A man named Nonsenso begins every debate at a disadvantage. What kind of information or arguments can we expect from such an individual? Can he articulate a rational idea, deduce a logical conclusion from it? Should we trust the authority of his speech? Or is he simply a man whose name and nature are in perfect agreement? So many questions that Thomas More lets us ask Raphaël Nonsenso, the talkative sailor-philosopher who describes and advocates utopia in the book of the same name. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay Drawing on his memories of a five-year stay on the island, Raphaël conjures up an in-depth description of social and political practices which constitute the utopian way of life, which he unabashedly proclaims "the happiest basis for a civilized community which will last forever." The details of his speech are astounding and the breadth of his knowledge astounding; he vividly describes everything from their wardrobes to their war tactics. It is a dazzling story, filled with all the details of the facts and freed from the vague generalities of the imagination. And yet, at the end of his speech, More admits to having “various objections”. He does not call Raphael a liar, because that would be tantamount to calling him a genius, as any man capable of creating such enormous (and spontaneous) fiction must be. Indeed, More acknowledges Raphael's "undoubted learning and experience" while insisting that utopia seemed "in many cases perfectly ridiculous." Could this really be nonsense, albeit a clever one, after all. The answer seems to be yes, at least in part. The first glimpse we get of Raphael is that of a stranger and probably (more postulating) a sailor. Giles soon joins More, naming Raphael as a friend and confirming that he is a sailor, but a rather extraordinary one. He looks, according to Giles, “really more like Ulysses or even Plato”. It's an ambiguous compliment at best. Odysseus, the great hero of Homer's Odyssey, is not only a globetrotter but also a cunning rhetorician, a persuader, and to some extent a manipulator (the Greek word for these traits is teknos). Plato, of course, wrote his philosophy in the form of dialogues, emphasizing rhetorical skills as well as logic and reason. The reference to Plato also reminds the reader of this original utopia, The Republic. Immediately, then, More (the author, not the character) associates Raphael with two great “talkers,” known less for their honesty than for their conviction. He also associates Raphael with two Greeks. More precisely calculates the comparison moments later. Giles proclaims that Nonsenso "is a great scholar" and that he knows "a lot of Greek because he is mainly interested in philosophy." But Latin never really appealed to him. Although the piquancy of this description loses some of its power in translation, More here seems clearly to contrast the Latin of the European Christian world (and of utopia itself) with the Greek of ancient, pagan culture. Latin is a language of action, of public affairs, of current affairs; Greek, on the other hand, lends itself to speculation, to thought, to dreamlike theorizing. Implicitly, then, More's own political discourse surpasses that of Raphael, because it best fits the political climate of their times. His skepticism towards the sometimes “perfectly ridiculous” utopia fits perfectly into this vision. While these comparisons to figures from antiquity are useful, the main way in which the character of Raphael Nonsenso is revealed is through the contrast between him and Thomas More. Beyond their Greek preferencesand Latin, Nonsenso and More each maintain fundamentally different political philosophies, as we see when Giles urges Nonsenso to obtain a position in court and put his wisdom and experience to use. Nonsenso disdains the idea of ​​holding such a position and avoids the prospect of living and working "among people who have deep prejudices against the ideas of others." More reproaches him for his reluctance, telling him: "you have so much theoretical knowledge and so much practical experience that either alone would be enough to make you an ideal member of any privy council." Raphaël, however, remains indifferent to their praise. Rather than acquiesce, he tells an anecdote about a debate on capital punishment that he had with a famous lawyer during a stay in England. By the end of his story, he believes he has proven that philosophy falls on deaf ears when it concerns politicians. Instead, he receives another rebuke from More: "there is a more civilized form of philosophy which knows the dramatic context, so to speak, tries to adapt itself to it, and plays an appropriate role in the present performance." "The "dramatic context" of this particular exchange is the pitting of the pragmatic More against the idealistic Nonsenso. While the idea of ​​giving excellent advice to inferior minds exasperates Raphael, More believes that he is of the responsibility of the philosopher to make himself understood, to adapt his wisdom to the level of understanding of his audience “Frankly,” he admits to Nonsenso, “I don’t see the point in giving advice that we know is true. they will never accept. What could this be used for? How can we expect them to adopt a completely unfamiliar line of thinking, which goes against all of their deepest prejudices? This cleverly undermines Nonsenso's criticism of European society: how can it improve if the wisest among them does not deign to give his advice unless he has the guarantee that it will be perfectly understood and implemented? If European politicians were so wise and enlightened, they probably wouldn't have so many problems in the first place! There is no doubt that More and Nonsenso dislike many of the customs and laws of European society, but while More expresses his willingness to compromise on the path to perfection, Nonsenso demands the ideal , otherwise no improvement at all. contemptuous of European conventions, Raphael is a rather suspect source of information on utopia. His political agenda threatens to override his factual narrative, as indeed it does at certain points in his story. It's not really nonsense that he dispenses, but rather strategic elaborations, additional details and particular embellishments. It is no wonder that More cannot overcome his suspicions that the description is, ultimately, some kind of "great absurdity." The narrative begins reliably, that is, it begins apolitically. Raphael first gives a magnificent account of the geographical and topographical intricacies of utopia. It naturally orients itself towards town planning, agriculture, breeding, work, meal preparation and other small, mundane practices that any traveler will conscientiously note when encountering a new civilization. Even Raphael's description of the communist organization of society, although foreign to the European perspective, does not begin in an incredible way. It is perfectly plausible that a nation would establish such a system in the hope of eliminating social inequality, crime (a source of worry in the English mind, according to Nonsenso) and all the other difficulties that afflict amonarchical government. inconsistencies, first and foremost the strange mixture of culture and philistinism that Raphael attributes (unconsciously) to the utopians. Although they have a passion for gardening and attend uplifting lectures every day, they find precious metals and precious stones quite disgusting and vile. Raphael assures More and Giles that "these raw materials, silver, command no more respect from anyone than their intrinsic value merits, which is obviously much lower than that of iron." They wear simple clothes, eat simple foods, in short, spartan in their ornamentation, lacking (apparently) all visual arts. Nature and beauty have become synonymous and exclusively linked terms. Now, where does this distaste for beautiful, colorful things come from, except for their associations with luxury and expense in a non-communist society? There is no reason why utopians cannot and will not value gold, silver, jewelry, and fine fabrics for purely aesthetic, not monetary, reasons. It seems indeed that it is quite inhuman not to appreciate such beauty; After all, no one sees the world in such strictly utilitarian terms. In this regard, the behavior that Raphael attributes to the utopians can only be considered as an invented repudiation of European valorization. They function like a communist minority in a market economy. Raphael is also unreliable (and inconsistent) when talking about social practices. Euthanasia, he said, is encouraged in some cases, but is not enforced. Before the wedding, the bride and groom examine themselves naked to determine if their partner is physically sufficient. They believe in one god and in the immortality of the soul, but they tolerate other religious beliefs. These practices shock, but due to the flexibility of the utopians, they do not really offend. That is, until you realize there's always a caveat. In the case of euthanasia, Nonsenso claims that it is optional, but his reproduction of an intimidating speech that a priest would give to a terminally ill person makes this statement very dubious. What kind of person would find much joy in life after being told "you're just a nuisance to others and a burden to yourself." One can also imagine the effects of being rejected as an unfit specimen for marriage. As for religion, Raphael undermines his original explanation of utopian tolerance by adding a rather significant clause: there is religious freedom "unless [if] you believe in something so incompatible with human dignity as the doctrine that The soul dies with the body, and the universe functions aimlessly, without any controlling providence. » It seems that there are two possible explanations for these contradictions: either Raphael himself fabricates these practices, or his description is tainted by his warm approval; either he lies completely, or he tries to soften the harshness of the utopians to obtain the approval of Europeans. In either case, it is certainly not an objective representation of a utopian life or an ideal society. The problem with social dynamics in a so-called perfect society is clear: it reduces to nothing more than an impossible quest to eliminate defects, a system of imposed eugenics. coherent) to Raphael's description of utopian domestic and foreign policy. Internal relations between utopians are not disturbed by jealousy, anger, violence, etc. They respect each other as individuals and as a community, existing in a state of intact harmony. The relationship of utopia with the outside world, however, seems to be in constant.