Plotting Utopia

It's pretty challenging to try and compare one utopia to another, because they all seem to have such different values, priorities, customs, etc. But when we trace all of these texts back to Plato, we can in fact connect most utopian thinking to two key concepts: happiness and justice.

But what do we mean when we use these terms? And how do these two measures of happiness and justice work together?

To explain this in a visual way, my husband came up with this awesome tool and I am excited to share it with you. (click on the pic to enlarge.)

We sat down and started thinking about where different Utopian texts, communities, and experiments fell and plotted many of them out on these two axes. I've included four on the graph above. I'll briefly explain one of my choices that you may not be familiar with:

Dave Bruno is the man behind the "100 Thing Challenge." You can check out his blog, or read this piece from Time Magazine to learn about his quest to own only 100 items. This strikes me as a highly individual sense of happiness (his quest does not include reducing the possessions of even his immediate family, just himself), but also a highly rule-driven one. So he goes in the top-left corner of my graph.

The two axes represent what I see as the two basic ways to quantify a utopia. Sure, the goal of utopia is happiness (represented on the x-axis), but is it an individual's happiness that is at stake, or are we concerned with the happiness of a larger society? 

And if happiness is to be achieved through justice (represented on the y-axis), how do we define that term? Can each person define her or his own ideas of justice? Or is justice codified in laws for the larger community?

So, what do you think about where I have placed Dave and the other three items on my graph? Would you place them elsewhere? Notice that I have purposefully tried to give you what I see as the four extremes; I have other items that I see as falling in between these four endpoints.

I'd love to see (in class, or here) your own versions of this graph. I think it will be quite helpful for you as you move into your SWOT Analysis and Research Essay writing over the next month. So, you can download your own version of this graph and try it out yourself.

Here is a version optimized for the web.

Here's the printer-friendly version.

Happy plotting!

The Rule of St. Benedict and Life

The lifestyle portrayed in "The Rule of St. Benedict" seems like it would be very fulfilling for those who choose to live that way. Many people would not want to live in this way, and I think that those living the Monastic life know that and are ok with that. I think that people differ in many ways concerning how much satisfaction they get out of their life. If others are pursuing a path in life which they feel gives them the most satisfaction and long term pleasure, and are not interfering with others who are trying to do the same, then I think that they are doing what is best for themselves, which is what truly matters in the end.

In class we went around the room and answered whether we agreed with doing things for either the benefit of the many, or the benefit of the one (or something along those lines). Me and Iris said for the benefit of the one, Erin said the benefit of the few, I believe, and everyone else said for the benefit of the many. When I say that I think things should be done for the benefit of the one, I do not mean that people should be selfish-rather, I observe, or think I observe, that the root cause of any decision or action one takes lies completely in self-interest. I have no problem with people putting others before themselves, and I think that I do this fairly often as well, I just think that no one actually sacrifices self fulfillment/happiness/satisfaction/utility or whatever you want to call it, on purpose, for others.

Granted, people do not always know how relatively satisfied they will be given two opposing decisions, but I think that we subconsciously make these calculations with every decision we make and choose the one that leaves us better off. People may think that they are self-sacrificing others, but I think that in every case they knew beforehand that they with feel more satisfied within themselves with their altruistic decision!

Although the Cenobite monks that are discussed in "The Rule of St. Benedict" seem to be living an unselfish lifestyle serving the Lord and living by his Rule, I think it is just another prime example of humans living solely for themselves. The end that all of them seek is to live gloriously through the Lord, and be viewed accordingly on judgement day. They want to "attain life everlasting" "in His kingdom."

What I enjoyed most about the lifestyle of these monks, was the lack of arrogance that seemed to exist in their lives. Although I think that in the end they are living for no one but themselves, the way in which they do this seems very admirable to me. They have something that they firmly believe in, work with everything they do in the name of this belief, and do not credit themselves for anything. They just expect a fair judgement in the end. One of my biggest problems with humanity is our arrogance. Everybody has so much confidence in themselves and thinks they deserve credit for useless things they did. We also think that morals only exist in humans because of our "rationality", if people are going to make up things like right and wrong, they should at least apply the same moral laws to all creatures, not just the ones whose brains developed "best" or with the highest capacity or however you want to phrase it. I myself have my own belief of how I view right and wrong, just like everybody else does. I also understand that the "rules" I use to aid my actions aren't overarching and that people can disagree with them.

I am basically just indifferent to however anyone wants to live their life. But when the ways that different people get fulfillment out of their lives conflict, I fully expect people to pursue what they think is the right thing to do.

Which twists the plot .. Toys or Not?

The driveway grips the black treads of the car as I pull into the driveway. Quickly, I shift the car into park, let the weary engine rest, and (with my keys, wallet, and phone in hand) move out of the car to the front door. The wind is bitter, and the sun is setting. Thankfully, the front stoop's light offers some reprieve from the dusk.

Three distinct knocks seem enough to get my parent's friend's attention. The father looks around the corner, grins to me in his usual mocking manner, and walks over to open the door. He lets me in, and as I walk in, I see the usual sight: the two boys are in the living room, there's some video games and toys scattered here and there, both of them seem generally uninterested in my entry .. already preoccupied with their tablets and iPhones. He leads me around to the kitchen and to the garage, pointing to three similar boxes near the farthest garage door.

"I want you to help me carry these. One upstairs, one downstairs." 

They're in the middle of remodeling .. and I have the fun of carrying two very heavy toilets around. 

With the roar of their SUV's engine, they wave and drive away, leaving me to the care of two boys. The older, ten years old, is bright but has problems focusing on work. The younger, seven years old, seems better focused than his older brother, but distractions still seem to hold him back. 

Don't get me wrong, I think that kids should be kids and should enjoy their carefree lifestyle while they can, but with everything going on around them .. TV, XBox, computer games, nexus tablet, and nintendo-ds .. it's hard to imagine they can focus at all.

After some time watching the first thirty minutes of various movies, I start go get a little annoyed:

"Guys, we should put on a movie and leave it on."

"Yeah, well we've already seen these a few times .. plus the endings aren't that great."

You can probably imagine, the night continued like this. Lots of distractions, and even lots of disobedience. The eldest tried to steal second dessert (but got caught .. ice cream no less). He asked for a snack, to which I offered granola or kashi bars .. he accepted, but tried to sneak away two granola bars .. not one. I made him share with his brother (that was the intent all along, right?). And, even after second dessert, they were still hungry and wanted more.

I told them they could have some fruit if they were still hungry, to which they groaned unhappily. And, when I sent them away to bed, they decided to cause a ruckus for thirty minutes .. breaking my trust that they would spend the time from 9:30 to 10:00 "reading". You can imagine, I wasn't very happy when I cut their horseplay party short and sent them to their rooms.

If you haven't guessed already, my concern in this post is which method really is the right way to raise kids. I would like to think it falls somewhere in-between this unrestricted, instant access to information and Plato's idea of filtering everything kids are exposed to. His idea of creating a perfect society was restricting poets and philosophers  Filtering songs and media, and shutting foreigners our. More than anything, he believed that success in such a society would be the proper upbringing of kids .. shaping them in such a way that they would feel no resentment towards their brothers. 

Something I realized after reading Plato and sitting for these kids is that, even with rigidity and structure (which, don't get me wrong, the parents were providing), the kids are still going to get sick of the established order and wish for more. Don't believe me? Tell that to the kids I baby-sat who watch anime without their parent's permission. 

I would like to believe that very careful upbringing would pave the future for a stable utopia, but the human nature that makes us break rules and live recklessly will ruin any such plans. The solution? It's somewhere in-between .. you figure it out!

Raphael Hythloday: Unreliable Narrator for Greater Understanding?

The entire description and interpretation of the island Utopia rests solely on Raphael Hythloday, an experienced sailor who traveled with experienced explorer Amerigo Vespucci on multiple occasions. He is the first (perhaps unwittingly) to circumnavigate the globe, and a sailor who learns from traveling like Ulysses and travels to learn like Plato (10-11). This is certainly all very impressive, and extremely admirable. Certainly, More couldn’t be so lucky to have the Raphael Hythloday tell him about the Utopian island.

That is, until we realize the meaning of his name.

As we learned, his surname Hythloday literally means “nonsense-distributer” or “nonsense-peddler” (7). This, I theorize, tells us all what the Utopian description really is: nonsense. It is awfully convenient that, as Peter Giles admits, “there is no mortal alive today [who] can tell you so much about unknown people and lands” (10). Now, I am not saying (although possible) that Hythloday is fabricating his entire story (for example, he never traveled with Vespucci) but that the specific details of false.

This would certainly explain some rather contradictory and inconceivable notions of the island Utopia to real-life Sir Thomas More. For instance, the fact that lawyers “are excluded entirely” (75) strikes me as extremely odd for More’s vision. More, after all, eventually became the highest and most powerful lawyer in all of England.

Wikipedia.org; "Thomas More"

 “I hate my job.”

Another example involves the unheard of tolerance of religion (except for atheism, which is opening a whole other can of worms). Real-life Thomas More, as Lord Chancellor of England, prosecuted English Protestants under King Henry VIII. Later, in the 1530s, when Henry broke away from the Catholic Church and required all English citizens to recognize the king as Supreme Head of the English Church, More refused, stating that his Catholic faith could not recognize the king as a sort of “new pope.” As a result, More was sentenced to death and was beheaded in 1535.

Here’s the real kicker: the reason that there was religious intolerance in much of human history is the exact same reason that Hythloday says there is religious tolerance in the island Utopia. When a fellow Utopian ignored the law and continued to preach against others, “he was tried on a charge, not of despising their religion, but of creating a public disorder” (85). According to history, if there were a person without your religion preaching against your own faith, then he will endanger the safety of the community and the land.

There are two possibilities here. First, More-the-author may legitimately think lawyers are “a class of men whose trade it is to manipulate cases and multiply quibbles” (75) and that any religious belief (sans atheism) is fine for the communal health of society. Or, as I tend to believe, More-the-author is using satirical language, through the character of “nonsense-peddler,” to show that what he is describing is truly not utopian. After all, wouldn’t you expect Mr. Nonsense-Peddler to fudge the truth, even a little? 

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com

Now, what of our traveler’s first name? Certainly, the name reminds us of the Archangel Raphael. This name is Hebrew in meaning, translated as “healing of God.” The angel appears in the biblical Book of Tobit as a guide and extraordinary helper to Tobias, Tobit’s son. Click here to read the (very short) Book of Tobit.

How do we reconcile these two names? On the one hand, “Raphael” shows the help and guidance of God, without which Tobias would have failed his mission; on the other hand, “Hythloday” shows nonsense.

I believe that, if we combine “God’s healing” with “nonsense-peddler,” we see that the fictional sailor speaks satirical utopianism so that we may become “enlightened” by what is good for an alternative society and what is not. It is no accident that the only character to have seen the island Utopia – who the reader entirely trusts with accurate descriptions – is named such a way.

Good vs. Evil

     St. Augustine states that there are two cities; the earthly city, and the heavenly city. In the earthly city, man lives for himself and in the heavenly city man lives for God. I believe that no man or woman is comprised of just evil, or just good. Instead, I think that everyone has both traits of good and evil within. What a person does with their life, ultimately dictates whether they are perceived by others as being good or evil or perceived by themselves as good or evil.

     The perception of what is considered good, or evil will vary from person to person, and because of this, I do not truly feel that St. Augustine’s perception of the Earthly City being evil and the Heavenly City being good is completely accurate. I think that good and evil coincide in both realms because “good” people are known to do bad things from time to time, while “bad” people are known to do good from time to time. How you view the idea of good and bad, dictates how a person is going to behave.

     St. Augustine is arguing that living for God automatically classifies you as a candidate for being part of the Heavenly City, and that living for self automatically makes you a candidate for evil.  Living for yourself should not necessarily make you an evil person, just as living for God does not automatically make you a good person.  

     Living for God to me means that you are a servant for others, while living for self-means that you are self-serving. People who live for themselves do not bear the burden of having to constantly please others, so they do not give in to the mob mentally of others. Living for God can be an excuse to do things that most people would consider wrong. When people say, “Only God can judge me”, they are basically saying that God has given them total authority and rights to do as they please.

     There is no true measure to indicate whether a person is good, or evil, but instead a person’s actions are the deciding factor for whether or not that person is good. The judgment lies in their own personal opinions, along with the opinions of others.

Having a Conversation with Thomas More

Our class discussion about why More chose to write Utopia in such a conversational tone that mixes fiction and non-fiction has stuck with me. As a lover of language and the power of words, I find it extremely interesting to discover how a piece was accepted by its contemporaries as well as those of us reading it today. I think that in certain cases that these two concepts interact in an exciting and intriguing way. To me it is mind boggling that a piece of writing about issues that were relevant over five hundred years ago can still be applicable today. In many ways it also makes me sad to face the reality that many of the wrongs of More’s time have still yet to be righted in our own time.  It also works simultaneously to transport us back into More’s society where he could not speak freely about his ideas without fear of punishment. In a strange way it both connects and separates us from them. 

In dealing with the content of Utopia specifically, I find myself agreeing with More’s ideas more often than disagreeing. I also am far more appreciative of the humorous and informal narrative over our previous dissertations. This actually illuminates an interesting point. Perhaps I am not solely more inclined to agree with More, but I appreciate his delivery so I feel less negativity towards his ideas. What is a specific section then that stand out to me as troublesome? 

Like a blaring red light, More’s alternative suggestion for the punishment of thieves sticks out to me in the text. I appreciated his earlier consideration and concern for the poor and how and why they’ve become poor. With this introduction into the topic I expected More’s solution to be more compassionate and humane. However, his proposal to commit the man who steals to a life of hard labor does not strike me as a punishment comparable to the crime. More does make it clear that “If he works hard, he’s not treated at all badly. He has to answer to roll-call every morning, and he’s locked up for the night-but otherwise, apart from having to work very long hours, he has a perfectly comfortable life” (30). Throughout class discussion I came to a better, or more appropriate, realization that in More’s time period that this was considered a kind punishment. But for me it begs the question about what makes life worth living? In theory this punishment is acceptable because the man will have shelter and food to eat. However, he will be kept from his family, possessions and likely any form of entertainment or pleasure. In this case is his life really of any worth to him? Or is his worth being measured by his servitude to his country? I know that this is a place where past merges with present and the cultures and times are different. Still, I think that in a small way this concept is one way to look at whether or not we are making decisions that are for the benefit of the one or the whole. 

Image #1:  http://salesmomsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Speak-Your-Mind.jpg

Image #2:  http://nearemmaus.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/gadamerpicture.jpeg

Image #3:  http://www.kurzweilai.net/images/cartoon-meaning-of-life.jpg

The Leading of the Soul

    Can a soul really be corrupted, or is corruption already within one’s soul?  Does the soul start off in a pure state?  While I think that the soul can be corrupted, I argue that as a child one is generally without corruption. The soul, to me, starts out in somewhat of a pure state that can be modified with guidance.

    Plato argues there are three parts to the soul; the mind, the spirited, and the appetitive parts. These parts of the soul are within every individual, but each person leans towards one of the three parts more heavily than the other two parts. I agree that each individual leans towards one part of the soul more than the other parts, but I do not agree with Plato’s societal hierarchy.

     I feel that although a person may be categorized by Plato as someone with a rational soul, that same person is not limited by that categorization, but instead, that person may choose his or her own destiny. To me, Plato is saying that if you are a spirited person, you will end up as a soldier and if you are an appetitive person, you will be a worker.

  

    I believe that a person can shape their own destiny, and the soul that people are born with does not necessarily define them. A person’s actions will mold their soul, and a person’s actions will mold their own destiny. 

What is Good?

     For many, good may have multiple meanings. When the word good arises in conversation, comparisons to monetary objects generally come about. Plato has a view that gold, silver, and bronze should be the "Standard" for which people's lives are to follow, along with not much room for improvising, or changes. Good takes on many forms, but in particular when it comes to a person's life from birth to death, good can be anything ranging from having loving parents, to just being able to have the basic necessities such as a home, or food.  

    In comparison to Plato's time, the mass media would have one think that good is something such as; having one risk their health in order to fit the beauty ideal, or having an extremely large amount of money to indicate power. In my view good cannot be simply put into general terms, but instead I think that good comes in many forms, and that good has to be determined by the individual, and the individual alone. 

    While society can play a major factor in the defining of good, I believe within self is where the true meaning of good resides. Depending on where you stand on the issue of what is considered good or not, ask yourself the question, then why are some people good, while others are not? Gold, silver, and bronze, to me are not standards to measure goodness or value of self, but instead these are monetary things that could potentially corrupt ones view of good.

Monateries: Possible Utopia?

The Rule of St. Benedict was an interesting read, but I know why it was kind of related to our class. It was a small scale example of a possible utopian society. All I know is that there are a lot of rules when it comes to living the life of a monk or a nun and I don’t think I would be able to do it. I was surprised to find that most of the rules, punishment wise, were not too severe.  To sit and eat alone in isolation isn’t exactly the worst punishment that one could have. To me, that is like telling a rich kid to go to his room. One thing that I did like about one of the rules was the way that they handled their guests and children. Guest are really taken care of and treated with utmost respect. With children, I was happy that they did take into account that children are young and aren’t old enough to understand some of the harsh rules. I also liked how if one were to get expelled from the monastery, they could come back a certain number of times to try again before they had to be expelled for good. The Christian value of forgiveness was definitely evident in this rule and I liked that.

I didn’t like the idea that one could not receive letters from home unless the superior approved it. I felt a little agitated by the idea that there was to be no personal items in the area where everyone sleeps and that it had to be searched by the superior. That was almost spirit breaking, but I understand why that rule is put in place. I didn’t like the idea of one person being in charge of everyone else because I feel like there is always going to be that one person who gets out of control with power—yes, I believe that this can still happen with people that are in charge of monasteries. I don’t know what they would do to rectify this or make it better, but I just didn’t really like the thought of that. Overall, this was a good reading and I believe that a monastery considered a utopia because it is a community that is working in a way that works for the commonwealth (their community). In my opinion, this is a utopia for people that choose to live this lifestyle.

You are speaking to me, More

I completely could relate to the beginning first few paragraphs. Page 6 he talks about how his whole day is devoted to others and by the end of the day there is nothing left for himself. I feel the constant pull of other things in my life and have no time to devote to myself. Full-time college, two part-time jobs, a child in kindergarten, a puppy, a horse, and keeping up with my own home... you can only imagine. Isn't it so true how time does go by so quickly. We surround ourselves with so many tasks that are required in order to get through the daily routines of life, but doing so we lose on so much.


I can understand how wonderful it must have felt for him to complete Utopia. He had been working on it for so long and interchangeably with so many parts of life that always seem to get in the way. These things aren't "bad" they are just things that keep us from consuming our lives with ourselves. Family is a big part in all of it. For some it is their jobs. That is why the doctor always tells the patient who just had the heart attack, "Go get rest and take time for yourself." It really is an important thing to do. So while I'm sitting here reading our new book, Utopia, I am using this time as "me" time...even though I really consider it homework time.

A rant against people who have killed christianity for me

This essay is by no means a rant against the teachings of Jesus Christ. From my point of view he was a pretty cool guy and got almost everything right. What this is a rant against are the people who have, for lack of a better word, completely bastardized the teachings of Christ largely through their actions which they perform while claiming to be followers of Christ. Much of what Christ said to his followers is located in the rules put forth by St. Benedict. Although his book was written some 500 years after the death of Jesus, St Benedict still was preaching, in my opinion, the correct teachings of Christ and, more importantly, was actually following what Jesus said to do. For example some of the rules put forth by St. Benedict are as follows: 3. “Then not to murder.” 5. “Not to steal.” 8. “To honor all (1 Peter 2:17).” 52. “To guard one's tongue against evil and depraved speech.” Both rules 3 and 5 are part of the Ten Commandments, and rule 52 is another way of saying judge not lest ye be judged as well as to be careful what you say.

So how was it, I ask, that after 500 years one person could still understand the basic teachings of Christ while some 1000 years afterward many in the church have gone in a 180 direction from the original teachings of Christ? In my opinion at least part of the reason lies in the way in which certain people interpret the word of God. In fairness many people who are Christian actually do follow the teaching of Christ and try their best to love and honor their neighbor. The problem lies with the fact that the vast majority of Christians on TV, the televangelists as well as the most highly visible Christians throughout history are completely wacked out fundamentalists who use the Bible for their own personal gains.

Examples as to how these Christians misconstrue Jesus’ teachings are as follows. “Not to murder.” This commandment seemed not exist to the people of the Spanish Inquisition who gleefully murdered thousands of non-Christians in the name of Jesus Christ. I mean come on... the Aztecs did basically the same thing in offering human sacrifices to their gods and supposedly the Spanish were more civilized than they were. “Not to Steal.” Might I mention the names of Jim and Tammy Baker? If you don't know them look them up then ask yourself how many trusting older women sent their money to those two. “To honor all (1 Peter 2:17).” This is so important that the Biblical reference is given, yet many prominent Christians still do not understand it. From Jerry Falwell to Fred Phelps of Westborough Baptist fame, the common sentiment is we love you only if you agree with us. “To guard one's tongue against evil and depraved speech.” This should be taught to anyone who preaches hate in the name of Jesus, and, most recently, the  teacher in Indiana who said that she wants a "straight only prom because LGBT people have no purpose." To end this rant I myself would like to interpret the Bible for once. On November 7th 2012 both gay marriage and the use of recreational marijuana passed by referendum in some US states. Leviticus 20:13 states: “If man lies with another man he should be stoned.” It all makes sense now. We've just been interpreting it wrong.

 

 

One Man's Utopia....

We have read several different opinions on utopia so far from a broad range of times and personal backgrounds and so far there is no universal ideal of utopia. Sure some of them share common ideals like working hard and sharing goals but some preach strict rules, teachings, censorship, and other limitations. Personally I don't see this as utopia and that's where the issues begin.

EVERYONE has a different view on perfect. Someone could want ultimate freedom to do whatever they want whenever they want. Someone else could want strict rules, guidelines, and someone else to tell them how to live their life so they won't have to make decisions. A third person could want a mix of the first two. So how can anyone ultimately define a utopia? Honestly, I'm not sure you can. It will always be open for debate and criticism.

The fact that it is always under such scrutiny is what makes utopias such an interesting topic. If you couldn't sit around with a group of people (or even just yourself) and debate the aspects of what you want in your personal utopia I don't believe it would be so amazing. If everyone agreed on the ultimate utopia and perfection there wouldn't be a "utopia", we'd already be living it. Utopia is meant to be a constantly changing and evolving goal. It is like the light at the end of the tunnel. We are on a journey to better ourselves and in turn reach the light of utopia.

"Get thee to a Nunnery!"

Living in a monastery...surrounded by people, prayer, and peace. While I understand the they are a brotherhood and helpful to each other, I cannot say they have the relationships with others that I believe make us healthy human beings and lead us to a better, more utopic society. After all, they removed themselves from society rather than interacted with it.

After reading the assigned chapters of The Rules of St. Benedict, there were a few aspects I found of the monastic lifestyle appealing:

1. The Instruments of Good works
   1. while I can't say I agreed with all seventy-two ules, most of them appealed to me
2. Living within their means
   1. One has to realize what is necessary and what is not. Once we realize these means, I feel that our society would be a bit better.
3. Honesty
   1. With yourself, others, and your God.
4. Content
   1. We have to be happy with what we have, but as we mentioned yesterday the grass is always greener on the other side. However, if we can be content with what we have, then we will be more likely to live a better, more meaningful life
5. Punishment
   1. Any society or culture should have punishment. It just needs to be justified and match the crime. Physical punishment should only be used to the most severe crimes. And “God” should decide what they punishment should be. I am a firm believer in karma and therefore each person will get their due in life by the decisions they make.
6. Working
   1. Every person should have to work. It may not be a lot of physical labor, but as long as they are contributing to society in some way then they are doing their part to make a better life for themselves and others
   2. Working teaches a lot of valuable things: work ethic, integrity, responsibility, perseverance
7. Common Belief/Values
   1. If people can agree on values and what is important then nothing can stop them from working together to achieve happiness.
      
      
      

Now, I am not an atheist – I just do not know my religious beliefs or if I even do believe, I have to many questions that have to be answered that have yet to be. However, I feel that there is more to life than a deity...and that life should be lived for other reasons than loving and fearing God.

Mentioned in Plato's The Republic, he says that their should not be an excess of happiness and in the monastery there is no excess of anything. However, I think happiness should be one of the main goals in life and that some of the physical aspects of life help us find this happiness. Such as love of a partner, family, friendship, humor, laughter, identity, etc...(maybe I watch to many Disney movies) None of this is found in the document we read because they removed themselves from society or temptations...(if we can conquer our temptations, could we not conquer most anything?)

While a monastery may not be considered a utopia from a non-religious point of view, there are aspects or practices that I believe can lead to a better society. It is up to the people to put them into practice and follow them.

Images:

http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/following-unwritten-rules/

http://weheartit.com/tag/and%20they%20lived%20happily%20ever%20after

Word Count: 573

Rules are for Fools

While reading the Rule of Saint Benedict, I couldn't help but notice two things: 1) These people have way too many rules and 2) I would never ever want to be a Benedictine nun.  As I was reading through the “rule book”, I decided to make two columns; one with a list of things I did like about the society, and one with a list of things I didn't like about the society.  Here is what I found to be “yay” or “nay” about being a Benedictine nun/monk.

Yay! 

• ·         The Abbess leads her nuns by example.  She doesn't just talk the talk, but she walks the walk.  Makes for a good leader and a more receptive following.
• ·         The Abbess is required to teach her nuns according to their different personalities.  This is a good tactic when it comes to teaching in general.
• ·         When there is an issue within the monastery that needs to be confronted, the Abbot first asks the opinions of everyone before making a decision that may impact the monastery as a whole.  This gives the monks a voice within the community and can lead to a happy democracy if the Abbot actually listens.
• ·         Punishment for the nuns is based upon the severity of the fault.  If the fault is worthy of a harsh penalty, then the punishment will reflect that.  It’s only fair.  No one gets special treatment.
• ·         A monk who decides to leave the monastery is welcome back but must prove himself worthy to be back in the religious group.  This rule allows for some flexibility regarding your standing with the community but also reminds the monks that it is a privilege to be there.
• ·         The Cellarer must be just like everyone else.  He is a good example and acts like a father figure to the monks.  I like the idea that there is a guaranteed father figure within the group.  There is always someone to go to with your problems.
• ·         Good care is given to the sick within the community.  They are to be treated “like Christ”.
• ·         The nuns are allowed to drink wine! (in moderation of course)
• ·         Everything is done in moderation.  “Let all things be done in moderation, however, for the sake of the faint-hearted”.  There is no chance of becoming too enthralled in one activity or object, making for a well-rounded person.
• ·         The monk’s clothing is very practical.  They dress modestly and for the weather.  There isn't any competition or jealousy regarding who has the best clothing, eliminating that status quo.

Nay

• ·         In chapter 2.11 it says that the Abbess should treat all of the nuns equally, but she has the power to promote those who she thinks is better than others.  “Let her make no distinction of persons in the monastery.  Let her not love one more than another, unless it be one whom she finds better in good works or obedience”.  It’s incredibly contradictory and in no way the “Christian” thing to do.
• ·         Punishment is really harsh! Beating the nuns/monks with “rods”?! Physical beating is not the answer! Especially in a “Utopian” society.
• ·         The Abbess is entirely responsible for the spiritual well-being of her nuns.  That’s a lot of pressure for one person!  Spiritual health should be a personal affair, not something that is controlled and monitored by one person.
• ·         In chapter 4, under the list of “Instruments of Good Works”, the only one that I had a problem with was number 13.  “To love fasting”.  No one should “love” to fast.  It’s a sacrifice that you make in order to grow closer to God.  It shouldn't be an enjoyable process.  How can you have a Utopia when everyone is grumpy from being hungry, anyway?
• ·         How can anyone fulfill all of the things on the “Instruments of Good Works” list?  It’s a list of impossibilities that no one can accomplish.  The list is asking for impossible perfection in order to attain salvation.   
• ·         Monks are supposed to live in perpetual fear of God and to give up all of their free will in order to be at service to the Lord.  That doesn't sound like a very happy or fulfilling lifestyle to me. 
• ·         Humility is considered a major virtue, as it should be, but Monks are expected to consider themselves lower than all others, even though they are some of the closest beings to God spiritually.  That seems pretty detrimental to ones self-esteem, which is the farthest thing from Utopian.
• ·         Monks are meant to be in a constant state of guilt.  “Feeling the guilt of his sins at every moment, he should consider himself already present at the dread Judgment…”  What kind of life are you living if you are constantly feeling guilty for being human? To me, that is no way to live, and no way to obtain Utopia.

Basically, I found many things that I disagreed with in the Benedictine society.  There is no individuality and no real way to express who you are in this society.  This set of guidelines may work well for some, but not everyone is alike.  Not everyone in this society can easily conform to the rules set up by Saint 

Benedict, which ultimately makes this society the farthest thing from a Utopia.

In my opinion, a Utopia is a personal experience.  What is perfect for one person may not be perfect for another.  This society seems to be very dystopian.  It’s all about conformity and following strict rules that may not fit the lifestyle or the opinions of others.  A society should not have to follow a rule book in order to achieve a Utopian society.