Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:46 pm

Dontaskme wrote:What morrow?

Dontaskme wrote:I have no idea what the morrow brings, but what ever it will bring it will be known now. …

You tell me?

I don’t know of any morrow.

Arising_uk wrote:Then you should be able to tell me what's not happening tomorrow now.

Nothing is happening.

.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:43 pmOrwell and Huxley were both right. I happen to think that Huxley's path to the downfall of civilization has greater weight than Orwell's (by about 60-40), but each route accelerates the other, doesn't it.

This gave me the thought that Huxley's route is the decadence of society, the wallowing in pleasure and forgetting how to behave in hard times. If the pleasure continued, there would be no downfall. The Roman Empire, Athens, Atlantis, all fell when the going was so good that everyone let the invading hordes in just because the indigenous had become too lazy, too soft, too liberal.

Orwell's path has had also many real-life examples. This is when the going gets so tough, that event the tough stop going. Pot Pol is the best example. Communist rule in the early years of communism (Stalinist era). Nazi rule of jingoism until bleeding resources cause death. Aztec culture. etc.

I think Huxleyism is sustainable. All you need is absolute lack of external enemies, and complete automation (no exploitation). Orwell's route eventually breaks down, due to dissent within the system.

USA prides itself with being both tough and not soft, yet affluent and pleasant. If it only were so. But carrying on those two opposing tendencies successfully will sustain America longer as a superpower than any other in past history.

Today's Orwellism is represented by fanatic islamic communities. The oppression is absolute. No deviance is tolerated. It is punished harshly, so nobody even tries. The religion's restrictive nature punishes those who follow it, yet the apstates are punished way harsher. This system has seemed to have reached an equilibrium, too. The Moslim culture is expanding, and is stable in its social structure. The grip on people is stronger than communist countries ever could or hoped to achieve. At least jokes were allowed in Communist countries, and sex was not a taboo. Try to make a joke on the system's idols in Islam, and then look at yourself.

So today we have two parallel systems running: Huxley-y USA, which does not get soft, and Islamic Orwellism, with enough controls in place to prevent the chance for change.

-1-

You are doing the same thing, Nick_A. Indoctrination and education are separate, distinct concepts, so in the language, as in reality. You are just being a tiresome, old man who has stopped being able to conceptualize anything new for the last 20 or so years.

Indoctrination and education are separate, distinct concepts but the point is that you don’t recognize the difference. You are not alone. Most people just consider indoctrination as what they are against.

“Give me beauty in the inward soul; may the outward and the inward man be at one.” ~ Socrates

Human education is the education of the inner man while indoctrination is the education of the outer man. The inner man consists of qualities we are born with while the outer man is our personality or the habits and beliefs we have acquired during life

Human education educates the whole man: reason, character, and body into normalcy. Indoctrination is only concerned with the intellect or the ability to rationalize absurdity in service to society. The purpose of indoctrination now called education, is to enculturate, not become normal.

“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.,” George Orwell 1984

The indoctrinated person has rationalized absurdity. Yet there will always be a minority; people with common sense who even at an early age know the emperor has no clothes. Yes they may be killed but there will still be others who remain hidden. They resist efforts of enculturation called education for the sake of understanding and working towards what it means to be human. They are concerned with human education for themselves and others. IMO, they are a necessary minority I hope to be a part of even at the cost of annoying the Great Beast.

Dontaskme wrote:I don’t know of any morrow.

Dontaskme wrote:I have no idea what the morrow brings, but what ever it will bring it will be known now.

So what was this about? Is it that English is your second language?

Nothing is happening.

The why did you think the morrow might bring something?

commonsense wrote:... to the downfall of civilization ...

People keep saying this, so which civilization is being talked about?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:17 pm

commonsense wrote:... to the downfall of civilization ...

People keep saying this, so which civilization is being talked about?

I had in mind modern Western civilization.

Nick_A wrote:... Most people just consider indoctrination as what they are against. …

That'll be you then.

“Give me beauty in the inward soul; may the outward and the inward man be at one.” ~ Socrates

Plato now Socrates and you haven't read either.

Human education is the education of the inner man while indoctrination is the education of the outer man. The inner man consists of qualities we are born with while the outer man is our personality or the habits and beliefs we have acquired during life. …

If they are things we acquire during life then what link to education?

Can you give an example of these qualities we are born with?

You still never say what it is you'd actually be teaching other than sport, arts, the humanities, sciences and philosophy?

Human education educates the whole man: reason, character, and body into normalcy. Indoctrination is only concerned with the intellect or the ability to rationalize absurdity in service to society. The purpose of indoctrination now called education, is to enculturate, not become normal. …

Something your hero Plato supported as society needs all its members as what would the philosopher kings do?

“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.,” George Orwell 1984

The indoctrinated person has rationalized absurdity. …

You certainly have.

Yet there will always be a minority; people with common sense who even at an early age know the emperor has no clothes. Yes they may be killed but there will still be others who remain hidden. They resist efforts of enculturation called education for the sake of understanding and working towards what it means to be human. They are concerned with human education for themselves and others. IMO, they are a necessary minority I hope to be a part of even at the cost of annoying the Great Beast.

lmfao! If what you do here is an example of this minority then you are far from being one of the elect. The irony is that you are a great example of your 'indoctrinated' as you just parrot others. You are a kissing liar who hides what he wants and intends behind a wall of obscuration.

commonsense wrote: I had in mind modern Western civilization.

Which one? But still, according to Spengler's organic view of history that has run its course quite a while back now as all things grow, thrive and die.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 12:03 am

commonsense wrote: I had in mind modern Western civilization.

Which one? But still, according to Spengler's organic view of history that has run its course quite a while back now as all things grow, thrive and die.

The States, actually.

A common American problem in thinking that civilization is themselves. But I tend to agree, it looks like you're gonna be one of the shorted-lived nations.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:43 pmAs for me, I think that Orwell and Huxley were both right. I happen to think that Huxley's path to the downfall of civilization has greater weight than Orwell's (by about 60-40), but each route accelerates the other, doesn't it.

That is exactly how I feel about it. Huxley is in the lead ... so far.

The subject matter of the thread is great but the OP was shallow and distracted, and that threw things off, hence my attempt at a reboot.

It's a double-edged sword. Huxley's side may be sharper and more insidious; Orwell's blunter but more forceful and direct. Both collude toward the decline. As mentioned on the first page of this OP, "it's not an either/or situation". The only way that could happen is if a government attacks the citizenry as if it were a foreign invader forcing a sudden transition.

Greta wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:01 am

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 5:43 pmAs for me, I think that Orwell and Huxley were both right. I happen to think that Huxley's path to the downfall of civilization has greater weight than Orwell's (by about 60-40), but each route accelerates the other, doesn't it.

That is exactly how I feel about it. Huxley is in the lead ... so far.

The subject matter of the thread is great but the OP was shallow and distracted, and that threw things off, hence my attempt at a reboot.

No, it is you who are shallow and distracted which is why you read it as shallow and distracted. As a secularist you are incapable of offering any alternative for preventing the lawful devolution of a free society either into chaos or tyranny.

Dubious wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 1:26 amIt's a double-edged sword. Huxley's side may be sharper and more insidious; Orwell's blunter but more forceful and direct. Both collude toward the decline. As mentioned on the first page of this OP, "it's not an either/or situation". The only way that could happen is if a government attacks the citizenry as if it were a foreign invader forcing a sudden transition.

There are ever more signs of each coming into play. Domination from one side, suppression on the other - and enormous manipulation with each.

An older unemployed and unemployable friend told me that depressed jobless people are not permitted to cry in despair when being put through humiliating "job seeking" exercises in the Centrelink offices or they will be deemed to be troublemakers and issued with "demerits" that threaten their small social security benefits.

I'm thinking that is perhaps more Orwellian than Huxleyesque there (?) ... when "social security" is redesigned to push those deemed worthless towards suicide so as to implement cost savings.