3 ms·

You're the one arguing definitions. This author is trying to make an actual argument, and you've introduced a non-standard vocabulary, and are judging the argum

You're the one arguing definitions. This author is trying to make an actual argument, and you've introduced a non-standard vocabulary, and are judging the argument _with your vocabulary instead of the definitions the author made quite clear_. How do you pronounce "Utopia"? How does it differ from "Eutopia"? Your definitions are fine, internally consistent, and quite clear for serious in-depth discussion... But they align badly with the common set of definitions (In which Utopia is your Eutopia), and so reading vernacular writing is probably unclear or poorly argued when using such - But that doesn't mean that their argument is bad, only that you're misreading it.

ergothus 8y ago
> This author is trying to make an actual argument Is there such an attempt? I see a lot of discussion of Dystopia, a few restatements of the thesis, but I don't actually see anything attempting to prove the thesis. The logic is "Not everything bad is a dystopia. Dystopias really suck. Trust me, Dystopias come about from trying to achieve utopia. The author DOES distinguish speculation from perfection, so your criticism of the above post is correct, but even with the author's provided definition, I don't actually see any ARGUMENT being made, just a claim with some disconnected but true statements around it.
pjc50 8y ago
What the article seems to miss out is any mention of Plato's invention of the term, and its original meaning of "no place". From the very beginning unachievability was associated with the concept.
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  Plato's republic has been called a utopia only in retrospect, the term was coined by Thomas Moore.
blotter_paper 8y ago
This isn't really a non-standard vocabulary, it's a more-or-less standard vocabulary in the domain of discussing utopias. I think it's reasonable to expect someone writing about a topic to have an understanding of society's ongoing discussion about it. If I read an essay on consciousness, I expect the writer to be familiar with how the term has been defined by philosophers past; if a friend tells me they've regained consciousness, I have no such expectation. That being said, I don't think the author of this piece is using a complete layman's definition of the word either: >Likewise, dystopias are inevitably totalitarian: to achieve a perfect society, nothing can be beyond the reach of the state. This discounts anarchist utopias entirely, and any argument against the attainability of an anarchist utopia makes it all the moore utopian. The author seems to be using a shoddy, half-baked definition created for the purpose of this article.

ergothus 8y ago

> This author is trying to make an actual argument Is there such an attempt? I see a lot of discussion of Dystopia, a few restatements of the thesis, but I don't actually see anything attempting to prove the thesis. The logic is "Not everything bad is a dystopia. Dystopias really suck. Trust me, Dystopias come about from trying to achieve utopia. The author DOES distinguish speculation from perfection, so your criticism of the above post is correct, but even with the author's provided definition, I don't actually see any ARGUMENT being made, just a claim with some disconnected but true statements around it.

pjc50 8y ago

What the article seems to miss out is any mention of Plato's invention of the term, and its original meaning of "no place". From the very beginning unachievability was associated with the concept.

blotter_paper 8y ago
Plato's republic has been called a utopia only in retrospect, the term was coined by Thomas Moore.

blotter_paper 8y ago

This isn't really a non-standard vocabulary, it's a more-or-less standard vocabulary in the domain of discussing utopias. I think it's reasonable to expect someone writing about a topic to have an understanding of society's ongoing discussion about it. If I read an essay on consciousness, I expect the writer to be familiar with how the term has been defined by philosophers past; if a friend tells me they've regained consciousness, I have no such expectation. That being said, I don't think the author of this piece is using a complete layman's definition of the word either: >Likewise, dystopias are inevitably totalitarian: to achieve a perfect society, nothing can be beyond the reach of the state. This discounts anarchist utopias entirely, and any argument against the attainability of an anarchist utopia makes it all the moore utopian. The author seems to be using a shoddy, half-baked definition created for the purpose of this article.