Utopia Discussion Question #2
May 1, 2008 by mswilson
“There’s a delightful image in Plato, which explains why a sensible person is right to steer clear of politics. He sees everyone else rushing into the street and getting soaked in the pouring rain. He can’t persuade them to go indoors and keep dry. He knows if he went out too, he’d merely get equally wet. So he just stays indoors himself, and, as he can’t do anything about other people’s stupidity, comforts himself with the thought: ‘Well, I’m all right, anyway.’”
Is Hythloday correct in this analogy? Or is More right when he says, “If you can’t completely eradicate wrong ideas, or deal with inveterate vices as effectively as you could wish, that’s no reason for turning your back on public life altogether. You wouldn’t abandon ship in a storm just because you couldn’t control the winds?”
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
They’re both right palto in that when one cannot persuade another it is pointless to go and get involved and risk being converted yourself because then the other idea is lost, at least by staying seperate the idea lives on and in different ways one can pass it on and cause change. More is also right but his hypothetical is a little to an extreme, as being in a ship in a storm one might as well try because there is no other choice its sink or try and fight the storm. While the situation Plato describes allows for other methods.
More is right about this. You can’t just shut out all of your friends because you don’t agree with what they’re doing. Either live a little & try whatever it is that they’re doing, or don’t do it & you can still hang out with them. Life isn’t about waiting for the storm to pass, it’s about learning to dance in the rain. (There’s my quote Ms. W!)
However, it’s a completely different story if your friends are doing something really bad…like killing people. I don’t suggest trying that…..or hanging out with them anymore. At that point you should probably make new friends.
I believe that Hythloday is wrong in his analogy. I do feel that you can only help a person so much until they have to help themselves so I believe that although you cant help everyone, the idea that you must only protect yourself and everyone else is “on their own” is wrong. I think capitalism makes us believe that it is “survival of the fittest” and you must be able to take care of your self, but, while there is nothing wrong with being self sufficient, there is also nothing wrong with helping someone out or being helped out. We as a society are too quick to jump to the independent route when, in actuality, our world needs each other to help one another. If everyone just did a small, helpful deed to one person a day the world would be a much better place to live in.
I believe that Hythloday is more correct when he says “If you can’t…control the winds.” The first quote possesses a childish tone. In effect it’s saying that if I can’t get what I want, then I won’t try, and this is not what I feel to be an appropriate answer for anyone. If Hythloday wants to change the face of politics and sway people’s views, it is essential to persist. And though it is a frustrating goal, (to change people’s mindsets) giving up in the face of a challenge never got anyone anywhere. I would however agree, “that a sensible person is right to steer clear of politics.” Politics can be maddening and (sometimes/frequently) fruitless. To turn one’s back on public life completely is irresponsible though. In a democratic society anyways everyone has a vote and his or her voice counts. If you want things to change, you have to get and stay proactive.
I think that theres no point in trying to fix things that if you know that it’snot going to work. I mean you might make things worst if you try something and does not end up working. I mean now a days people are still trying to fix things and it is not really working all that well for them. I mean if you try to fix things then you are just trying to get yourselves invlove and if you know its not going to work what is the poin in even trying to fix I mean it would just be a waste of your time.
In the first we see a man who has not necesarily given up but has taken a sudden realization to the limit of his persuasion. In politics it is seemingly impossible to try and get everyone to agree with one certain idea but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t give up. In the second i agree with francisco as in its a very extreme outlook onthe situation.
I believe that More is correct. Although you may disagree with the others, that is no reason to virtually turn your back on public life simply because you do not agree with the public. Hythloday is basically showing how selfish he is, because since he cannot get what he wants, he is going to give up trying at all. I agree with More that, “you wouldn’t abandon ship in a storm just because you couldn’t control the winds?” Although he may not be able to fully control others or be able to sway them, there is no harm in trying.
I agree with these views to some extent, i agree that just because you are not able to change peoples view that you shouldnt turn your back to them. But in that it is pointless to try to change peoples views i disagree, if your able to prove a certin view wrong i think a sensible person would take another view, but many dont and it doesnt mean that you should turn your back on them either but at least you tryed. And as long as you make an attempt to sway someones views there is a chance that you will and when you do achive that it becomes no longer pointless. But if you dont try to change someones views you wont, so your not making any difference at all.
Hythloday’s argument boils down to, “If you can’t change people’s minds, give up” and More is telling people to “keep trying.” Starting from a very young age, we are all taught to try our best and never give up. More’s argument is right in line with what we are already hardwired to believe and it is very easy to agree with him. I do however believe that you can only help people in so far as they are willing to help themselves. This doesn’t mean that you should ever give up on a friend or an entire society, but it is important to acknowledge that political progress can be a pain-stakingly slow and often times dangerous process. Sir Thomas More was beheaded for his political beliefs, a warning to all that “never giving up” may mean that you are forced to give yourself up for a cause.
I agree with most of what people have said, that More is correct when he says you wouldn’t abandon ship just because you can’t control the winds. Although you can’t help everyone and its only human nature for others to disagree with you and not listen to your opintions, you shouldn’t just give up and say, “well at least I’m doing the right thing, screw everyone else.” Like katie said, you can only help someone so much before they have to help themselves.
In terms of government or public life, I think you should fight for what you believe in and make your voice hear and you never know, some people could agree with you and “come in from the rain” and although you wont get everyone to agree with you, at least you made your feelings known. Although you can only really look out for yourself to a certain extent, you should never give up on others completely.
I agree with More because I don’t think it’s right to turn your back on everyone else because you fear that they won’t listen to you. Although you may not change the minds of the majority there will always be at least one person that you positevly influence and that in it’s self is a vcitory. If you know that you’re right then you should all that you can to convince others of your opinion. It’s weak and foolish to become staisfied with the fact that you know you’re right. Although it may be hard for sensible people to go into politics since it’s a profession filled with lies and corruption, it’s nevertheless something that they must do. The only way a country can move forward is if the people in power continue to fight for what they feel is best even if they don’t have public support. People ate naturally stubborn but giving up on them won’t get anything accomplished. Perseverence and determination will eventually lead to people realizng that what you’re doing is right.
I agree with More’s statement. Rather than ignoring our problems, we must find ways to fight through them. This is just a part of life. Hytholoday’s view reminds me a lot of Quixote. Quixote sees everything from his view in a chivalric and unrealistic manner. Rather than dealing with reality, he alters many situations so that they suit him. Like Hytholoday, he is escaping all bad situations. Sancho on the other hand takes things for what they are and deals with reality. Like More, he believes in trying and taking risks.
Well, I’d say that both Hythloday and More are correct under different circumstances. I like More’s oppinon, because I believe that if humans didn’t follow his reasoning, everyone would fall into despair. Not only is it irrational, but it is not human nature to only give one go at an obstacle. Everyone fails, and often, but we learn from our mistakes and that helps us in succeeding and feeling a sense of achievement. An obstruction to success can be intimidating, but it should not discourage people from striving to succeed. It is not important to try, but to act and to get things done, instead of backing away when we are out of our comfort zone. On the other hand, Hythloday raises a very valid point that if trying to correct something might in fact make the situation worse. As Plato said, it’s better that one person is wet than two, where there is reason in not trying. If an obstacle does not seem feasible in anyway to overcome, then there is no sense in trying if failing will lead to a negative effect. Howver, if there is no harm in trying or the chances of succeeding or higher, then it would be nonsense not to try.
I agree with everyone who said that More’s viewpoint is more correct than Hythloday’s. Maybe one person can’t teach everyone else to do the right thing. But, as Damian said, reaching even a few people is an accomplishment, because no large goal is ever achieved all at once. If people don’t share their ideas, even to a limited number of people, society cannot make any progress. If everyone thought like Hythloday, ideas would not spread, people would not work together, and it would be impossible to accomplish anything.
I think that More is right here because he presents the less radical version of Hythloday, who says that you must completely turn your back on society if they do not agree with you. I think that completely turning your back on society is just ridiculous because then you will you may be turning your back to people who may think the same way that you do. I also think that More is right in saying that you wouldn’t jump ship just because you can’t control the winds.
I agree with Damian, Kristen, and everyone else that supports More’s idea. Anyone that scorns their peers for getting involved with politics is taking for granted that they live in a society in which they even have that privelage. Even today, many countries are run by dictators whose power stems from the fact that their subjects cannot overthrow them. To quote a famed movie, “People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.” The general population has the responsibility of deciding, through politics, who will lead the society. Thus, being passionate about politics is essential in any democratic society.
I would have to agree with Liana on this one. Although the thing we are “supposed” to say is just keep working towards what you believe in, don’t be discouraged, determination, hope blah blah blah that is just unrealistic and more often than not leads to problems and pain without any real change being effected. There is a reason why one of the things that you don’t really discuss in polite company is politics because it only leads to arguments. I think in real life, unless you dedicate your life to crusading for some cause, it is best to just avoid discussing such things, as Oscar Wilde wrote, “I dislike arguments of any kind. They are always vulgar and often convincing.” I realize discussion, debate and argument are supposedly pillars of a well functioning democracy but practically, it is best just to avoid conflict. Sometimes ignorance (and also apathy) really is bliss.
I actually have to disagree with everyone on More’s example. “You wouldn’t abandon ship in a storm just because you couldn’t control the winds?” There is a good reason for that and that is by jumping overboard you are abandoning yourself, to heck with other people, you stay on the ship to survive. More has a bad example, but he is an Idealist with ideals we see in many children’s books and cartoons. Liana is right, when we are young if we fail at something we don’t want to continue trying, but we are told to get back on our feet by our elders. The thing is that this isn’t natural, what is natural is to give up and stop trying, it won’t always be on the first try, but it will happen eventually. I am not one for society, frankly I despise it, but I disagree with Hythloday as well. It is impossible to escape society for all practical purposes anymore so when it grabs a hold of you, you might as well try to change it for the better. By reading Hythloday’s quote it is easy to tell that he fell into despise years before this quote and gave up on society. The weak are those who give up, but the foolish are those who never do.