While discussing the Condorcet, the
class got a little heated, allowing some personal beliefs or political beliefs
to continually ignite the conversation. However, I believe that, as a class, we
were able to get somewhere. I believe that we determined the difference between
realistic and non-realistic Utopia. Personally, I realized that there are two
extremes to Utopia. The first extreme being complete equality, and the other
being complete freewill and individualism. Due to the mixed beliefs of the
people of the world, both extremes must be impossible due to the way that most
of the world empowers the man to his own opinion, an opinion that probably won’t
ever be completely changed. So although either of these sides might be
considered more ideal societies, I concluded that they must be impossible. So
then we reviewed the reading. We listed some of its main points, such as giving
people equal opportunity but then also making a free market accessible. I used some of our discussion to realize that
the best Utopia we can achieve would be by perfecting a balance of beliefs and
the content and trust of all people. If the ideas of both sides are present and
everyone’s opinion is expressed and used to an extent, both everyone would be
happy but also feel significant and equal. Furthermore, the balance of these
beliefs could even lead to a world where we get the best of both extremes and
that’s the part of the discussion that excited me the most. But overall, what
was most significant about the discussion was that we determined a Utopian
society that would be more realistic while also not just trashing the
determined unrealistic extremes, rather using their best attributes.
No comments:
Post a Comment