeless values and vices that remain so always? Today’s world seems
to favour the former situation. And coming to Utopia, it is based on what each
person believes is right for him and thus gives him happiness. The whole thing
looks like a senseless paradox and taken this way it might seem as though
realists have a point- that if you cannot pinpoint what Utopia is how can you
believe in it? Then again this isn’t their major argument. It is that you shouldn’t believe in it, not whether it
is possible or not. We are walking very fine lines here.
So the solution is finding utopia with what you have. This
means first, reconciling yourself with everything around you [including the
people] and getting over your negativity. The next step is finding peace within
you, being happy with what you have and are. This does not at all mean that you
are resisting change or that you have no potential to grow and develop. Quite
the contrary; Self and surrounding based introspection will clear your mind and
show you what you are. You will find your flaws and mend them. You will try and
develop into your image of perfection [and since most people’s perception of
perfection is never a constant, you will always have goals to realize] and at
the same time contribute to your surroundings.
And taking the importance that the plebiscite opinion
garners today, into account, the best thing we can hope for that a collective
conscience arises and that all the individual conceptions of Utopia are
harmonious to peace and sustainability, not growing into a tumour of
obscenities, as it seems now.