Everyone seems to think that "Imagine" is such a great song of peace. Am I the only person who thinks most of the concepts in the song are terrible ideas?
No religion
No countries
Nothing to kill or die for
No possessions
I understand Lennon's aim is for a peaceful existence. I just don't think these are the means to the end. Religion, whatever your opinion of it, has done far more good than harm. No countries would mean no cultural identities, probably no different languages, etc. Nothing to kill or die for--well, killing and dieing aren't fun, but the reason people do it is because they are passionate about something.
You cannot remove greed and violence by removing some sources that provoke it. There would always be something else. It is human nature to be greedy, as a way of self-preservation, I'd say. It is part of life's journey to overcome that, and other, negative qualities. (And religion probably helps do that for many people. Some do it on their own, being moral without being religious.)
In short, "Imagine" to me would turn into a dull, boring, passionless, robotic existence. Not Utopia.
The tune itself is beautiful; but I've never cared much for the lyrics.
These words were written by someone who was really into flower power and the idea that everything should be 'alternative'. All things in the established society were evils and people would be happier if we found alternatives to them. Furthermore, the idea was that people would only be truly happy if we had no possesions, and thus no money and no cares in the world. Just think communes, 'mind-expanding' drugs etc.
I'm going to argue the flipside of the coin. No possessions is the simple starting from. It's the Buddhist objective to obtain Nirvana, and part of that is to rid ones self of all earthly possessions and desires. Heck it's even a deadly sin - greed. I'm not saying I do this - I lust after the latest flat screen TV like anyone, but it is a commendable aim to want to live a simple life, free from want.
However, with no possessions, John Lennon wouldn't have had a nice white piano to write that song on. Which is a little ironic. Perhaps it should be imagine no expensive high end electronic possessions.
Countries and Religion I can get behind. As far as I can tell, every war has been based around one of three factors - religion, nationalistic identity or racial intolerance. I'm an aethiest, or perhaps more accurately a pragmatist. I can understand where religion has a place in modern society, it provides a moral guideline to operate from, and belief, hope and faith should be important to people (even if i'm too stubborn to have them myself). But I draw the line at countries waging war at each other over where a border line is drawn, or over a minor discrepancy in someones belief system (Catholics vs. Protestants? But they're both Christians, and acting in a very 'unChristian' way). Oh and I read a book once about the rise of the Roman Empire, and how it provided so many positive things in terms of art, hygene, domestic order, etc. All the while being a crazy dictatorship that promoted slavery and racial intolerance. And then along came the Islamic Fundamentalists and destroyed the Roman Empire, arguably setting Human development back thousands of years. Only when we did develop we had the renaissance (good) and then the Industrial Revolution (Very Bad) and subqequently raped the arse out of the planet.
So in summary, the human psyche is such that none of this is possible, it's utopian, war, pestiallance, greed, are all just a fact of life and we're all basically fucked. I'm just trying to get along as happily as I can.
I think this is the strangest train of thought I've ever typed.
Do you think that greed is actually a motivator and can be a good thing in some cases?
If there were no possessions, it would causes several problems.
1. No possessions means there is no need for money. If there is no need for money, there is no need to have a job. We all want nice clean water to drink. Someone has to work at the sanitation authority where they filter all the poop and clean the water, and deal with all the waste left over. Disgusting job. No one would do it without being paid for it. Otherwise there would be absolutely no motivation for doing so.
Getting food would turn into a real headache. You couldn't just go to the store and buy bread because there is no incentive for anyone to set up a bakery. You'd have to make it yourself. If by chance, someone did set up a bakery and arranged some sort of sophisticated bartering system to get, say, vegetables and meat from other people, it would quickly be deemed unfair by someone and would go back to the money system.
2. Owning possessions means taking responsibility for those possessions. If everything is communal, let's say bicycles for example, who repairs a broken one? Flat tire? No my bicycle, not my problem. Who's going to clean up the dog doo-doo out of the park? Not my dog, not my problem. Sick dog? Not mine to take care of, and even if I did take the responsibility out of kindness, there is probably no veterinarians because of #1--no reason to work. Likewise, who made all these communal bicycles I was just talking about?
3. Wanting more and better stuff leads to improvements in technology and better quality of life.
No possessions = a lot of lazy people and a few people doing everything.
1. No possessions means there is no need for money. If there is no need for money, there is no need to have a job. We all want nice clean water to drink.
I will not argue about the song (cause it would be too long, and I'm still in the office, and probabLy anyway it's a matter of personal perspectives, meaning we could think the opposite and be both quite right from different perspectives, so)
But on this specific this, let me put my idea anyway.
I don't really think with no need for money the world would just go to mayhem.
Because technically if you look at the deepest part of it, being Human Being, and therefore Animals, the real basic force that moves it all is not money of course (wich isd an artificial way to exchlange things created after the beginning of the human race of course) but procreation.
So I assume even when there was no concept of money involved people would try to make themselves and the world better, basically to be liked by opposite sex representative in order to have then a "higher value" in the eyes of the community that would make them therefore better picks as companions to keep on the species.
very istinct-based but very true IMHO.
(So yeah, depending on how romantic you want to be, either sex, or love are ruling the basic of the world development :P)
Countries and Religion I can get behind. As far as I can tell, every war has been based around one of three factors - religion, nationalistic identity or racial intolerance. I'm an aethiest, or perhaps more accurately a pragmatist. I can understand where religion has a place in modern society, it provides a moral guideline to operate from, and belief, hope and faith should be important to people (even if i'm too stubborn to have them myself). But I draw the line at countries waging war at each other over where a border line is drawn, or over a minor discrepancy in someones belief system (Catholics vs. Protestants? But they're both Christians, and acting in a very 'unChristian' way). Oh and I read a book once about the rise of the Roman Empire, and how it provided so many positive things in terms of art, hygene, domestic order, etc. All the while being a crazy dictatorship that promoted slavery and racial intolerance. And then along came the Islamic Fundamentalists and destroyed the Roman Empire, arguably setting Human development back thousands of years. Only when we did develop we had the renaissance (good) and then the Industrial Revolution (Very Bad) and subqequently raped the arse out of the planet.
I was pretty much gonna type the same sorta thing here...
And also, about the whole money/job thing... People lived for years before sanitation developed/working took over everything - you think the cavemen went out to work?
Countries and Religion I can get behind. As far as I can tell, every war has been based around one of three factors - religion, nationalistic identity or racial intolerance. I'm an aethiest, or perhaps more accurately a pragmatist. I can understand where religion has a place in modern society, it provides a moral guideline to operate from, and belief, hope and faith should be important to people (even if i'm too stubborn to have them myself). But I draw the line at countries waging war at each other over where a border line is drawn, or over a minor discrepancy in someones belief system (Catholics vs. Protestants? But they're both Christians, and acting in a very 'unChristian' way). Oh and I read a book once about the rise of the Roman Empire, and how it provided so many positive things in terms of art, hygene, domestic order, etc. All the while being a crazy dictatorship that promoted slavery and racial intolerance. And then along came the Islamic Fundamentalists and destroyed the Roman Empire, arguably setting Human development back thousands of years. Only when we did develop we had the renaissance (good) and then the Industrial Revolution (Very Bad) and subqequently raped the arse out of the planet.
I was pretty much gonna type the same sorta thing here...
And also, about the whole money/job thing... People lived for years before sanitation developed/working took over everything - you think the cavemen went out to work?
Cavemen probably had to work pretty darn hard, just not at an office. But the thing is, do you think the caveman life was better than what we have? Work is a drag (I think we work TOO MUCH), but it's a decent trade off to have a running water and a grocery store.
People would find a way to survive and I'm sure a very different type of society would develop. I'm just don't think it would be any better than what we have now. There would be problems either way.
I guess we can stop talking about this now. It was just something I was thinking of in the middle of the night 'cause one guy sang it on American Idol last night. I'm just always surprised how people embrace the ideals of that song when it doesn't sound all that great to me. As Moray said, nice melody though.
