Interesting. I'm an anarchist, and I spend a fair bit of time explaining there is a difference between anarchy and anarchism. Your definition of anarchy is my definition of anarchism, which might explain the problem! I take the view that I need to disabuse people of their mistaken belief that the two words mean the same, because that's what they do seem to believe. If the people you talk to can tell them apart, that's great. I wish I could say the same, but anarchy is used so freely in the press and media as a substitute for chaos, lack of control, incompetent government,
rioting etc that it is hard to distinguish its political/philosophical meaning from casual use. I've filed your post for future consideration - useful, thanks!
If you take a look at our fellow Substacker "The Peaceful Revolutionary", he makes the same distinction as you do, so the fault is mine. Worth a look if you're of our mind.
However, you're right and that's my point: the word is so ingrained with people they see only one aspect of it. I don't think changing the end of the word will "disabuse" them.
In the film "Contact" Jodie Foster is sent the plans to build a spaceship to visit ET. They build it and off she pops down a wormhole. It's fiction, but it makes some interesting points. One of them is this: the plans as sent by the extraterrestrials provide that the seat in which Foster sits must not be supported. The Earth designers decide that that is too dangerous, so they anchor it to the floor of the spacecraft.
When in flight, Foster reports on the flight log that she is suffering dreadful vibrations, shaking her teeth out and nearly breaking her bones. All at once, the seat that is so anchored to the floor breaks loose from its attachment and floats serenely in the air as she continues her marvellous space journey.
Sometimes we are so fixed in our conceptions that we cannot conceive of any other way of doing. A spacecraft designer knows beyond question that the astronaut's seat must be fixed in place, and simply will not accept any theory that says otherwise.
And likewise a proposal that the world should operate on the basis of trust rather than mistrust is, by many, rejected out of hand.
Here's an interesting video: a device that, when you expand it, it contracts:
Yes, I was fascinated by the video and the device! Watched the entire Youtube, apart from rapid dismissal of adverts, as that was also interesting. My knowledge of science is weak, both chemistry and physics were aimed at boys in the 1950-60s when I was at school, and biology was the only area I learned much from until I discovered concentration and clearly written texts worked well, once gender bias was evaded. I certainly understood the stuff on the videos!
I do follow Peaceful Revolutionary, and appear to have selected the same view of utopia, not that Utopia exists. It's a philosophical dream or vision,since no 2 people would ever agree on it, as has been mentioned before. Trust of course suffers much the same fate, sadly. Not that it will stop me trying.
Interesting. I'm an anarchist, and I spend a fair bit of time explaining there is a difference between anarchy and anarchism. Your definition of anarchy is my definition of anarchism, which might explain the problem! I take the view that I need to disabuse people of their mistaken belief that the two words mean the same, because that's what they do seem to believe. If the people you talk to can tell them apart, that's great. I wish I could say the same, but anarchy is used so freely in the press and media as a substitute for chaos, lack of control, incompetent government,
rioting etc that it is hard to distinguish its political/philosophical meaning from casual use. I've filed your post for future consideration - useful, thanks!
If you take a look at our fellow Substacker "The Peaceful Revolutionary", he makes the same distinction as you do, so the fault is mine. Worth a look if you're of our mind.
However, you're right and that's my point: the word is so ingrained with people they see only one aspect of it. I don't think changing the end of the word will "disabuse" them.
In the film "Contact" Jodie Foster is sent the plans to build a spaceship to visit ET. They build it and off she pops down a wormhole. It's fiction, but it makes some interesting points. One of them is this: the plans as sent by the extraterrestrials provide that the seat in which Foster sits must not be supported. The Earth designers decide that that is too dangerous, so they anchor it to the floor of the spacecraft.
When in flight, Foster reports on the flight log that she is suffering dreadful vibrations, shaking her teeth out and nearly breaking her bones. All at once, the seat that is so anchored to the floor breaks loose from its attachment and floats serenely in the air as she continues her marvellous space journey.
Sometimes we are so fixed in our conceptions that we cannot conceive of any other way of doing. A spacecraft designer knows beyond question that the astronaut's seat must be fixed in place, and simply will not accept any theory that says otherwise.
And likewise a proposal that the world should operate on the basis of trust rather than mistrust is, by many, rejected out of hand.
Here's an interesting video: a device that, when you expand it, it contracts:
https://youtu.be/-QTkPfq7w1A
Yes, I was fascinated by the video and the device! Watched the entire Youtube, apart from rapid dismissal of adverts, as that was also interesting. My knowledge of science is weak, both chemistry and physics were aimed at boys in the 1950-60s when I was at school, and biology was the only area I learned much from until I discovered concentration and clearly written texts worked well, once gender bias was evaded. I certainly understood the stuff on the videos!
I do follow Peaceful Revolutionary, and appear to have selected the same view of utopia, not that Utopia exists. It's a philosophical dream or vision,since no 2 people would ever agree on it, as has been mentioned before. Trust of course suffers much the same fate, sadly. Not that it will stop me trying.