A system, whether scientific, social or political, goes through changes over time. Some time such changes are perceivable, some time not. But at any given point in time, such a system has a state, which can be called the present state of the system. From that state, we look forward and try to understand what may be a possible future state of the system. Also, what may be the desirable future states of the system in future. Unlike scientific systems, an arena where most of the driving forces of change come from natural laws, in sociopolitical systems the significant actors are mostly human beings. Of course we are sharing this world with other beings, but for now let us confine to ourselves. That naturally makes us, human beings, more concerned about understanding the properties of both possible future states and desirable future states. One can possibly argue that the desirable future states, which for lack of good word let me call utopian states, of such a system at any point in time may not be of much rational concern if it is not a subset of the possible future states. After all what good it is to meditate over the properties of something that has no possibility of occurrence in future. For example, we can think of an highly desirable future state of our society where everyone lives for ever. Of course that will cause other problems in the society, e.g. food crisis due to over population. But for the sake of the discussion even if we accept that those problems will be magically solved due to super scientific invention of some sort in food production, is it really of any importance discussing this since it is not a possible future state given death is a natural law? Since no one will live for ever, ever, this is an utopian state which can be rejected through reason.
There are other kinds of utopian states of a sociopolitical system which have more discussion worthy values. Such states are desirable, but we can not reason them out of possibility. We also can not reason how we can reach those utopian states from the current state of the society. It is not really known to be a state dangling in impossibility, but also we don't know which path of sociopolitical decisions will take us there. But since that does not completely eliminate the possibility of existence of such a path going from current state to the utopian state, there is some virtue in discussing properties of such a state. One needs to be careful that elaborate understanding of such future states does not necessarily give us a silver bullet. That is, we may not be able to use that knowledge to compare between two possible future states to evaluate which one is a more desirable one. Ancient and many modern thinkers have spent their life time in meditating on properties of such utopian systems, what can also be called ideal systems. Philosophers like Plato, Aristotle left elaborate details of what they call the city-state system. They thought there is only one good state of the society and it is job of the thinkers to find out what that is and how to mold the existing sociopolitical structure so that it will put us on the right track to reach the ideal city-state society. They spent an enormous amount of thinking in understanding the properties of such an ideal state. In more modern times, philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Kant, Rawls have spent a great deal of there thinking behind such an approach, formally called as Transcendental Institutionalism.
Then of course there are desirable states which are in the reach of reason and we can establish some rational theory based on our current knowledge on how to reach that desirable state from our current state. One trivia about such an utopia that is worth discussing about is that almost all of us have good description of such a state of the society in our minds. In fact a common human being, at any point in time, or at least in different points in time, will be able to provide multiple descriptions of such utopias.
Let's name these utopian states as Impossible Utopia, Transcendental Utopia and Rational Utopia.
The question that immediately comes to mind is what good of their study anyway? Well, the study of rational utopias is intuitively and by experience justified because those thoughts are major driving factors in our sociopolitical decision making. They are forces which are carrying the chariot of our civilization from one state to another. The value of the study of other two utopias is not as apparent. Because they are derived mostly out of a priori knowledge, their properties are not polluted by experience. Hence, I think, study of their properties help us identify certain properties in our current state which are highly desirable and should be kept. Also, certain properties in our current state which are highly undesirable and should be eliminated asap. So in principle their knowledge works like a filter. Unfortunately it is not always practical to get rid of the bad ones or implement the good ones. For example - decease, something we know and understand to be bad. But currently we are incapable of getting rid of it completely from the face of earth. Nevertheless, it identifies that progress should be made in that direction. Poverty is another example.
One serious problem with such utopias is the very existence of many of them. Plurality. The plurality itself is not as troublesome as the fact that the nature of those utopian worlds often contradict each other. I would like to point out that I am not talking about the contradictions present in the rational methods of taking the current state of the society to those utopian states. I am talking about the contradictions present in the very properties of those utopian states. These contradictions are less visible in Impossible Utopias, E.g. we all will agree that decease should be eliminated from the face of earth. As we move through transcendental utopias to more realistically achievable rational utopias, these contradictions become very prominent. Some would like to think of an ideal world where every place is urban and full of thriving human activities. Some would like an ideal world where there are nature and forests everywhere and human beings sharing the planet in harmony with other living beings. On the other hand an utopia where decease is rare may not be the utopian thinking of someone who is a doctor by profession. As funny as it sounds, personal interests and limitations of human mind consciously or unconsciously often influence the design of ideal worlds that we want to be part of. Further I want to understand the relationship between human mind and the source of these contradictions in relation to the society that I am most interested in, India.
There are other kinds of utopian states of a sociopolitical system which have more discussion worthy values. Such states are desirable, but we can not reason them out of possibility. We also can not reason how we can reach those utopian states from the current state of the society. It is not really known to be a state dangling in impossibility, but also we don't know which path of sociopolitical decisions will take us there. But since that does not completely eliminate the possibility of existence of such a path going from current state to the utopian state, there is some virtue in discussing properties of such a state. One needs to be careful that elaborate understanding of such future states does not necessarily give us a silver bullet. That is, we may not be able to use that knowledge to compare between two possible future states to evaluate which one is a more desirable one. Ancient and many modern thinkers have spent their life time in meditating on properties of such utopian systems, what can also be called ideal systems. Philosophers like Plato, Aristotle left elaborate details of what they call the city-state system. They thought there is only one good state of the society and it is job of the thinkers to find out what that is and how to mold the existing sociopolitical structure so that it will put us on the right track to reach the ideal city-state society. They spent an enormous amount of thinking in understanding the properties of such an ideal state. In more modern times, philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Kant, Rawls have spent a great deal of there thinking behind such an approach, formally called as Transcendental Institutionalism.
Then of course there are desirable states which are in the reach of reason and we can establish some rational theory based on our current knowledge on how to reach that desirable state from our current state. One trivia about such an utopia that is worth discussing about is that almost all of us have good description of such a state of the society in our minds. In fact a common human being, at any point in time, or at least in different points in time, will be able to provide multiple descriptions of such utopias.
Let's name these utopian states as Impossible Utopia, Transcendental Utopia and Rational Utopia.
The question that immediately comes to mind is what good of their study anyway? Well, the study of rational utopias is intuitively and by experience justified because those thoughts are major driving factors in our sociopolitical decision making. They are forces which are carrying the chariot of our civilization from one state to another. The value of the study of other two utopias is not as apparent. Because they are derived mostly out of a priori knowledge, their properties are not polluted by experience. Hence, I think, study of their properties help us identify certain properties in our current state which are highly desirable and should be kept. Also, certain properties in our current state which are highly undesirable and should be eliminated asap. So in principle their knowledge works like a filter. Unfortunately it is not always practical to get rid of the bad ones or implement the good ones. For example - decease, something we know and understand to be bad. But currently we are incapable of getting rid of it completely from the face of earth. Nevertheless, it identifies that progress should be made in that direction. Poverty is another example.
One serious problem with such utopias is the very existence of many of them. Plurality. The plurality itself is not as troublesome as the fact that the nature of those utopian worlds often contradict each other. I would like to point out that I am not talking about the contradictions present in the rational methods of taking the current state of the society to those utopian states. I am talking about the contradictions present in the very properties of those utopian states. These contradictions are less visible in Impossible Utopias, E.g. we all will agree that decease should be eliminated from the face of earth. As we move through transcendental utopias to more realistically achievable rational utopias, these contradictions become very prominent. Some would like to think of an ideal world where every place is urban and full of thriving human activities. Some would like an ideal world where there are nature and forests everywhere and human beings sharing the planet in harmony with other living beings. On the other hand an utopia where decease is rare may not be the utopian thinking of someone who is a doctor by profession. As funny as it sounds, personal interests and limitations of human mind consciously or unconsciously often influence the design of ideal worlds that we want to be part of. Further I want to understand the relationship between human mind and the source of these contradictions in relation to the society that I am most interested in, India.
No comments:
Post a Comment