ALine

Yes, you are correct; each one of these societies creates certain "qualification exams" in order to allow for individuals to be allowed into the society that they are apart of. There would be no different from what those societies would be like vs my proposed idea of a utopia at first glance. Oppression is the result of individuals not having there wants and needs to be met along with there own personal opinions an judgments heard. But what if you kept everyone informed on what they society as a who is doing, raise individuals to only listen to empirically rational arguments that are only based upon reality, Raise them to also believe that everything should be questioned no matter what it is or where it comes from, and that everyone should be respected no matter who they are with the utmost care? You would most likely create a society who is extremely well informed about everything, have heightened critical thinking abilities, and will know how to determine if someone is trying to come into power or gain power from someone else. Everyone in that society would be so intelligent that no one would be able to manipulate their behaviors or try to change there mind with propaganda. The only thing that could sway them would be arguments based in reality. This would not be a test to maintain purity, or loyalty, or religious belief. It is a test to see if you would harm another individual or if you would kill someone else, or even if you would rape someone else. It is not about creating a test would look for certain ideas which would eventually cause the society to think like one person; it is about finding individuals who question everything including themselves to determine if there ideas or ideologies are flawed. The individuals of this society must be as informed and as knowledgeable about their world around them as possible in order for a system like this to work. Also, the morality exam would not be based on future actions that "may" occur because anything can happen. But what has already occurred and their ability to be swayed by logic and reason which is grounded in reality. Also the "morality exam" would know if someone if a psychopath or a sociopath due to the complexity of the "morality exam." So it would know if someone was lying to 100 percent accuracy. This can be presumed due to the increasing intelligence of the general populous within the society.

The basis for this idea " an evidence-based society" is rooted in the argument or claim that " An evidence-based society can work if individuals are raised to think critically and rationally about there environment." This would be the starting point for the society so if a new society of humans were born tomorrow in this society then they would grow up and develop into "empirically rational minded, meaning that they are taught to thought based upon the morals depicted to them which would allow for them to do whatever they wanted without harming anyone else. At this stage in hypotheticals, the best evidence that I can give for such a society to work would be that of a company like a google except instead of making people work they would instead be able to relax, do whatever they wanted and to eat and sleep whenever they wanted. However, if you have anyone who would eat or sleep work for you that always slept and always did not work then they would be detrimental to the society. Also, there will be others who would want to work there but there is a position being taken up by someone who does not care to work there but is getting paid a lot so they stay there. By letting those members of your family inside of the society you could risk having those individuals who would otherwise fail the "morality exam" kill anyone and everyone. Just because they are your family does not mean that they will not want to harm others. You might believe that they are nice, kind and innocent however they may be someone who would kill others when they are sleeping. Your family would be protected but other families in this society would not be. The morality exam would be created by everyone within that society so that those entering that society would know who they would like to let in to become apart of that society. It would be unwise to let someone in who would simply start collecting resources in order to eventually cause mass hysteria and rioting and murder. Please note that the morality exam would not be a static examination. Calling it an exam is like calling bread a "meat carrier." It would be constantly changing in order to fit the needs of the individuals of this society so that they would select who would be apart of this society. There is no one person who decides whether or not people are allowed in or not.

When I say "rational" I am wondering if there is a positive argument which can be made for religion to be kept within our world as a whole.

I would like to know the reasonable arguments for having a religion. The only one that I can think of is that religion causes a "faith/belief" tether to a certain true world understanding which attaches itself to certain ideals in order to reach this true world which is passed down through the ages. These ideals can be anything from basic rules and regulations which prevent others from performing certain actions on how to love your loved ones. However, if this is true then that would mean that religion would act as a "time capsule" which would have people to believe one thing while also maintaining the ideas and beliefs of certain rules and regulations.

The idea for this is to create a hypothetical philosophical utopia which does not and possibly will not exist. I am going off of general presumptions to attempt to build up and create a new society based upon ideas that I am producing. I do not have any evidence for such a society to exist because a society like this has never existed. I am defining "data" as being information gathered and obtained as an individual is within the society. Data such as health and fitness. If say someone were to be having a heart attack the automated system running the society would see this and would be there within seconds to help. This data or information would be collected over the period of time you would be apart of the society. Ok, I see what you are saying if both you and your nephew take the test at the same time and only you pass the test but not your nephew then you are worried about a separation between your loved ones. The test can be taken at any time for as many times as you want. So if you were to pass the test but not your nephew was not then your nephew can take it as many times as he wants. Also, it would not be a written test, but instead a test which over a period of time would determine your morality with respect to societies morals. Eventually, it would be so advanced and well tuned that it would be able to determine if you would either mane or harm another individual the system would fully know. So if your nephew were a person who would harm another individual, I am not saying that he is, then yeah he would not be apart of the society. Also, those who want to take the test would be treated with the utmost respect and they would be provided for fully having all there wants and needs to be met until they would eventually pass the test. The test would also be designed for fully planning out all possible instances and situations that an individual would get into based upon the individuals currently present in the society. The system would plan for how they would interact or act in the society with respect to where they should live, who they would meet, etc. You do not want people who would endanger the lives of those within the society to be apart of the society. There would be first a virtual integration and then a physical integration. And after a long period of time, those who continue trying to take the test would have in essence passed the test because they have shown a very large willingness to stay and learn the information. However, they still will need to have passed the examination. Think of the exam not as a "sit at a desk and use a number 2 pencil" but as a creative and intelligence exercise to determine how you are swayed by rationality and reason based upon your actions. So waiting to take the exam is apart of the exam.

You are correct, there are way too many different intangible elements which must be considered in order to make appropriate rational arguments, however even if there are billions of them to consider they must all be considered in order to allow for the understanding of the well being of all individuals apart of the society within this "utopia." And it is because data lacks any "feelings or pain" that we can start developing appropriate rational models for how to go about each individual, keeping into account all of there thoughts, beliefs, and rationals. This is to determine if they can become integrated into the society. Starting off there will have to be a large number of philosophers and logic reasoner and rational minded individuals in order to come up with the very basic building blocks of the society. They would need to go through ALL possible encounters and possible interactions to create the "articles of foundation" which would be the seeds to grow the society. Yes, however in this society maturity would be based mainly upon empirical data which in turn would grow using rational and logical arguments which would have a basis in that empirical data. It can not be assumed that everyone in today's society would be accepted into this society. It would be like creating an entirely new society so all previous understandings would be considered and ones that are not grounded in reality and reason which is rooted in reality are saved as a part of history but would not be in the main articles of foundation. Also because this society is constantly increasing in creativity and intelligence it would eventually be able to fully analyze the brain to give an exact date to when a person is old enough to have children while also understanding the consequences of having children. Also because it is such an intelligent society it would be able to quite possibly remove the need for having children in the conventional sense and could just have automated systems perform the actions for them. And if it is determined that maturity levels are fluid, depending to be different for everyone then the society would form around this idea. Having an age limit for when an individual is out of school and then go into their specific field of choice.

Yes, this is true, however, if morality is determined and based upon purely rational and logically thought which coincides with empirical data taken from observed instances of general actions being played out then you should be fine. Like, say having an intimate relationship with a child. This is considered to be immoral due to a proven empirical evidence that a child is not mentally developed to be able to comprehend the action that is being performed. This would be an example of basing rational morality on defensible evidence. This is how all rational thought would be based upon, if there is a "rational thought" based upon non-provable empirical evidence then it is not rational and based in reality. Also, its beliefs would be dependent upon those who initially began the society and not just a single individual. It is similar to how America began with certain beliefs like the right to be free and singular. But over time it grew and grew until it reached the point of where it is today. They still rely on the constitution which was created by the founding fathers however things were added in order to consider new possibilities that were not considered. I do not have any empirical evidence to support this claim. I am making the presumption that the more research papers being submitted and the more detailed they are along with the more art and engineering designs that are being submitted the more "intelligent" or more developed the society is. It would not be about quantity however it would be about quality.

It would be a morality examination to determine if you are swayed by rationality or reason. If they pass then they pass, once you get in then your past does not matter. If you mess up then everyone would know because data is shared with everyone so everyone would know what you did. If you are off the grid then something is presumed to have happened if another person goes off the grid. Also, health data is known because that is apart of data as well. Yep, you need to study, intelligence is shown passively the more the country produces in medical research, scientific research, and the arts and engineering. The society and research centers could develop a method to determine intelligence gain.

It is like an entrance examination to determine who would be allowed into the country and once you pass it then you are free to stay or leave as long as you wanted. If they fail the test then they would not be allowed into the country. It's fine if you are born there because you are able to grow with the system. The form of education that we are currently using does not allow for both creative and strict learning process. The education would be designed so that all students would be encouraged and given everything they would need to succeed. But they will not be helped to succeed. It would be like they will be given the legos to play with but they must build whatever they want to build with or without an instruction manual.

Ok, sorry about that. I was not able to comment for 24 hours. Ok, so the Utopia I was thinking about was one that constantly increased the well being of all of the individuals by "not" forcefully slowly increasing the general intelligence of the individuals apart of the utopia. This would be achieved by helping any student no matter the age go to school and fully pay for there schooling while also giving them as many resources as they need to succeed. They would also be given individual or group learning depending on where they are in there learning and also who they are; some people like learning by themselves vs. being in a group. The intellectual property would be fully expressed and free for anyone who is in the society can build upon the idea fully without worrying about anything. There would be no rules or government because everything is fully automated and only people who pass a test is allowed into the nation. Because there is no government there is no one to fight against so if anyone tries's to come to power people would be smart enough to see it.

Hey so my question is the following. How would you create a perfect society from a philosophical persepctive. Like would you set any rules, how would your society run and protect yourself. Also that society must be able to exist in the real world.

Thank you for the response, You are right studiot. To add to what you are saying I would like to incorporate my own idea of how teaching new ideas should be presented. That is in the combining both the structure created from formally developed ideas along with a fluid development of new ideas then you can eventually start creating legos for students to play with.

Thank you for the response, I believe that this ideology must be corrected in order to allow for the youth of our future to excel in the fields they so choose to create and/or be a part of. But if others who see those who want to advance themselves academically in order to obtain a better grasp of reality through the means of both the sciences and arts, and by art I mean the art that mimics the expressionism of the artists who wish to depict reality in their own form and not this postmodernism bull, as a cog in there perfect world I say let them try to put grease of these wheels but just know that I made both the grease and the wheel ;P.

I would like to make a philosophical proposal, please bear with me because this is my first one and I want to become better at this over time in terms of organization I would like to propose a new idea, maybe new, which I would like to define as the "The Response." Proposal for "The Response" [ Abstract ] "The Response" is what I would like to call a "virus of the mind and not of the body." Just as nihilism is a mental disease of a man coming to terms with the removal of there "true world" the response is a mental plague which affects us all and by automatically denying it's existence you may be proving that it exists. [ Body ] The formal definition that I would like to give to "The Response" is that "The Response" is a mental disease which is classified by the following symptoms; prevention of accepting new ideas due to the developed formulation of one's own ideas, the voidness of rational argument which can be used to prevent an individual with the affliction from getting better, the immediate rejection of others thoughts and opinions by making distinct classifications of developed ideas. A more general definition of "The Response" is an automatic response given by an individual utilizing previously defined information without rational argument for determining where that thought or idea came from while also at the same time rationalizing on top of this thought and preventing one's self from questioning the original thought. It is the "thought before the thought which prevents future thoughts from forming on the initial thought." It happens so fast that one is not aware that it even exists and if you are not looking or reading each word in your head carefully then it can pop up at any time. Waiting to take control of the conversation. [ Examples ] Let's say that you are reading a post that you disagree with, like say a post on a youtube comment. Your first thought which comes to mind may be "wow that sucks, I have to correct that." That right there, that is "The Response." It can be very long or very short, however, once you grab onto it or accept it then you will follow that "train of thought" so far that you will forget where it came from. And when questioned about it further you will say something that will convince you that you are right and they are wrong. [ Conclusion ] " The Response " is a disease of the mind which affects all of us, no matter how young or how old. It is what causes us to get into arguments or even hurt the ones that we call our friends. If you do not through each word that you say then you will be affected by it. * Please respond with comments of open criticisms

Hi, my name is ALine. I am new to this community and would like to put my opinion into the ring. It can generally be presumed that those who visit this site fall into 2 distinct categories. (1) An individual who is highly curious about the sciences, however, has no background within it what so ever which causes them to ask seemingly strange and simplistic questions. For this individual who is simply naturally curious, you need to be more gentle with them in your responses. It is comparative to a child who just wants to learn something new or wants to express new ideas to a community who is primarily focused toward discussing these ideas openly and fluidly. Depending upon the individual's method of delivering his thoughts or ideas it can be inferred that they are either scared of being judged for there ideas because it is being submitted into an open "arena" or they are just anxious about doing so. It is as if one of you were to go into say the arts without ever having picked up a paintbrush before and is expected to draw the Mona Lisa. By being accepting of all possible ideas it would allow for more individuals to become interested in the sciences. That is not to say that you should lessen your scrutiny of there ideas because hey let's face it if an idea is not rooted in reality then it no longer becomes a science, it is known as an art. However, instead of abruptly pointing out flaws or errors in work submitted slowly guide them in the right direction. Rome was not built in a day. The more they come on here the more they will realize their mistakes and the more they will come to realize that it is they themselves that are wrong. People really hate it when they are wrong, that is one of the consequences of the human psyche, probably. Some people will need to be moved quickly to build them up faster and some need to be moved more slowly and gradually. In doing so you can have a "LOT" more passionate individuals and have a lot more creative individuals share their ideas on here while at the same time being able to slowly start to accept criticism. (2) An individual who only wishes to prove that they are right no matter what else happens. No matter what you say or what you do they will always claim that their idea is the best idea because it proves this thing wrong, and then they do not themselves prove it wrong. Who says they know the material without knowing the material. These individuals are a little bit more tricky yet simple to deal with. Just kindly ask them to explain how they came to that conclusion. When they give an explanation simply provide your explanation for how that may be correct or incorrect. Slowly work with them to deconstruct their argument in a constructive way. See how they got to that eventual conclusion so that you can assist them in there logical and rational train of thought so that you can train them and they can help train you to become better rational thinkers. You may learn something new as well. This is not a game of "who is smartest" nor is it a fitness function in which only the "smartest" survive. What you all have created here is an academy for the free expression of knowledge between student and professor. The student must respect the professor for how much he knows and the teacher must respect the student for how much he wants to know. Both most work in a synergetic union in order to build on top of each other. The student will know more than the professor creatively and the professor will know more than the student in regards to the wisdom that they have acquired.