Utopian and Dystopian

Utopian and Dystopian, they seem to contradict.
Just as black and white, yin and yang,  heaven and hell contradicts to each other, surely the two words can not possibly be seen as one.


The definition of utopian - given to impractical or unrealistic schemes of such perfection.  In short, ideal.
The definition of dystopian -

a society characterized by human misery, as squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding.


A dream land for one, could be the nightmare of another. One's pressure might come at the cost of another. Macbeth has gained the throne through murders, at first he didn't think he would be the king, but when he became Lord of Crawdor,  he began to believe the prophecy of the three witches.  In the end when he faced the dilemma of killing King Duncan, and Macduff's family, he felt right because he needed to fulfill the prophecy.



The glory and power, which he had never dared to think of, is the Utopia to him. But as the story proceeds, the Utopia turns Dystopian and eventually, caused his death and the death of his wife.
Is Utopia and Dystopia really different? Is one really the ideal? While one nightmare, or is it the way we look at the situations we're in that determined the quantity of our world?

What is true love?

Romeo and Juliet demonstrated love that surpassed their family feud. Well, of course Shakespeare made it a bit too dramatic when they fall in love instantly, while awhile ago Romeo was saying
"One fairer than my love! the all-seeing sun. Ne'er saw her match since first the world begun" to Benvolio about another woman, Rosaline.
In the end they died as they have wished, together. Only a bit too soon. Ironically because they love each other so much that they can't bear to be separated. A fortune though that Shakespeare decided that the acrimony has to end at some point during the play, just imagine if Montague and Capuliet arrive at the scene and start to condemn each other for the death of their child and Paris.

What is true love? I believe many of us are seeking for the destined half. But how shall we seek while we don't even have an agreement about the term? As a Christian, I think I have a pretty good definition of "True Love." It is unconditional, truthful and willing to sacrifice for the good of another. Unconditional love, love is focused on a specific subject, not the deeds. A pastor once gave a parable of true love. Person A and Person B


A"I love you"
B"I hate you"
A"I still love you"
B"But I hate you more than anything"
A"That doesn't change my love for you"
B"I don't even want to see you"
A"I still love you"
B"I don't want to hear your name mentioned"
A"But I still love you"
B"Your existence is intolerable"

This is totally rational if A is a fanatic sort of person, but what if B is a murderer? Sounds very aberrant doesn't it? Why love someone that doesn't even want to hear your name. But this fulfilled the term "unconditional" I love "you" unconditionally, not what "you do."
People in love would often say they would rather die than to be separate. Romeo and Juliet proved this with their death, but talking about true love, if we're in a situation like one above, are we still willing?
According to the Bible, Jesus died for all so the whole world can be saved. He died for ALL, not just the good people, even the tyrants,murderers, rapers, criminals...etc. Some of them totally denied the existence of God, but he still loves them. If there's anything in this world that's even close to the meaning of true love, this is it.
It may even be impossible to achieve by us, we all want to gain something in a relationship, love is hard when it's one way only. There's a tale that's widely accepted on the Internet, if you're in love, you give a fragment of your soul to the other person, when you get nothing in return, your soul become incomplete. Maybe that explains the large quantity of people getting hurt in love.
In King Lear and Macbeth, different perspectives of love were shown too. The three tragedies contained both hatred and love. Murders were quite common in all three plays,  Mercutio and Tybalt, Regan and Cordelia, Duncan and Banquo, yet I fine them not too obnoxious. Human nature strives to gain more power, more wealth, more achievements. One may promise not to commit immorality behaviors such as what Goneril and Regan has done, but we all have done whether conscience or not, a little something to make situations in our lives a bit more to our favourite. Yet love inevitable flew between the lines. Love for Juliet made Tybalt challenged Romeo, love between friends made Mercutio accept the duel instead of Romeo, and made Romeo avenge for the death of Mercutio. Love for Edmund made Goneril poisoned Regan, love of a daughter to father made Cordelia return to England to help Lear despite the fact that Lear banished her due to her honesty.
Out of the three plays, I think the love Cordelia had for Lear was the closest to true love. She told told the truth about her love for her father, instead of the fulsome terms that her sisters used. She didn't mind that Lear had banished her autocratically, she went back to England to help him, and thus, died there. Lear on the other hand, didn't quite realise what true love is until his two elder daughters turned against him and cast him out.
What is true love?