Posts by Sam Martinez9

Amy Bennett said:

I don't really know how to put this into words—it’s a bit awkward to admit—but I feel like I've been stuck in a loop lately. It's that feeling where you're just... wandering? Not quite lost, but definitely not moving forward either. It's like being caught in a constant state of transit without ever actually arriving at a destination. I've been trying to process it all, but everything feels a bit hazy. Just one of those things, I guess. Sam Martinez9 says:
To be fair, some communities have actually managed to figure out how to handle conflict—whether they rely on the pull of a charismatic leader or some kind of democratic process aimed at reaching a consensus.
They tend to last longer that way, for sure—as long as they actually have a clear vision to hold onto. I guess the real question is what their actual purpose is, and more importantly, what someone really gains by sticking around in a community like that.
The author points out that their "success rate" is pretty much on par with what you'd see from a Silicon Valley startup—though, to be fair, I don't think anyone is actually questioning their underlying purpose or why they do what they do.

Is that figure a little too low, though? I can't help but wonder if there’s any more detailed data out there to back it up. It makes me curious—which types of communities actually manage to last longer, and which ones tend to fall apart first? Does anyone know what the average lifespan of a community actually looks like? I'd also love to know what kind of specific struggles different groups run into along the way.

Do you think the Amish count in this? To me, they seem to be holding it together a whole lot better than all these utopia freaks. 🤷

That would require people who are morally perfect. Honestly, I haven’t run into anyone quite like that yet—if I had to pick the closest thing, maybe some of the hardline communists or progressives, but even then, you could argue that's just splitting hairs. There's also the issue that even in those groups, you'd likely see constant friction; any cooperation would probably just be a way to manage the underlying conflict. And that's just looking at the human element. Beyond people, you're talking about a total transformation of the entire cosmos along with us—for all the obvious reasons Flying mentioned down below.

This is just completely nonsensical.

Cooperation without conflict doesn't actually require perfect people; it just requires rational ones. It requires individuals who, first and foremost, understand themselves and possess the capacity to regulate their own emotions and impulses. It sounds daunting, but it isn't. It would be significantly easier if our society encouraged this kind of stability rather than constantly fueling strife, warfare, and base passions. Yet, despite how much our culture pushes the opposite, we are seeing an increasing number of people who choose to rely solely on cooperation and actively avoid confrontation.

Furthermore, the existence of morally perfect people would signal the end of Humanity. You see, Humanity is defined by evolution and the journey itself; perfect people represent the destination, which means the end of the road for Humanity.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Since a few threads have already popped up on Philosophy about individuals "escaping" society, I figured it was high time I started this one—focusing on how entire groups try to make that break. I’ve been sitting on this idea for a while.

First off, sorry if my wording is a bit clunky... I wasn't sure if I should stick to the literal "intentional communities" or just call them "utopian communities."
But let's be real—using the word "utopian" right out of the gate just triggers all those old prejudices—you know, the whole anarchist, hippie commune, religious cult vibe.

Still, maybe a little "preconception" is exactly what we need to get people talking... 😁 ... though if anyone has a better title for this, go ahead and throw it out there.
"Intentional communities" are a wild, diverse bunch, and yeah, they definitely include the types that most people look at sideways.
Anyway, trying to find a somewhat objective take on this, I stumbled upon this article...

Utopian Struggle : Preconceptions and Realities of Intentional Communities

So, here we have the biases versus the actual facts regarding these groups...

The author, Bill Metcalf, actually knows his stuff—he’s spent decades living in these setups and has been researching and writing about them for 30 years.
He’s looked into over a hundred of them to figure out why some work and others crash and burn, digging into a history where the same damn mistakes keep getting repeated over and over again.

Here is his definition...

An intentional community:

A group of five or more people, coming from different families or social circles, who voluntarily join forces to tackle specific social issues or shortcomings. They’re looking for a life outside the "mainstream" by adopting consciously designed—and usually pretty well-thought-out—social and cultural alternatives.

To reach their goals, they share major parts of their lives. Members carry this "we-consciousness," seeing themselves as a permanent, distinct group that is, in many ways, superior to the society they left behind.

Eco-village:

An intentional community focused on environmental sustainability alongside social justice, equality, peace, and so on.

So, what’s your take on this whole phenomenon?

I mentioned the Ithaca Eco-village in the US and an article about them on another thread... and one user basically just trashed them as a bunch of ridiculous losers after reading about them.

Look, I get why people react that way... but is the media mostly just pushing a negative or totally unrealistic image of these people?

This really should have accompanied my previous post, but I forgot: since you are so fond of small communities (which is obvious from everything you write), why don't you actually live in one? Shouldn't you at least try living in one, so if you did eventually leave, you'd have a realistic perspective rather than just relying on what the media tells you?

My affirmation of small communities might not sit well with you because it isn't quite what you emotionally crave.

Ultimately, modern Humanity is composed of small communities. The only thing separating a small community from the rest of the world is that the boundaries aren't always sharp. A family is a small community, and within a city of 24 million people, large metropolises are broken down into neighborhoods; large states are divided into counties or regions, cities, towns, and even specialized groups—like a hiking club, a mushroom foraging group, an animal rescue organization, or a bluegrass band. A small community exists within larger ones.

As for communities that are more distinctly separated from the rest of society, we can look at religious groups, such as various monastic orders; for instance, I would suggest a Dinner Party community as a good example of that kind of setup.

Then we have villages that are isolated by poverty or by the sheer geography of the land, tucked away in hard-to-reach areas. You find these everywhere—from the Himalayas to parts of Romania or Bulgaria, mostly in the mountainous regions of almost every country in the world.

However, we should also include mountain villages in wealthy nations, such as those found in the Alps of Austria, Switzerland, or Italy.

Or, say, towns and villages located on islands.

We have the kibbutzim in Israel acting as small communities...

For a small community to truly succeed, it needs to be firmly linked to larger structures. Laws, economics... they cannot exist in total isolation. A community cannot simply operate under its own private legal code; it must be integrated into the legal system of the larger entity. The same applies to the economy.

And, naturally, the more prosperous the nation a small community resides in, the better and easier life will be there, which reduces the likelihood of the community collapsing or members leaving to seek a better life elsewhere.

People don't typically abandon villages in Austria, whereas American coastal islands risk becoming ghost towns.

Joseph Bailey41 said:And that was exactly the kind of "civilization" I was talking about. One of the biggest drivers for forming a community like that, and keeping it going, is the desire to "escape" from a social reality that, at its worst, devolves into people fighting over trivial status symbols. But the real kicker is that you can't run away from yourself. If you're naturally combative, or if life has just hardened you into being that way, you're going to bring that baggage right into the new community, which eventually poisons the internal dynamic. Maybe stricter vetting of new members could help, but it's incredibly difficult to tell at first glance who's actually a misfit because they operate on a "pre-conventional" (basically sociopathic) level, versus someone who has reached a "post-conventional" stage and is just completely fed up with the rat race.

You never truly know... maybe she’s just quietly undermining the whole system from the inside. 😬

Yes, you are, my mistake. I was already running on fumes, so I completely missed that.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Since a few threads have already popped up on Philosophy about individuals "escaping" society, I figured it was high time I started this one—focusing on how entire groups try to make that break. I’ve been sitting on this idea for a while.

First off, sorry if my wording is a bit clunky... I wasn't sure if I should stick to the literal "intentional communities" or just call them "utopian communities."
But let's be real—using the word "utopian" right out of the gate just triggers all those old prejudices—you know, the whole anarchist, hippie commune, religious cult vibe.

Still, maybe a little "preconception" is exactly what we need to get people talking... 😁 ... though if anyone has a better title for this, go ahead and throw it out there.
"Intentional communities" are a wild, diverse bunch, and yeah, they definitely include the types that most people look at sideways.
Anyway, trying to find a somewhat objective take on this, I stumbled upon this article...

Utopian Struggle : Preconceptions and Realities of Intentional Communities

So, here we have the biases versus the actual facts regarding these groups...

The author, Bill Metcalf, actually knows his stuff—he’s spent decades living in these setups and has been researching and writing about them for 30 years.
He’s looked into over a hundred of them to figure out why some work and others crash and burn, digging into a history where the same damn mistakes keep getting repeated over and over again.

Here is his definition...

An intentional community:

A group of five or more people, coming from different families or social circles, who voluntarily join forces to tackle specific social issues or shortcomings. They’re looking for a life outside the "mainstream" by adopting consciously designed—and usually pretty well-thought-out—social and cultural alternatives.

To reach their goals, they share major parts of their lives. Members carry this "we-consciousness," seeing themselves as a permanent, distinct group that is, in many ways, superior to the society they left behind.

Eco-village:

An intentional community focused on environmental sustainability alongside social justice, equality, peace, and so on.

So, what’s your take on this whole phenomenon?

I mentioned the Ithaca Eco-village in the US and an article about them on another thread... and one user basically just trashed them as a bunch of ridiculous losers after reading about them.

Look, I get why people react that way... but is the media mostly just pushing a negative or totally unrealistic image of these people?

First off—it’s a matter of personal choice. We only get one life, so everyone should have the right to live exactly how they please, even if they happen to be making a mistake.

I skimmed through the article pretty quickly, and most of the communities mentioned seemed to have a negative bent—religious cults and things of that nature. Regarding those types of groups, I can only say one thing: they don't sit well with me because they actually offer less freedom than living in larger societies. There is almost always some *supreme leader* imposing incredibly rigid laws on every single member. Control is much easier to maintain and far more pervasive in small communities, leaving very little room for an individual to *live on their own terms*. The community only lives "differently" in relation to the rest of American society. Beyond that, all small communities inevitably offer a limited way of life to their members. What am I getting at? For instance, if a child in such a community has a talent and dreams of becoming a world-class pianist, a microbiologist, or even a surgeon, they won't be able to pursue that within the confines of a tiny commune; the group simply lacks the financial resources and infrastructure to support it. That is just another way liberty is stripped away.

In that sense, small communities act as deviations from mainstream society. Society is tolerant enough to allow them to exist, and since they are too weak to cause widespread damage, the harm is usually contained within the membership itself.

So, there is my critique of small communities; the affirmation will follow in my next post.

Joseph Bailey41 said:That’s just one part of it. The second factor is the environment the community lives in. If things are tough—whether due to nature or just the way society is perceived—that pressure tends to pull people together and encourage them to work as one. But once you cross that line where the surroundings stop being just "difficult" and start feeling genuinely threatening... that's when things get messy. You see social breakdowns, or the group shifts back toward more "traditional" ways of organizing themselves to survive.

I agree.

Though I would argue we need to include the social landscape in that definition of "environment." Capitalism, unfortunately, is designed to foster conflict—whether it's the cutthroat competition in the market or the internal power struggles within a corporation—and it's incredibly hard to resist that pull.

I’ve actually had the chance to observe the *evolution* of one young woman who, over the course of a decade, transformed from a genuinely kind person into a total predator who crushes anyone in her path. She works in an environment like that, at a major firm like State Farm, where everything is measured by metrics and compensation is tied strictly to performance. And in that world, you can only succeed if you step on whoever is beneath you to get ahead. It's chilling.

Betty Fowler said:True, but isn't that cooperation always serving a larger struggle against a specific problem? Cooperation within a family ensures its members are better positioned compared to others. At work, you're competing with colleagues for a better role, your company is vying against other corporations, and your country is competing with other nations on the global stage. And so on, and so forth...

On one hand, I see your point—cooperation and competition are often tightly intertwined, essentially packaged together. However, there is also a form of cooperation that doesn't stem from underlying conflict, though that largely depends on how rational the community is.

If a small community faces a challenge, it can be resolved through common sense, without any friction, posturing, tug-of-war, or fighting... they simply choose the solution that serves the collective good best.

In my line of work, everyone has their niche, and there’s no need to fight for someone else's territory. My company holds its own space in the American market, and I actually collaborate with colleagues who run firms in the same industry. Competition is literally right at my doorstep, yet I’ve maintained excellent working relationships with them for decades. They have their client base, and I have mine... neither side has any interest in poaching from the other.

Betty Fowler said:We actually "found" cooperation long before we ever stepped down from the trees. How can you have cooperation without the struggle to begin with?

Of course we were cooperating even before we evolved into Homo sapiens. I see cooperation without conflict everywhere I look—at my job, within my own family, in other people's homes, or even just sitting on a Greyhound bus...

Betty Fowler said:I honestly don't get how anyone can be so detached from reality that they'd seriously consider a utopian society. We evolved in an environment that is the polar opposite of utopia, developing needs and impulses that will inevitably result in one person's happiness coming at the expense of another's. As we find more areas of life where we are equal, the importance of those areas where we can still differentiate ourselves only grows. I think this mechanism is beautifully illustrated in this scene, where something as trivial as a business card turns into a tool for competition.

We are condemned to an eternal struggle... even if it's just against windmills. 🙂

I wouldn't say that. We have actually taken the first steps toward ending this cycle—we’ve identified the conflict itself and started looking toward cooperation as the alternative. Naturally, there is still a significant road ahead of us, provided we don't tear ourselves apart before we get there.

darksurfer4 said:Oh, absolutely. I mean, if we’re really going down that road, the only logical conclusion would be to just scrap private property altogether, pivot to a full-blown command economy, and implement a policy where everyone gets paid the exact same salary regardless of what they actually do—if that's really the kind of utopia we're all dying to live in.🤔

No, I actually think that would just fuel more greed.

First off, everyone needs to have their basic necessities covered—food, clothing, shelter, heat, that sort of thing. Most developed Western nations have managed to achieve this for a significant majority of their population already.

Second, there is the matter of consciousness.

While the first point is relatively straightforward, the second is anything but, and there isn't a magic formula for it (though it happens organically regardless). People need to internalize the idea that hoarding possessions won't actually make them happier; a closet full of designer clothes doesn't fundamentally improve one's quality of life, and one can still be enslaved by material wealth.

I recall a recent documentary featuring Milić in some Scandinavian country—I can't quite remember which one. He interviews this incredibly wealthy young entrepreneur, a CEO type, asking if he owns a Rolex. The man simply replies that he doesn't, in fact, doesn't own a watch at all.

And just as a side note—wages have never truly been equal for everyone.

wearypilot34 said:Greed serves as the engine for every system, not just capitalism...

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

There are actually several different flavors of greed—one might even argue that a certain *hunger for knowledge* qualifies.

Charles said:Think about it—is there any single factor on this planet that stunts human progress more than GREED?
Just look at the numbers. How many people suffer physical, mental, and emotional trauma every year because someone else wanted just a little bit more?
How much does it set us back? Think of all the brilliant inventions that end up gathering dust in a drawer because they weren't profitable enough for some CEO.

Greed should be clearly defined and outlawed.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

The reality is that greed is the engine driving capitalism. And capitalism is incredibly potent; it essentially runs the world, facing no true rival or competitor.

Capitalism will never abandon the very thing that fuels its daily growth and power. Asking it to stop being greedy would be like asking a person to give up the fountain of youth and simply choose to grow old and die.

Anyway, since we’ve already strayed from the main point—and let's be honest, we have a habit of drifting into side discussions or entirely irrelevant threads—I wanted to bring us back to the core question: is a lie more useful than the truth, particularly when it comes to religion?

In my view, it isn't.

The reality is that religious falsehoods can offer benefits to both society at large and individuals alike, but I firmly believe those same benefits could be achieved through the truth. Furthermore, a lie carries a cost; beyond its utility, it inevitably causes harm.

To put it plainly, for a certain segment of the population, religion serves as a tool to confront and overcome the fear of death. However, one can conquer that fear without relying on a fabrication. When someone manages to face their mortality through truth rather than illusion, they emerge as a stronger, more grounded individual. They have truly mastered that fear, leaving no room for that nagging little doubt to creep back in: *but what if there really is nothing after this?*

Overcoming the fear of death is no different from overcoming any other deep-seated fear. A person has to learn how to govern themselves, master their impulses, and tackle their anxieties head-on. It is only then that one becomes a complete human being—at least by our modern standards.

Ultimately, retreating into a lie to escape fear is a misguided path that does far more damage than good.

Melissa Stewart6 said:"As long as someone is a believer"... but people aren't stuck being believers forever.
We have the freedom to change our minds. If someone chooses to limit themselves, that's a choice they're making voluntarily.
If you look closely, this applies to everything. If you want to read Hegel, you have to go in believing he's worth reading. If you're a Marxist, you have to accept that Marxist theory is correct.

But once they transition to atheism, they simply cease to be believers. My focus here isn't on that shift; rather, I am looking at the fundamental ways in which believers perceive the world versus how atheists do. It is an exploration of those core cognitive differences.

I am comparing the internal logic and perspectives of the atheist and the believer.

To be clear, I'm not discussing the journey of how a believer becomes an atheist, or vice versa. That is a massive, separate subject entirely—just as expansive as the question of *how believers and atheists actually conceptualize reality.*

Melissa Stewart6 said:True. People are free to change their minds and become atheists, Buddhists, or whatever else they choose. Having an open or closed mind isn't inherently tied to your stance on God.

I can doubt if I want to, too. You can question anything. Sometimes, though, choosing to believe is a much stronger act than doubting.

Of course, otherwise atheism wouldn't even exist as a concept.

However, as long as someone identifies as a believer, they operate from a set of established foundations—principles like the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus—that they aren't meant to abandon. These truths serve as the bedrock upon which they build all their other perspectives on the world.

In that sense, their degree of intellectual freedom is somewhat limited.

Take your current position, for example. You are clearly a believer, and you seem unable to accept the premise that believers are inherently bound to believe in God. Because you're already working within that constraint, you're exerting quite a bit of effort to try and prove that such a limitation doesn't actually exist.

Melissa Stewart6 said:True, though it sounds to me like you're describing a closed mindset.
A believer can lose their faith, and an atheist can certainly become religious.

For me, asking whether Jesus was God or not isn't enough. The much more interesting question is what it actually means to be God, or even what "God" signifies in the first place.

If a believer stops believing, they cease being a believer and become an atheist. If an atheist begins to believe, they stop being an atheist and become a believer.

The last point serves as a fine illustration—you aren't doubting that Jesus was God; rather, you are pondering the nature of divinity itself.

Melissa Stewart6 said:An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in God. You can believe in God, or even in Jesus, without being an active follower of a specific religion.

However, you can't just walk away from the core tenets of your faith. You don't necessarily have to sit in a church pew every Sunday, but you can't claim that Jesus wasn't God.

Everything else we believe about how this world works is ultimately built upon those foundational principles.

Melissa Stewart6 said:You don't have to start from that premise, and you certainly don't have to be a believer.
Sure, if you're an active member of the Church, there's an expectation to align with official doctrines, but being a believer isn't mandatory.
Personally, I'm more interested in Christianity as a cultural tradition rather than the Church or its specific rituals...

Good grief, what was I actually getting at in my last couple of posts?

I'm talking about believers—people who actually belong to a religion—not atheists or agnostics. My point is: how does a member of a faith actually differ from an atheist, an agnostic, or someone who just doesn't subscribe to any religion at all?

Besides, an atheist can certainly be fascinated by Christianity (or Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) as a tradition or a historical phenomenon. Just because someone studies religions doesn't mean they are a believer or a member of that faith. A Catholic can study Islam all day long without suddenly becoming a Muslim.

However, if someone *is* a believer, and they truly adhere to Christian teachings, then they must believe in the existence of God and that Jesus was God.

An atheist isn't bound by those beliefs; they are free to view the world however they see fit, following wherever their own mind leads them.

Melissa Stewart6 said:You don't have to see it that way. Why wouldn't someone be able to think differently?

I’m struggling to follow this logic.

Doesn't religion essentially require its followers to adhere to the doctrines laid out in their sacred texts?

To put it plainly: can a Catholic, for instance, really view Jesus through a lens that contradicts the Bible or the interpretations provided by their priests and the Pope?

A Catholic can't simply conclude: *Jesus wasn't God; he was just an ordinary man, a historical figure preserved through oral tradition and eventually recorded in the Gospels. Therefore, gods aren't real.*

If one starts from the fundamental premise that God exists and that Jesus was indeed God, then true free thought becomes an impossibility.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Why do you feel like it’s a limitation?

If a religion demands that a person think specifically according to what is written in the Bible, then that is a restriction. If someone is forced to believe they were created in God's image and isn't permitted to entertain any other perspective, then we are talking about a restriction, aren't we?

Melissa Stewart6 said:But if that's true, consciousness would exist in everything, and humanity would be its greatest achievement—what Christianity describes as being made in the image of God.

I think we can observe traces of consciousness everywhere. Plants, animals, even inanimate objects react to their environment in subtle ways. Personally, I’m not a believer, so my worldview isn't restricted by Christian doctrine.