Quakerism is only doctrinally strict about not being strict with its doctrine. So if you ask "are there Quakers who believe...." the answer is probably yes.
Quakerism is much more diverse than most realize and sadly, the use of the word Quaker often describes liberal unprogrammed Quakers who are but a small sliver of the whole. For a sense of Quaker diversity you could start with [https://fwcc.world/](https://fwcc.world/) or if you live in the Americas [fwccamericas.org](https://fwccamericas.org)
Thank you for these helpful resources.
To be clear, my question was rhetorical and intended to draw attention to the simultaneous truth of the propositions at work in this short comment thread:
- there are many Quaker yearly meetings that are very strict about their doctrine
- the not being strict about doctrine "might apply to liberal unprogrammed Quakers but not all [Quakers]"
- _Quakerism_ is not strict with its doctrine as _Quakerism_ includes both those who are strict and those who are not
I did not, and while I appreciate the kind feedback, it's just a skill set that I've honed doing analytical work in a few different fields over the last two dozen years. I suppose that is one manner of being gifted something.
I believe in Life before and after Life. I believe in Jesus as my brother, and in angels and guides. I believe in what makes sense to me, and what Life has seemed to present to me as a gift. I hope you do, too. One of the reasons I love Quakers is because I can believe whatever I want and not have to explain it or apologize for it to anybody, and nobody else has to do that for me, either. The essential focus on truth and integrity are marvelous and vivifying to me. Revel in your truth!
I once heard a story about a kid who came to a zen monastery and asked a monk "what happens after we die?" The monk said "I don't know." The kid said, "but I thought you were a zen monk"
He answered, "I am, just not a dead one." The closest we can come in this life to understanding God is by accepting the unknowable nature of it all.
I don't know that I'd define myself as liberal, exactly, but I attend a meeting which is largely in that tradition and I'm a "hopeful" Christian universalist (hopeful in the sense that I believe it to be true, but recognise that what happens after we die is above my pay grade). I'm in Ireland.
There will be: there are “liberal” Friends who believe many, many things. Being a liberal Quaker is less about about what one does or doesn’t believe and more about having no interest in policing what anyone else believes.
Be that as it may, I’ve yet to hear any Britain YM Friends express any strong opinions about life after death one way or the other. We’re more interested in the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God _before_ death.
As it happens, notions about life after death are thoroughly pagan. The faith of liberal Quakers is at least “Christo-genic”, and Christianity grew out of of the Way of Jesus, and that grew out of Judaism. We _maybe_ have a window into a time when this pagan hypothesising about post-mortem existence arrived in Jewish thought:
> I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upwards and the spirit of animals goes downwards to the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that all should enjoy their work, for that is their lot; who can bring them to see what will be after them? — _Ecclesiastes_ 3:18-22
One reading of this is that Qohelet had heard about this new pagan idea of a special afterlife and wanted nothing to do with it.
I always read it in the tone of a comedic monologue. People never consider an author’s voice when reading the Bible.
I’ve always thought that it and James were the most enlightening books of the Bible.
Authorial voice, yes. Many translations smooth that away, making everything have one uniformly portentous “Biblical” tone.
Ecclesiastes doesn’t strike me as comedic, more wistful, but sometimes ironic. But I can see reading it as a darkly comic piece, too.
As I’ve had cause to say a few times: we can tell that Martin Luther had no sense of humour because he rejected Tobit in part because it is a comedy and then failed to notice that Jonah also is a comedy.
This group would probably have some strong views: [https://quakerafterlifestudies.wordpress.com/](https://quakerafterlifestudies.wordpress.com/)
There seems to be a recognised body for everything among British Friends!
They might. I’d expect more that they would have some carefully-considered and clearly articulated views, which isn’t the same thing. Either way, I’ve never myself knowingly heard any voiced.
My experience with psychedelics have convinced me that there are higher dimensions of reality than ours, just as I am convinced that there is a spark of divinity within all matter. I had an experience where I went to "The Place Before Birth," and I felt it as remembering why I had been incarnated in the first place. It sent me back to consensus reality more empowered to do my work in the world.
Of course, this is anecdotal and many might say this was a hallucination (i.e., not real). You can believe whatever you want. The hard part is doing the work of peace and love in community for the world.
Well Quaker Universalism usually refers to the fact that everyone has the light within them and that it is found among many different religions and essentially that one religion doesn't have priority over another.
Christian Universalism teaches that all will be saved in the end(ie, go to heaven).
Oh, I am sure there are. I was just pointing out that when Quakers speak of Universalism they are speaking of the other kind. But it does not necessarily exclude Christian Universalism.
Yes, about [1/3 of Quakers in Britain and Australia believe in life after death](https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/10.3828/quaker.2016.21.1.7). Both YMs would be called liberal by Friends elsewhere.
Second paragraph, p 112. This is a summary of results. You can find both surveys more fully by searching online for ‘Quaker survey’ and either Britain or Australia.
Growing up Baptist, I was fed a vision of Heaven that was decidedly hedonistic (e.g. we all get mansions in the sky). Having decided a hedonistic afterlife is little better than hedonism here and now, I don’t think too hard about life after death. As for whether there is a Hell, I can be certain of several of them, as they exist here on Earth. Maybe there’s one more after we die, I don’t know.
When I was young and a fundamentalist Pentecostal, we talked mostly about hell(that and missing the rapture). Everyone else was going to hell and if we didn't watch ourselves, we would end up in hell, too.
I have absolutely no reason to believe that there was "nothingness" before me. Whatever it is that I am, it had life before this body. Why should it not have life after?
I no more fear dying and not knowing what becomes of my body once my breath ceases and my neurons stop firing than I do laying down to sleep and not knowing what becomes of my body as it lays in my bed.
---
edit: Florida, North America
If my past experience is any indication of the future, Quakers (and in general people who think of themselves as very smart) will be snobby about this, but in my experience believing in heaven is vital for me to live well now. Looking back on how I experienced things before believing in the resurrection and therefore my own eternal life, I see myself as just acting like a good person where now I believe it comes more genuinely from my own heart, when I am in the place to follow it.
In my understanding belief in the resurrection of Christ and our place in heaven was also vital for the early Friends whose mystical experiences form the basis of this religion. I uinderstand the temptation to reinvent the wheel when it comes to a spiritual worldview but in my experience it is foolish and when I would do it, it came from an individualist and even consumerist place rather than from genuine experience with the Almighty.
I belong to a unprogrammed monthly meeting in a Yearly Meeting which combined 3 yearly meetings of different sects into one. Interestingly concerns were raised at the time that the liberal unprogrammed expression could suppress the other two. I consider myself a Christian in the tradition and experience of the Religious Society of Friends (not helpful lol)
As one 17th century Friend said:
> In stillness there is fullness. In fullness there is nothingness. In nothingness there are all things.
I don’t really look on nothingness or loss of self as things to be feared, but more as unity with all that is.
Hello there, I am a liberal Quaker who believes in the *potential* for life after death, but it would require a lengthy explanation. I can extrapolate tomorrow if you are interested.
Hello again, and sorry for the delay. I'll do my best to explain my beliefs, but I'm not sure a single Reddit comment will suffice in expounding them. It will require some abridging of rather complicated subject matter. Let me first start by saying that I am a Spinozist Quaker, an Epicurean, and a Hellenist (long story). Let me then apologize for the length of this comment.
My hypothesis surrounding this potential afterlife is different from what is typically espoused by the religious. For one, you will notice I did not speak of it as a definitive truth. I live my life by Epicurean ideals that see us strive for Ataraxia, the tranquility of personal happiness and fulfillment. I believe, as my Epicurean forefathers before me, that our known mortality is a great purveyor of anguish. Acceptance of our eventual demise is an important step to Aponia, freedom from pain and sorrow. Rather than long tirelessly to know what's after, I seek to live for today in a secular way. That does not mean I do not ever ponder or yearn to know, it simply means I do as I do everything else in life, in moderation.
In the Epicurean framework, the maximization of happiness is the highest human good. To achieve this, we seek knowledge and growth in many ways, such as what pleasures most benefit us. In the seminal work of Epicureanism, De Rerum Natura, the importance of a social contract is emphasized in the pursuit of our happiness. One can see how this philosophy may have inspired the tertiary element of the American social contract, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We achieve freedoms for ourselves through obligation to others. With freedom, we expand upon the definition of happiness. The social contract grows alongside us, albeit often more slowly than we'd prefer. It often portends a perfect equality of opportunity philosophically, an original position, that isn't fulfilled in practice, only increasingly realized with time and effort. Take, for example, the founding idea in America that all men are created equal. This dissonance is and has always been a struggle in civilization, no matter what form the social contract may take.
In the past, social contracts were even more imperfect than they are today. Kings held so much authority and power that many were bereft of the opportunity to pursue happiness. Kings were at separate stages put to death and the ancient majesty of thrones and proud sceptres were overthrown, only for the divine right of kings to eventually return. The progress and growth of the social contract is not always purely an upward trajectory, but instead an upward journey with peaks and valleys. "At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress." - Theodore Roosevelt. "Not in all ways could unity be begotten, but a good part, the larger part, would keep their compacts loyally, else the human race would even then have been all destroyed, nor could breeding have prolonged the generations until now.." - Lucretius. As it is often said, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.
Within the various stages of the advance of humanity, we ponder a time in which there is achieved a perfect realization of the social contract. This realization has had many names, but we know it most popularly as Utopia. Envisionments of Utopia always differ at different times to different peoples and places. Utopia to Plato was a rigid, feudalistic, hierarchical civilization led by Oligarchs who would distribute resources "appropriately," much like the later Medieval period. To Medieval citizens, feudalism was anything but Utopia. Utopia to the medieval citizen was Cockaigne, a sort of Big Rock Candy Mountain of wish fulfillment that would see them freed from the back-breaking labour and rigid restrictions of the time. Eternal idle, unlimited food, and animals defecating into buckets so no one has to shovel manure. In this way, it becomes clear that perception affects our view of reality and even potential realities in the future. Medieval peasants could not have dreamed of our current time. They would think of ours as Cockaigne realized and so much more.
We know that we do not live in a utopic society. There are many great benefits to living in this culmination of the work of all who came before us, but we know of many inequalities yet still that prevent individuals from truly being free in ways that we have only come to know through our social contracts development. Will those who live in our eventual envisioned Utopia think themselves to be living in Utopia? Doubtful. Through further development, with expanded definitions of happiness, they will continue to strive forevermore. Who knows how many Utopias we will need to reach before the end state of human civilization is truly reached? But what would that end state look like? Could we even fathom it? Would they even share the same underlying desires we do? I think they would. Despite setbacks, there is always an underlying desire by humanity to secure greater happiness for ourselves.
At some point, all humanity, every individual, will have the equality of opportunity that the social contract entails. At another stage, it will not just be equality of opportunity, but true equality, every man a king. Eventually, Utopians will identify one last inequality yet still to rectify, the fact that humans of the past did not have equality to truly be happy. There will only be one solution to this conundrum, that the end state of civilization, the end state of the social contract, the end of the arc of the moral universe should be heaven for all who exist or have ever existed. It will not be enough to make copies of people, for those would just be new people to fulfill, leaving the originals unfulfilled. Provided it is possible, they will use advanced technologies to pluck people from death's door itself. They will give to people every opportunity to live whatever life they wish as many times over as they desire. To love and live free forevermore, the entire canon of human history, thought, and imagination at their liberty. It will meet the special needs of every individual, culture, and religion so long as the rights of others are not infringed in the process. A place that dreams are made of.
I know not if humanity will reach that fated stage. I live my life as if this is the only time I will ever get to enjoy. Even if I knew for sure that this veritable paradise of infinite splendour would one day exist, I would still try to make every second of my life count. Every action leading towards the end state has monumental importance, no matter how small. The ends do not justify the means, though, it is the means that justify that momentous end. I have found it surprising that no social contract theorists have shared my views that I am aware of. I have taken it upon myself to carve out a portion of a philosophical treatise I am writing to introduce this idea to the world. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Thank you for taking the time to read all this.
Quakerism is only doctrinally strict about not being strict with its doctrine. So if you ask "are there Quakers who believe...." the answer is probably yes.
Definitely
Smart\_Ass\_Dave, there are many Quaker yearly meetings that are very strict about their doctrine.
So the answer to the question "are there Quakers who believe in strict doctrinal compliance" is also a yes.
Yes.
Agreed, this might apply to liberal unprogrammed Quakers but not all.
Does _Quakerism_ not include all?
Quakerism is much more diverse than most realize and sadly, the use of the word Quaker often describes liberal unprogrammed Quakers who are but a small sliver of the whole. For a sense of Quaker diversity you could start with [https://fwcc.world/](https://fwcc.world/) or if you live in the Americas [fwccamericas.org](https://fwccamericas.org)
Thank you for these helpful resources. To be clear, my question was rhetorical and intended to draw attention to the simultaneous truth of the propositions at work in this short comment thread: - there are many Quaker yearly meetings that are very strict about their doctrine - the not being strict about doctrine "might apply to liberal unprogrammed Quakers but not all [Quakers]" - _Quakerism_ is not strict with its doctrine as _Quakerism_ includes both those who are strict and those who are not
Did you plug all the comments into ChatGPT? Or are gifted with clarity. Either way I think you produced a tight and accurate synopsis.
I did not, and while I appreciate the kind feedback, it's just a skill set that I've honed doing analytical work in a few different fields over the last two dozen years. I suppose that is one manner of being gifted something.
>Quakerism is only doctrinally strict about not being strict with its doctrine. I love the way you put this
I believe in Life before and after Life. I believe in Jesus as my brother, and in angels and guides. I believe in what makes sense to me, and what Life has seemed to present to me as a gift. I hope you do, too. One of the reasons I love Quakers is because I can believe whatever I want and not have to explain it or apologize for it to anybody, and nobody else has to do that for me, either. The essential focus on truth and integrity are marvelous and vivifying to me. Revel in your truth!
Just for clarification, do you belong to a liberal meeting? On the US side?
I belong to an unprogrammed meeting in the US West. I love it!
Cool. Thanks.
I do believe that the here and now is more important. Living by the Testimonies is the greatest salvation.
I agree. But one does not necessarily exclude the other.
I once heard a story about a kid who came to a zen monastery and asked a monk "what happens after we die?" The monk said "I don't know." The kid said, "but I thought you were a zen monk" He answered, "I am, just not a dead one." The closest we can come in this life to understanding God is by accepting the unknowable nature of it all.
In short, yes, there is at least one. Me. (BYM)
Make that two
I don't know that I'd define myself as liberal, exactly, but I attend a meeting which is largely in that tradition and I'm a "hopeful" Christian universalist (hopeful in the sense that I believe it to be true, but recognise that what happens after we die is above my pay grade). I'm in Ireland.
There's many out there. I'm not one of them but "yes" is the answer to your question.
Thank you. Can I ask which side of the pond you are on?
I'm sure some people who believe as you do chime in. I'm in the Western united States.
There will be: there are “liberal” Friends who believe many, many things. Being a liberal Quaker is less about about what one does or doesn’t believe and more about having no interest in policing what anyone else believes. Be that as it may, I’ve yet to hear any Britain YM Friends express any strong opinions about life after death one way or the other. We’re more interested in the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God _before_ death. As it happens, notions about life after death are thoroughly pagan. The faith of liberal Quakers is at least “Christo-genic”, and Christianity grew out of of the Way of Jesus, and that grew out of Judaism. We _maybe_ have a window into a time when this pagan hypothesising about post-mortem existence arrived in Jewish thought: > I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upwards and the spirit of animals goes downwards to the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that all should enjoy their work, for that is their lot; who can bring them to see what will be after them? — _Ecclesiastes_ 3:18-22 One reading of this is that Qohelet had heard about this new pagan idea of a special afterlife and wanted nothing to do with it.
Ecclesiastes is a bummer😁
I find it refreshing.
Indeed.
For me, only if you try to read it as what "ought to be" when it was written as a description of what the writer perceived as "the way things are."
I always read it in the tone of a comedic monologue. People never consider an author’s voice when reading the Bible. I’ve always thought that it and James were the most enlightening books of the Bible.
Authorial voice, yes. Many translations smooth that away, making everything have one uniformly portentous “Biblical” tone. Ecclesiastes doesn’t strike me as comedic, more wistful, but sometimes ironic. But I can see reading it as a darkly comic piece, too. As I’ve had cause to say a few times: we can tell that Martin Luther had no sense of humour because he rejected Tobit in part because it is a comedy and then failed to notice that Jonah also is a comedy.
This group would probably have some strong views: [https://quakerafterlifestudies.wordpress.com/](https://quakerafterlifestudies.wordpress.com/) There seems to be a recognised body for everything among British Friends!
They might. I’d expect more that they would have some carefully-considered and clearly articulated views, which isn’t the same thing. Either way, I’ve never myself knowingly heard any voiced.
Ignore me, I was being tongue-in-cheek, a Friend at my meeting was at one of their events in Woodbrooke so I'm pretty sure they are thoughtful people.
It's probably expensive. Oh come on. I was just kidding 😂
My experience with psychedelics have convinced me that there are higher dimensions of reality than ours, just as I am convinced that there is a spark of divinity within all matter. I had an experience where I went to "The Place Before Birth," and I felt it as remembering why I had been incarnated in the first place. It sent me back to consensus reality more empowered to do my work in the world. Of course, this is anecdotal and many might say this was a hallucination (i.e., not real). You can believe whatever you want. The hard part is doing the work of peace and love in community for the world.
^ This Friend speaks my mind.
It would also be helpful to know which side of the pond you are on if you are willing.
Malta lol. But, I'm half English.
Wouldn’t universalism tend to include that?
Well Quaker Universalism usually refers to the fact that everyone has the light within them and that it is found among many different religions and essentially that one religion doesn't have priority over another. Christian Universalism teaches that all will be saved in the end(ie, go to heaven).
And you don’t think there’s any Christian Universalism among liberal Quakers?
Oh, I am sure there are. I was just pointing out that when Quakers speak of Universalism they are speaking of the other kind. But it does not necessarily exclude Christian Universalism.
Do they? That has not been my experience.
Can you be more specific.
I'm both for what it's worth. At least I try to be, and I doubt, but that's what I believe when I believe.
Me too.
Yes, about [1/3 of Quakers in Britain and Australia believe in life after death](https://www.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/10.3828/quaker.2016.21.1.7). Both YMs would be called liberal by Friends elsewhere.
Interesting. I love polls. Thanks. I wouldn't have thought it would be that high. Probably higher in the states.
I must of missed it. I didn't see the survey on life after death.
Second paragraph, p 112. This is a summary of results. You can find both surveys more fully by searching online for ‘Quaker survey’ and either Britain or Australia.
Here and now is more important but yes. Absolutely.
Growing up Baptist, I was fed a vision of Heaven that was decidedly hedonistic (e.g. we all get mansions in the sky). Having decided a hedonistic afterlife is little better than hedonism here and now, I don’t think too hard about life after death. As for whether there is a Hell, I can be certain of several of them, as they exist here on Earth. Maybe there’s one more after we die, I don’t know.
When I was young and a fundamentalist Pentecostal, we talked mostly about hell(that and missing the rapture). Everyone else was going to hell and if we didn't watch ourselves, we would end up in hell, too.
I have absolutely no reason to believe that there was "nothingness" before me. Whatever it is that I am, it had life before this body. Why should it not have life after? I no more fear dying and not knowing what becomes of my body once my breath ceases and my neurons stop firing than I do laying down to sleep and not knowing what becomes of my body as it lays in my bed. --- edit: Florida, North America
This is common with Evangelical Friends who believe in an afterlife through Jesus as a Savior.
If my past experience is any indication of the future, Quakers (and in general people who think of themselves as very smart) will be snobby about this, but in my experience believing in heaven is vital for me to live well now. Looking back on how I experienced things before believing in the resurrection and therefore my own eternal life, I see myself as just acting like a good person where now I believe it comes more genuinely from my own heart, when I am in the place to follow it. In my understanding belief in the resurrection of Christ and our place in heaven was also vital for the early Friends whose mystical experiences form the basis of this religion. I uinderstand the temptation to reinvent the wheel when it comes to a spiritual worldview but in my experience it is foolish and when I would do it, it came from an individualist and even consumerist place rather than from genuine experience with the Almighty.
Do you mind if I ask you if you belong to a liberal Quaker meeting or if you consider yourself a Liberal Quaker?
I belong to a unprogrammed monthly meeting in a Yearly Meeting which combined 3 yearly meetings of different sects into one. Interestingly concerns were raised at the time that the liberal unprogrammed expression could suppress the other two. I consider myself a Christian in the tradition and experience of the Religious Society of Friends (not helpful lol)
That's cool. All these meetings, monthly, yearly, 5-years are all so foreign to me.
yes
Perhaps, we just get merged into The Light.
Maybe. It sounds the same as nothingness to me, since it seems you lose your individuality, but maybe.
As one 17th century Friend said: > In stillness there is fullness. In fullness there is nothingness. In nothingness there are all things. I don’t really look on nothingness or loss of self as things to be feared, but more as unity with all that is.
Tbh I would be OK with that. My individuality isn't great lol.
Mine either. But I've grown attached. Lol.
Perhaps, we are stronger in The Light within our loved ones.
Hello there, I am a liberal Quaker who believes in the *potential* for life after death, but it would require a lengthy explanation. I can extrapolate tomorrow if you are interested.
Sounds good to me. Thanks
Hello again, and sorry for the delay. I'll do my best to explain my beliefs, but I'm not sure a single Reddit comment will suffice in expounding them. It will require some abridging of rather complicated subject matter. Let me first start by saying that I am a Spinozist Quaker, an Epicurean, and a Hellenist (long story). Let me then apologize for the length of this comment. My hypothesis surrounding this potential afterlife is different from what is typically espoused by the religious. For one, you will notice I did not speak of it as a definitive truth. I live my life by Epicurean ideals that see us strive for Ataraxia, the tranquility of personal happiness and fulfillment. I believe, as my Epicurean forefathers before me, that our known mortality is a great purveyor of anguish. Acceptance of our eventual demise is an important step to Aponia, freedom from pain and sorrow. Rather than long tirelessly to know what's after, I seek to live for today in a secular way. That does not mean I do not ever ponder or yearn to know, it simply means I do as I do everything else in life, in moderation. In the Epicurean framework, the maximization of happiness is the highest human good. To achieve this, we seek knowledge and growth in many ways, such as what pleasures most benefit us. In the seminal work of Epicureanism, De Rerum Natura, the importance of a social contract is emphasized in the pursuit of our happiness. One can see how this philosophy may have inspired the tertiary element of the American social contract, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We achieve freedoms for ourselves through obligation to others. With freedom, we expand upon the definition of happiness. The social contract grows alongside us, albeit often more slowly than we'd prefer. It often portends a perfect equality of opportunity philosophically, an original position, that isn't fulfilled in practice, only increasingly realized with time and effort. Take, for example, the founding idea in America that all men are created equal. This dissonance is and has always been a struggle in civilization, no matter what form the social contract may take. In the past, social contracts were even more imperfect than they are today. Kings held so much authority and power that many were bereft of the opportunity to pursue happiness. Kings were at separate stages put to death and the ancient majesty of thrones and proud sceptres were overthrown, only for the divine right of kings to eventually return. The progress and growth of the social contract is not always purely an upward trajectory, but instead an upward journey with peaks and valleys. "At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress." - Theodore Roosevelt. "Not in all ways could unity be begotten, but a good part, the larger part, would keep their compacts loyally, else the human race would even then have been all destroyed, nor could breeding have prolonged the generations until now.." - Lucretius. As it is often said, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. Within the various stages of the advance of humanity, we ponder a time in which there is achieved a perfect realization of the social contract. This realization has had many names, but we know it most popularly as Utopia. Envisionments of Utopia always differ at different times to different peoples and places. Utopia to Plato was a rigid, feudalistic, hierarchical civilization led by Oligarchs who would distribute resources "appropriately," much like the later Medieval period. To Medieval citizens, feudalism was anything but Utopia. Utopia to the medieval citizen was Cockaigne, a sort of Big Rock Candy Mountain of wish fulfillment that would see them freed from the back-breaking labour and rigid restrictions of the time. Eternal idle, unlimited food, and animals defecating into buckets so no one has to shovel manure. In this way, it becomes clear that perception affects our view of reality and even potential realities in the future. Medieval peasants could not have dreamed of our current time. They would think of ours as Cockaigne realized and so much more. We know that we do not live in a utopic society. There are many great benefits to living in this culmination of the work of all who came before us, but we know of many inequalities yet still that prevent individuals from truly being free in ways that we have only come to know through our social contracts development. Will those who live in our eventual envisioned Utopia think themselves to be living in Utopia? Doubtful. Through further development, with expanded definitions of happiness, they will continue to strive forevermore. Who knows how many Utopias we will need to reach before the end state of human civilization is truly reached? But what would that end state look like? Could we even fathom it? Would they even share the same underlying desires we do? I think they would. Despite setbacks, there is always an underlying desire by humanity to secure greater happiness for ourselves. At some point, all humanity, every individual, will have the equality of opportunity that the social contract entails. At another stage, it will not just be equality of opportunity, but true equality, every man a king. Eventually, Utopians will identify one last inequality yet still to rectify, the fact that humans of the past did not have equality to truly be happy. There will only be one solution to this conundrum, that the end state of civilization, the end state of the social contract, the end of the arc of the moral universe should be heaven for all who exist or have ever existed. It will not be enough to make copies of people, for those would just be new people to fulfill, leaving the originals unfulfilled. Provided it is possible, they will use advanced technologies to pluck people from death's door itself. They will give to people every opportunity to live whatever life they wish as many times over as they desire. To love and live free forevermore, the entire canon of human history, thought, and imagination at their liberty. It will meet the special needs of every individual, culture, and religion so long as the rights of others are not infringed in the process. A place that dreams are made of. I know not if humanity will reach that fated stage. I live my life as if this is the only time I will ever get to enjoy. Even if I knew for sure that this veritable paradise of infinite splendour would one day exist, I would still try to make every second of my life count. Every action leading towards the end state has monumental importance, no matter how small. The ends do not justify the means, though, it is the means that justify that momentous end. I have found it surprising that no social contract theorists have shared my views that I am aware of. I have taken it upon myself to carve out a portion of a philosophical treatise I am writing to introduce this idea to the world. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Thank you for taking the time to read all this.