"Utopia"

[PeacefulRevolution]

I've been considering reading "Utopia" by Thomas More, but I'm not sure if it will be at all beneficial to me, considering it was written in 1516. Has anyone else read it? And if so, is it worth my time?

[MarxSchmarx]

I've been considering reading "Utopia" by Thomas More, but I'm not sure if it will be at all beneficial to me, considering it was written in 1516. Has anyone else read it? And if so, is it worth my time?

This is one book whose title is considerably more famous than its content.

I read a translation of it when I was 16 and was impressed by how progressive it seemed. However, it is fundamentally a regurgitation of Plato's Republic. But as Alfred North Whitehead said all philosophy is a footnote to Plato.

Also, it's important to note that the book is meant ultimately as social commentary on English society at the time. As such a lot of the context has to be appreciated in order to see the work for what it was - like the prohibition against atheists. But things like that aside it is an easy read and reasonably entertaining in its own right, as it raises questions about the feasibility of social arrangements.

[fa2991]

From a literary or historical standpoint, it's worth your time. As a socialist in the 21st century, however, you probably wouldn't gain much from it.

[Red Commissar]

Yeah, it's interesting to see from the standpoint of history, having to keep in mind what world Thomas More was writing Utopia in. In some ways "Utopia" acted as a criticism of his Europe as the efficiency, stability, and order sharply contrasted with the chaotic and messy European monarchies.

Though like other utopian novels it doesn't actually provide you with anything beyond an imaginary world.

[mikelepore]

Don't take More's suggestions too literally. Some of them are silly. For example, he suggests that people should be required to swap houses with a neighbor every six months, to prevent people from becoming too attached to material objects. However, this was one of the first attempts to criticize the property system, and to propose that people can decide consciously to go beyond a property system, to change society just because they consider it reasonable to make the change. That was its significance. As expected, many of the specific ideas coming out of such an early attempt would later be recognized as unworkable.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is one book whose title is considerably more famous than its content.

I read a translation of it when I was 16 and was impressed by how progressive it seemed. However, it is fundamentally a regurgitation of Plato's Republic. But as Alfred North Whitehead said all philosophy is a footnote to Plato.


What a culturally Eurocentric thing to say. Have you ever read any Chinese, Indian or Arabic philosophy?

From a Marxist materialistic perspective, Platonism is intrinsically idealist, like Hegelianism. Despite the excessive simplicity of Moore's utopian account of "socialism", at least it is a materialist one.

Historically it is generally always the case that idealism is more associated with the ruling class (Christianity and Platonism in Europe, Orthodox Confucianism and Buddhism in China) while materialism is more associated with the ruled class (Atheism and Atomism in Europe, Mohist logic and egalitarianism in China)

[Jazzhands]

What a culturally Eurocentric thing to say. Have you ever read any Chinese, Indian or Arabic philosophy?

It's not Eurocentric to say that More was probably more influenced by Plato than a Chinese, Indian or Arab philosopher. After all, More was from Europe at a Eurocentric time. The Europeans in general saw those non-white races as nothing more than silk-makers, subjects, and primitives respectively. It's horrible, but true.

[MarxSchmarx]

This is one book whose title is considerably more famous than its content.

I read a translation of it when I was 16 and was impressed by how progressive it seemed. However, it is fundamentally a regurgitation of Plato's Republic. But as Alfred North Whitehead said all philosophy is a footnote to Plato. What a culturally Eurocentric thing to say. Have you ever read any Chinese, Indian or Arabic philosophy?


I have. And I am yet to come across a single serious philosopher from China or India who works entirely within their indigenous tradition and doesn't engage western philosophy. The majority of professional philosophers from India and China since the early 20th century that I've read about by and large stick within the western tradition when they develop philosophical ideas - and most who do engage their indigenous historical texts almost universally do so from the perspective of western philosophy.

Now, I doubt seriously that you've read what you call "Arabic" philosophy (by which I suspect you mean medieval philosophy written in dar al-Islam, many of which scholars were not Arab and some even wrote in the local vernacular). Most luminaries from the dar al-Islam were explicitly basing their work on the Greek tradition and were quite familiar with Plato.

Moreover, every case you mention is a civilization from large urban and riparian communities with a written tradition have a legitimate claim to philosophy. What an agrocentric presumption.