Decypher this paragraph for me please
In most discussions of this subject, utopian thinking has simply been equated with having a utopia, whether of the first or second kind. Clearly, this is inadequate, for if we take utopia as meaning an ideal that exists nowhere but could, then anyone who thinks society can be improved and has some idea of what that would look like (and who does not?) can be labeled a utopian, and we've learned nothing worthwhile about any of them. But if we understand utopia as an impossible ideal--besides begging the question of what is possible--this only gives us the main result of utopian thinking; it doesn't tell us anything about the process that led to it. As a criterion for determining what is and isn't utopian, it is not sufficient. More troublesome, it may not even be a necessary criterion, since utopian thinking may on occasion produce a vision of the future that is realizable. What, then, is the connection between having a vision of the future, whether realizable or not, and utopian thinking?
I'm trying to understand the main points of this paragraph. Help please?
[url=http://monthlyreview.org/2005/07/01/the-utopian-vision-of-the-future-then-and-now-a-marxist-critique]Source[/url]
2 Comments • Newest first
It's basically stating that it's hard to define what a utopia is when it's not defined definitely. So if it was never properly defined, the only progress that's been made is thinking of how to achieve it, and not doing. The process of how to achieve utopia is also not made clear. So the last question's basically asking what difference does it make when all that's been achieved so far is thinking, and not defining?
Seems like the author's trying to point out the paradoxical idea of what utopia really means (i.e. how do you define something mankind hasn't achieved?).
Edit: Actually clicked the link. Not surprised it's on Marxism. The whole basis of Karl Marx was that the idea of utopia was only a distant vision to man. That, and communism.
I think it's saying that we shouldn't someone that happens to have what we label as 'Utopian ideals 'so quickly.....
At least that's what I've gathered. I kind of get the gist of it but I'm not sure I understand any key points. That paragraph is worded rather oddly.