Introduction
Utopian thought and literature had been in decline for several decades after harsh critiques from thinkers like Karl Popper, Isaiah Berlin, and others. These thinkers argued that many disasters, including the rise of left-wing and right-wing totalitarianism (communism and fascism) and World War II, were due to the dominance of utopian thought in political philosophy. The anti-utopian stance, called Utopiaphobia in this article, arose from the fear of repeating such catastrophes, stifling any defense of utopian ideas. Although thinkers like John Rawls helped bring back the concept of utopia cautiously with "Realistic Utopia," it was only in recent decades that it began to recover. Today, however, the situation has changed, with utopia defenders becoming more vocal. Much of the work of late utopians has been in response to the critiques from early utopiaphobes, stressing the ontological and methodological necessity of utopia. This article examines the conflict between these two groups, aiming to assess the current state of utopian studies and address the central challenge in the field: the relationship between utopia, violence, and reality.
Research Question and Hypothesis
The concept of "realistic utopia" attempts to balance utopian ideals with the practical limitations of the present. First introduced by John Rawls in The Law of Peoples, it aims to demonstrate that a better world is possible within the confines of current human capacities and social structures. Rawls defines realistic utopia as a vision that stays within the realm of what is achievable, emphasizing the moral and psychological limitations of human nature, while recognizing the possibility of surpassing existing social institutions. George Lawson critiques Rawls’ approach, suggesting that utopia must be a dynamic, progressive process rather than a static model. He argues that social change should always be forward-moving, with utopia acting as a blueprint for this change, grounded in present realities. Lawson believes that by avoiding totalitarianism, utopia can evolve in response to changing conditions. Eric Olin Wright, from a Marxist perspective, sees realistic utopia as a tool for challenging the status quo and fighting institutional oppression. He argues that utopias are only effective when their feasibility is tested within the context of the present, and that any anti-capitalist utopia must prove it can replace the existing system with minimal harm. Realistic utopia must engage with reality without fully accepting it.

Materials & Methods
In the 20th century, the concept of utopia became a widespread debate in political philosophy and social fields. Regarding the significance of utopia, whether as an existential necessity or a method of thinking, we have discussed it in another article titled "Imagination, Utopia, and Political Philosophy.

Discussion and Results
In this section, we will address the main disputes between the groups of utopians and the later proponents of utopia, while also attempting to defend the positions of critical utopian thinkers.

Early Utopianophobias
Utopiaphobia refers to the anti-utopian movement that emerged after World War II, which critiqued utopian thought and its connection to totalitarianism. This critique was notably advanced by thinkers such as Karl Popper, Isaiah Berlin, and Friedrich Hayek, who argued that utopianism leads to the suppression of individuality and the establishment of totalitarian regimes. They believed that utopias, due to their moral dogmatism, social rigidity, and ultimately the need for coercion and violence, lead to totalitarianism.
These critiques were centered around three main points: first, value monism, which views utopias as lacking cultural diversity and pluralism; second, their stagnation and resistance to change; and third, their inherent irrationality, which shields them from rational critique. Ultimately, these critiques concluded that utopianism, especially in its extreme forms, leads to tyranny and totalitarianism, where diversity and individual freedoms are suppressed.
Defenses of later Utopian thinkers
In recent decades, significant efforts have been made to address the criticisms against utopian thought, with scholars such as Mark Olsson, Ruth Levitas, and George Kateb providing substantial contributions. One of the primary arguments made by defenders of utopia is that it is not inherently a closed system imposing a singular way of life, as critics suggest. Instead, utopias are seen as presenting alternatives to current conditions, acknowledging diversity and fostering human dignity. For instance, George Kateb argues that utopia is not about a fixed blueprint but about imagining alternatives that challenge the stagnation of the present. Additionally, modern utopians stress the importance of imagination in political philosophy, which allows for envisioning a better future. Defenders also distinguish between utopia and ideology, asserting that utopias are philosophical tools for critiquing the present rather than fixed plans. They argue that critiques equating utopia with totalitarianism misinterpret its role, as utopia, in its essence, is not authoritarian but a challenge to the status quo. Even when utopias are pursued in practice, they argue that it is the failure to adapt them realistically that can lead to authoritarian outcomes, not the utopian idea itself. In conclusion, modern utopia thinkers emphasize its role in promoting change, hope, and resistance to oppressive ideologies.

Conclusion
Here, we will only note that utopia, as an image of a better life or society than the present, is an ontological necessity not only for political philosophy but for philosophy itself; an unavoidable possibility for thought and reflection. However, after World War II, utopian thought was heavily criticized by thinkers such as Karl Popper, Isaiah Berlin, and others, who accused it of leading to violence and terror. Yet, it wasn't long before later utopians defended their ideas, arguing that violence is not inherent in utopia but arises from the process of trying to implement it. The central unresolved question was the relationship between utopia and reality. In response, thinkers like John Rawls sought to tame utopia’s unruly nature by linking it to reality. Utopia, in this sense, was seen as a vision achievable within the framework of current, even future, reality. Although this approach gained support, it limited utopia’s scope. Merit Booker, however, introduced a more democratic perspective, arguing that utopia should be seen as a process rather than a project. He advocates for a pluralistic democratic utopia, where no utopia can claim total legitimacy, and all ideas are open to democratic debate.