Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.26 AVERAGE
3.26 AVERAGE
One of those books I got through in school but didn't really enjoy. I may reread it sometime to see if I've changed much since then...we'll see.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
Thomas More's "Utopia" is a seminal work that introduced the concept of an ideal society, but a closer examination reveals inherent flaws and raises valid counterarguments. While More's utopian vision reflects humanistic ideals, it falls short in practicality and overlooks the complexities of human nature.
One notable critique is the lack of individual freedom within More's Utopian society. The rigid social structure and collective decision-making processes stifle personal autonomy. The emphasis on communal living and limited personal property may undermine individual creativity and motivation, essential elements for a thriving society.
Moreover, More's Utopia assumes a uniformity of values and beliefs among its citizens. This monocultural perspective neglects the rich diversity inherent in human societies. The absence of dissenting voices and alternative perspectives raises concerns about intellectual stagnation and the suppression of individual expression.
The economic model proposed in "Utopia" also faces criticism. The emphasis on communal ownership and the absence of currency may seem equitable in theory, but it neglects the practical incentives required for economic productivity. The lack of a competitive market may hinder innovation and economic growth, as it fails to account for the driving force of self-interest in human behavior.
Furthermore, More's Utopia is presented as a static, unchanging ideal, disregarding the dynamic nature of societies and the need for adaptation. Human societies are inherently subject to evolution, and an overly rigid structure, as depicted in "Utopia," may struggle to cope with changing circumstances.
In conclusion, while "Utopia" by Thomas More provides an exploration of an ideal society, its limitations become apparent upon closer examination. The lack of individual freedom, cultural diversity, practical economic considerations, and adaptability are critical points that prompt readers to question the feasibility and desirability of More's utopian vision in the real world.
University has started again which means I am not only buried in essays I need to hand in and format but also means I have to read books for the next couple of weeks. One of those books was 'Utopia' by Thomas More. I spent about 20 minutes in the bookstore looking for it until I had the bright idea to check out the philosophy aisle. I have nothing against reading philosophical works, I quite enjoyed Plato's 'The Republic' so I thought I would enjoy this too. How wrong I was. This is what Goodreads has to say:
First published in 1516, Thomas More's Utopia is one of the most important works of European humanism. Through the voice of the mysterious traveler Raphael Hythloday, More describes a pagan, communist city-state governed by reason. Addressing such issues as religious pluralism, women's rights, state-sponsored education, colonialism, and justified warfare, Utopia seems remarkably contemporary nearly five centuries after it was written, and it remains a foundational text in philosophy and political theory
My copy's marked as a translation, which mainly means that some of the names have been changed and words such as 'communism' and 'capitalism' are used. I'm pretty sure More didn't coin those as well. In me edition, Raphael is called Raphael Nonsenso. To anyone with a grasp of English that last name comes dangerously close to 'nonsense' which made me groan inwardly. I don't think I needed the editor's help in deducing that this Utopia isn't in fact real. To then name the capital Aircastle is just going too far. I would have much preferred More's name for it: Amaurot. Perhaps I would have enjoyed this book more had I read a different edition, so for anyone who wants the real More-experience, don't get the Penguin version shown above. If you just want to know what the book's about then this version is perfect: small and compact without long introductions.
Now to get on to the actual text. I did not like this at all. I am completely aware that More is not trying to show a perfect world but is trying to create a mirror for England so it can think about some of its actions. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with what it says. As a philosophical starting point it is perfect: there will be loads of discussions afterwards and there are bound to be disagreements. But personally I did not only think that Utopia was nowhere near a perfect society nor did I think that More did an exceptionally good job at writing about it. And I disagree with Goodreads saying it has 'contemporary' value.Yes, it is influential, but our (especially European) societies have moved beyond what More described.
Leaving its influence aside, I got increasingly frustrated while reading 'Utopia'. It seems as if More was contradicting himself the entire time in his account of Utopia. For example, in one place he says they never go to war or use violence unless 'in self-defence, to repel invaders from friendly territory, or to liberate the victims of dictatorship' in which case they go in out of 'humanity'. Not 40 pages earlier did he write how Utopians go about colonization: 'If the natives won't do what they're told, they're expelled from the area'.
Next to this I also found the flippant remarks about women obeying their husbands and slaves being treated terribly unless they're voluntary slaves (a ridiculous concept) astounding. I even got a highlighter out to highlight the passages I thought were politically wrong. I am usually a very laid-back reader, even appreciating it when a villain behaves terribly because that is how novels work: bad guys do bad things.To a book, however, that has been praised as a 'foundational text in philosophy and political theory' I didn't expect to have such a response.
Perhaps that is where More's genius lies: he draws you out, makes you voice your opinion. And while you criticize Utopia, you cannot help seeing how similar some of its aspects are to our world. Do you agree with Raphael's view of the perfect world or do you disagree, at the cost of being ridiculed by Raphael? I give this book...
3 UNIVERSES!!!
Personally I disagreed with any things that were said in the book which is why I gave it such a "low" rating for a classic. More's writing style is, however, good and I don't know how heavily my edition and therefore judgement is influenced by Paul Turner's translation. I do recommend it to everyone who wants a good discussion about politics and society.
Here are some of my "favourite" wrong quotes from the book:
'If there happens to be a church in the Sty, the priest and his wife automatically take precedence...' - oh, what a fair society this is!
'...except certain people receive preferential treatment, such as the Mayor, the Bishop, Bencheaters and diplomats.' - again, you have to admire those little side comments.
'And reason also teaches us, first to love and reverence Almighty God.' - I know More was a religious man, but I don't know whether Reason is what converts people to Christianity.
And finally:
'But in no circumstances can a man divorce his wife simply because, through no fault of her own, she has deteriorated physically'. - I'm not quite sure yet whether I think that's offensive or whether that's More being funny.
So, what do you think? Does this look like your kind of book?
First published in 1516, Thomas More's Utopia is one of the most important works of European humanism. Through the voice of the mysterious traveler Raphael Hythloday, More describes a pagan, communist city-state governed by reason. Addressing such issues as religious pluralism, women's rights, state-sponsored education, colonialism, and justified warfare, Utopia seems remarkably contemporary nearly five centuries after it was written, and it remains a foundational text in philosophy and political theory
My copy's marked as a translation, which mainly means that some of the names have been changed and words such as 'communism' and 'capitalism' are used. I'm pretty sure More didn't coin those as well. In me edition, Raphael is called Raphael Nonsenso. To anyone with a grasp of English that last name comes dangerously close to 'nonsense' which made me groan inwardly. I don't think I needed the editor's help in deducing that this Utopia isn't in fact real. To then name the capital Aircastle is just going too far. I would have much preferred More's name for it: Amaurot. Perhaps I would have enjoyed this book more had I read a different edition, so for anyone who wants the real More-experience, don't get the Penguin version shown above. If you just want to know what the book's about then this version is perfect: small and compact without long introductions.
Now to get on to the actual text. I did not like this at all. I am completely aware that More is not trying to show a perfect world but is trying to create a mirror for England so it can think about some of its actions. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with what it says. As a philosophical starting point it is perfect: there will be loads of discussions afterwards and there are bound to be disagreements. But personally I did not only think that Utopia was nowhere near a perfect society nor did I think that More did an exceptionally good job at writing about it. And I disagree with Goodreads saying it has 'contemporary' value.Yes, it is influential, but our (especially European) societies have moved beyond what More described.
Leaving its influence aside, I got increasingly frustrated while reading 'Utopia'. It seems as if More was contradicting himself the entire time in his account of Utopia. For example, in one place he says they never go to war or use violence unless 'in self-defence, to repel invaders from friendly territory, or to liberate the victims of dictatorship' in which case they go in out of 'humanity'. Not 40 pages earlier did he write how Utopians go about colonization: 'If the natives won't do what they're told, they're expelled from the area'.
Next to this I also found the flippant remarks about women obeying their husbands and slaves being treated terribly unless they're voluntary slaves (a ridiculous concept) astounding. I even got a highlighter out to highlight the passages I thought were politically wrong. I am usually a very laid-back reader, even appreciating it when a villain behaves terribly because that is how novels work: bad guys do bad things.To a book, however, that has been praised as a 'foundational text in philosophy and political theory' I didn't expect to have such a response.
Perhaps that is where More's genius lies: he draws you out, makes you voice your opinion. And while you criticize Utopia, you cannot help seeing how similar some of its aspects are to our world. Do you agree with Raphael's view of the perfect world or do you disagree, at the cost of being ridiculed by Raphael? I give this book...
3 UNIVERSES!!!
Personally I disagreed with any things that were said in the book which is why I gave it such a "low" rating for a classic. More's writing style is, however, good and I don't know how heavily my edition and therefore judgement is influenced by Paul Turner's translation. I do recommend it to everyone who wants a good discussion about politics and society.
Here are some of my "favourite" wrong quotes from the book:
'If there happens to be a church in the Sty, the priest and his wife automatically take precedence...' - oh, what a fair society this is!
'...except certain people receive preferential treatment, such as the Mayor, the Bishop, Bencheaters and diplomats.' - again, you have to admire those little side comments.
'And reason also teaches us, first to love and reverence Almighty God.' - I know More was a religious man, but I don't know whether Reason is what converts people to Christianity.
And finally:
'But in no circumstances can a man divorce his wife simply because, through no fault of her own, she has deteriorated physically'. - I'm not quite sure yet whether I think that's offensive or whether that's More being funny.
So, what do you think? Does this look like your kind of book?
funny
hopeful
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
adventurous
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
N/A
Strong character development:
N/A
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
Utopía es un libro muy curioso. Nos presenta la idea que tenía Tomás Moro de un mundo perfecto, la cual resulta bastante revolucionaria para la época en la que fue publicado este libro.
Si bien es cierto que la idea de la igualdad del autor queda muy anticuada a día de hoy, puesto que sigue poniendo a la mujer en una posición inferior al hombre, las ideas sociales que plantea este libro parecen bastante innovadoras y resulta sorprendente lo que se parece la sociedad descrita en Utopía a las de las distopías clásicas como "Un Mundo Feliz", y asimismo la función tan diferente con la que son planteadas dichas sociedades en un libro y otros.
A pesar de esto, el libro tiene reflexiones sobre la igualdad muy acertadas en las cuales denuncia la diferencia entre clases sociales. No obstante en las partes que hablan de religión y matrimonio se refleja más el pensamiento de la época, ya que a estas se les da una mayor importancia.
Así pues, Utopía me ha parecido un libro interesante y rápido de leer debido a su extensión. La contemporaneidad de los pensamientos del autor hace darnos cuenta de que las personas mueren pero las ideas no.
Si bien es cierto que la idea de la igualdad del autor queda muy anticuada a día de hoy, puesto que sigue poniendo a la mujer en una posición inferior al hombre, las ideas sociales que plantea este libro parecen bastante innovadoras y resulta sorprendente lo que se parece la sociedad descrita en Utopía a las de las distopías clásicas como "Un Mundo Feliz", y asimismo la función tan diferente con la que son planteadas dichas sociedades en un libro y otros.
A pesar de esto, el libro tiene reflexiones sobre la igualdad muy acertadas en las cuales denuncia la diferencia entre clases sociales. No obstante en las partes que hablan de religión y matrimonio se refleja más el pensamiento de la época, ya que a estas se les da una mayor importancia.
Así pues, Utopía me ha parecido un libro interesante y rápido de leer debido a su extensión. La contemporaneidad de los pensamientos del autor hace darnos cuenta de que las personas mueren pero las ideas no.
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Prof told us to make a list of all the things that made us uncomfy when reading this and that list was LONG
I so vastly prefer this style of philosophical writing. The narrative (if one really wishes to call it that) is so bare-bones and simple but provides the book with a much needed conversational tone, much like the ancient Greek dialogues.
I was also surprised by how much I enjoyed the introduction by China Meiville (whose book "The City & The City I read earlier this year and greatly disliked) and the concluding essays by Ursula K. Le Guin who I had not heard of previously but will definitely follow up on.
I was also surprised by how much I enjoyed the introduction by China Meiville (whose book "The City & The City I read earlier this year and greatly disliked) and the concluding essays by Ursula K. Le Guin who I had not heard of previously but will definitely follow up on.