return to tranceaddict TranceAddict Forums Archive > Local Scene Info / Discussion / EDM Event Listings > Canada > Canada - Montreal

 
Official MtlTa Philosophical Thread
View this Thread in Original format
KrinKer
Yeah

Let's make a Philosophical thread

Since we are on a board of music with friends, we ought to have a philosophical thread where we will try to rebuild earth based on an utopia !!!

Let's discuss

KrinKer
Epicurus
oooooooooooooooo, I like I like...

Let me start, looking at utopia, I think that not only is it bull, but furthermore undesirable. Here's my very simple reasoning. Assume we achieve this utopia, where everything is perfect, everyone loves each other, nothing needs to be fought over, and so forth. Then what do we do with our lives????? No more bitching, no more complaining, no more politics, no more precious causes to fight for, no more helping people to feel good about one's self and so forth. In essence, in a utopic society, you're removing the source of meaning for the vast majority of humanity. In almost paradoxal fashion, it seems that the goal that many people strive for (for instance utopia) is one that should not be reached for once it is, it removes one's sole meaning of life. In fact, if humans were suddendly transplanted into some utopia right now, and left there to live, they would destroy it sooner than you could blink your eye.The reason: they would have nothing to do or live for.
Sly_Guy
"it is not the destination that matters, but the journey"

Is especially true for this. Utopia should always be the goal, but like the mathematical concept of infinity, can never be reached. If we stop striving for a utopian society, then we stop trying to better ourselves. If we stop trying to better ourselves, then again, we reach a position where we as human beings have nothing to live for.

On a more qualitative level, ideas and goals of people change over time, so what we as people view as an 'ideal' society may change by the time /if the time comes, that we actually reach it.

'Human beings define themselves through struggle, and fight against the inevitable'
Marcus007
People need to legalise drugs. All drugs! In my opinion it's the only true way to combat them. By legalising them we can stop the artificial price put on them by risk. Plain and simple. Sell cocaine over the counter but tax it. Sell pot over the counter and tax it as well, does the Canadian government realize how much they'd stand to make.

I'm drifiting into American politics now but do you know that the US has spent over 300 billion dollars on the war against drug. That's three times what it cost to put a man on the moon. Let the peasents in Peru and Bolivia and Colombia grow cocoa. They make more off it than they do with bananas of maize.

The solution to the drug problem is a utopia where drugs are legalized. You wanna buy some pot, let's just run to the dep and pick some up. Just imagine how much better the US/Canada can spend their finances.

That's my utopia. :D
malek
thats not an utopia... its a dystopia.
Epicurus
quote:
Originally posted by Sly_Guy
"it is not the destination that matters, but the journey"

Is especially true for this. Utopia should always be the goal, but like the mathematical concept of infinity, can never be reached. If we stop striving for a utopian society, then we stop trying to better ourselves. If we stop trying to better ourselves, then again, we reach a position where we as human beings have nothing to live for.

On a more qualitative level, ideas and goals of people change over time, so what we as people view as an 'ideal' society may change by the time /if the time comes, that we actually reach it.

'Human beings define themselves through struggle, and fight against the inevitable'


I have to disagree with your assessment of utopia as equivalent to the concept of infinity, and as something that cannot be reached. They are disimilar in the most important of ways: one is concrete and tangible, the other is not. Regardless of people's differing views of utopia, they can almost always define those criteria that would create their idiosyncratic version of it.

For instance, according to many, a utopic society would exclude wars, poverty, disease, sickness, money and so forth. A concrete example would be Marxist philosophy, which clearly defines its concept of utopia as Communism, that being the fourth and last stage of humanity. These are well definable and concrete criteria that one can conceptualize, understand and realize. The concept of infinity is not so. In fact, infinity is the most nebulous of our concepts (along with the concept of nothingness - or the empty set if you want to talk math). The reason being that we can never conceptualize, actualize or realize this concept simply because it's not something tangible and concrete. It's no coincidence that infinity is not a "thing". It's never defined in mathematics as a number (except in higher level analysis courses that I'll skip over) simply because a number is something that can be conceptualized and understood as representing something, which infinity is not.

Having said all of that, my point was simply to highlight the paradoxal concept of utopia. You claim that " the journey is all that matters, and not the destination", and I agree with that. It's the journey that conveys meaning to life, but what happens to this journey when that destination is reached? Obviously, that journey must end, and with it, life's meaning. Of course, the only way to get out of this mess is for you to equate utopia to infinity, thus nullifying the possibility of reaching that destination and maintaining this meaning. But again, and as I mentioned in the previous paragraph, your analogy with infinity is not germane and you shouldn't be allowed to do that.

At any rate, I was merely playing devil's advocate yesterday since I felt lke being anti-enlightenment and somewhat existentialist. I'll comment some more on that later.

quote:
Originally posted by Marcus007
People need to legalise drugs. All drugs! In my opinion it's the only true way to combat them. By legalising them we can stop the artificial price put on them by risk. Plain and simple. Sell cocaine over the counter but tax it. Sell pot over the counter and tax it as well, does the Canadian government realize how much they'd stand to make.

I'm drifiting into American politics now but do you know that the US has spent over 300 billion dollars on the war against drug. That's three times what it cost to put a man on the moon. Let the peasents in Peru and Bolivia and Colombia grow cocoa. They make more off it than they do with bananas of maize.

The solution to the drug problem is a utopia where drugs are legalized. You wanna buy some pot, let's just run to the dep and pick some up. Just imagine how much better the US/Canada can spend their finances.

That's my utopia.


hahaha...I've always argued for something similar to what you mentioned, although your concepts need some depth, tweaking and refinement.

First of all, one must clearly define the role of government in society. Do we want a police state where government acts as big brother and has the right to tell us what's best for ourselves, or do we want a government that gives its populace the largest amount of liberty to do what they please, as long as they do no harm towards their neighbour?

Personally, I tend to go for the second. Government's role should be restricted to protecting its citizenry's rights, period. In other words, to protect those rights conferred to its populace based on some constitution or charter of basic rights, such as the right to life, the right to own property (although this one is debatable) and so forth. The point being that government should not interfere in the everyday lives of people unless those rights are being infringed upon, either from the inside or from the outside. Note that I'm taking a libertarian stance towards government, but only with respect to civic society (the economy is a different story).

Now let's take a look at drugs. As an individual, and according to the above concept of government, I should be able to consume as much drugs as I like. If I want to kill myself in the process, that's my choice and the government should have nothing to do with that. Whether it's moral or not is up to me, not up to big brother. Having said that, where government does have a role to play when it comes to drugs is to assess the impact of your taking drugs on the rest of the populace. If it deems that your taking drugs impacts the rest of society in a detrimental fashion, then it should have the right to interfere.

This concept is made explicit in the case of universal healthcare, which we have in Canada. Thus, suppose someone decides to start injecting himself with heroine every week. Because of the detrimental effects of heroine on the human body, eventually this person will absolutely and definitely require medical attention...and lots of it. Thus, he is putting a heavy burden on the healthcare system which is being funded by citizenry's tax money. One can argue, and convincingly so, that as a tax payer, I do not wish to spend my hard earned money on the leisure activities of some schmuk. This is where taxing these goods comes into play. Taxes would be used to buttress the healthcare system being affected, in order to alleviate the burden being placed on it by drug consumers that would require this medical attention. Note that the above argument can (and is) made for tobacco and alcohol. The same concepts apply. Of course, in this case, they are taxed heavily for the aformentioned reasons.

Thus the real debate is not so much how much money the government would make, but whether it's in society's benefit to legalize all drugs. We can't simpy say legalize all drugs since the effect on some drugs have such a detrimental effect on the populace as a whole (viewed through the lens of healthcare, for instance) that they're simply not worth legalizing period.

Again, in almost paradoxal fashion, if one were to apply the above logic to tobacco and alcohol, one would quickly realize that marijuana should be legalized without a second thought and that alcohol should be banned because of the huge and enormous burden on the rest of society (or at the very least, taxed much more heavily). Alcohol in particular has been proven to damage neuronal axons in the brain beyond repair, damage the liver beyond repair, cause road accidents beyond imagination and so forth. All of these are of course huge burdens on society. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of the above with regards to marijuana.

As a final note, one also needs to look at the effects of certain drugs with respect to the populace from angles other than healthcare and tax burden. For instance, how do you quantify exactly abusive behaviour triggered by the consumption of certain substances. Surely, if one substance is scientifically linked to such behaviour, it should be considered "bannable". There are many more things to think about, but how much money government could make should not be at the top of the list, in my opinion.
fastmp3
And far away across the field
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees
To hear the softly spoken magic spell
Marcus007
There are strange things done in the midnight sun
by the men who moil for gold
O-RzA
utopia can very easily exist on this earth,for every once in a while you see a person with extreme happiness who really wants nothing else from life, although rare. now this rarity does not come from human nature but rather the conformaties of society and the attempts by those of power to control the masses. all of this gets in the way. but no one really knows what will make them happy, maybe even when they have. but when someone is truly happy then there they are, living in their own utopia. cuz it is not really a common ground for all to tread on but rather a state of mind someone can achieve.....and honestly not the one brought on by drugs
:disbelief

You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.
DJ Charlie
You sunk my battleship

Marcus007
CHABANELLE!
Johnny Jon
chabanel?!Belanger,beaubien,i could go on

as for utopia,i thought it was a country in Africa :D:D

As for the true definition of it,i dont think its possible in this lifetime, i agree with epicurus,anyways this is very hypothetical,im basing my self on simple economic definitions,humans have needs that are limitless,but the ressources are limited,therefore theres no equilibrium,we have to fight for everything , which created markets,we need,we buy,we offer our working force to get what we want,from that ranks get created,social classes based on your capabilities,meaning differential in salaries,creating social classes, and so on.So basically,we have to make choices,choices that will have a cost,those choices we're living right now,wars,fighting,competition,politics,etc.Choosing war means sacrifying peace,choosing peace means i sacrifice my well being if someone wants what i have. now lets say there's peace everywhere,and there's very little food left,so we'll all die?no one's gonna go for that food worrying about the other one who wont have any? (even if someone shares,our immunary systems have also different needs variating on how much we use of energy,burn calories,etc,so half an apple for some wont be enough...lemme rephrase,half an apple isnt enough period)Logically,ill fight my ass off for that food unless im suicidal.le to even if money didnt exist,we have basic needs and the resources available arent enough. (for those who think water is unlimited,well yeah,but it will dry out in millions of year but still,with pollution and all,who knows)

But then again, if we reach this utopia,there would still be a goal in life,that would be to maintain it,which i found the hardest knowing the nature of humain beings.Reaching a goal doesnt mean the end unless we make it an end. So it would be a social challenge to maintain that status,if everything was perfect and everyone perfect,utopia could have been possible. But just the fact that we have needs,the simple fact that we need to eat destroys all of that cause even if we were perfect,this world isnt perfect,it has an end.

Now i'd like to throw some hardcore bull:utopia includes a concept of happiness,what is it?whats happiness,reaching a goal,having world peace,be free of doing what u want?happiness isnt the same thing for everyone. Charles Manson was really happy killing people,thats something messed up (the fact that he was happy or not is questionable,but he still went threw with it,so must have found something "joyful" or satisfying in it even though clearly,the dudes nuts,wasnt in a normal state for wtv reasons,so he's judgement might have been biased, implying he's not complying to normal behaviour,not conforming to society,blabla,and so on). Then again like a friend once told me,he doesnt believe in emotions,cuz it implies something "surnatural"because lets say the concept of love is not concrete,therefore not real or hypothetical.He thinks its all chemicals,for example love would be chemical reactions generated by a message sent from the brain to ur body reacting with ur nervous system and blablabla.So if we were to fight for an utopian society,would we be fighting for some chemical reactions that would feel good?!basically might as well fight for drugs like Marcus mentionned .


So finally before going to bed, utopia is desirable in a way because that would allow ourselves to maybe extend the life of the human kind if this utopia is kept,everyone working equally even though nature doesnt make everyone equal,and sadly,we are thinking and emotional beings ,so on this earth,utopia wont be reached,we gotta make the best of what we have and in the mean time be good people by helping who we can in the meantime even if helping includes a cost because of the sacrifice made to help.
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
 
Privacy Statement