Philosophy Now Forum

"even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil

George Orwell and Aldous Huxley offer two paths leading to the ultimate decline of a free society. Is there any way either can be avoided? Does it mean that society, left to its own devices, is incapable of freedom? It does seem so. Do you disagree?

Here is a good page which sum up the ideas of Orwell and Huxley.

http://muddlingtowardmaturity.typepad.c ... -1984.html

Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing.
Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression.
But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

So is the danger more from imposed indoctrination or rather from within: the nature of Man?

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.
What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.
Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us.
Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.
Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.
In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us.
Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

Is Huxley right? Will the human tendency to fall victim to distractions furthered by the Internet lead to a shallow society incapable of remembering what is necessary to sustain freedom or will indoctrination as we are experiencing it now in media and in education first force the sacrifice of freedom for the sake of an agenda.?

you certainly have two good points, in fact so good, that I can't say anything edgewise.

And that's rare.

Too simplistic. It's not an either/or situation as very few things in life default to a duel of opposites which is the type of scenario presented.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 4:10 am Too simplistic. It's not an either/or situation as very few things in life default to a duel of opposites which is the type of scenario presented.

So what's missing?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:41 pm "even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil

George Orwell and Aldous Huxley offer two paths leading to the ultimate decline of a free society. Is there any way either can be avoided? Does it mean that society, left to its own devices, is incapable of freedom? It does seem so. Do you disagree?

No thing, no person can ride your back unless it's bent. Walk tall and be upstanding, enduring and know that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. To know 'others' you first have to know thyself. The hardest work in life is the undoing and deconstructing of the false self. Nothing can stick to a mind that is free. Awakening is the key to unlock the prison gates and then to throw away the key forever.

.

After all the hard work...go out there and be the best you have ever been, that's the easy work...the easy part.
People will warm to confident happy secure people, it will be contagious and irresistable. Love begets love.

.

Hux was right.

We knowingly, willingly, entertain and distract ourselves into the abattoir.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 2:33 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 4:10 am Too simplistic. It's not an either/or situation as very few things in life default to a duel of opposites which is the type of scenario presented.

So what's missing?

Nothing to do with what's missing. It's ALL there; these two scenarios reinforce each other into one methodology moving rights and privileges from one camp into the other clandestinely. It can't be done without the collusion of those from whom power is removed.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 4:31 pm

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:41 pm "even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil

George Orwell and Aldous Huxley offer two paths leading to the ultimate decline of a free society. Is there any way either can be avoided? Does it mean that society, left to its own devices, is incapable of freedom? It does seem so. Do you disagree?

No thing, no person can ride your back unless it's bent. Walk tall and be upstanding, enduring and know that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. To know 'others' you first have to know thyself. The hardest work in life is the undoing and deconstructing of the false self. Nothing can stick to a mind that is free. Awakening is the key to unlock the prison gates and then to throw away the key forever.

.

After all the hard work...go out there and be the best you have ever been, that's the easy work...the easy part.
People will warm to confident happy secure people, it will be contagious and irresistable. Love begets love.

.

You are referring to an individual but Orwell and Huxley are referring to society. Society as a whole is a living organism. it is born, lives and dies. They are describing the paths leading to transformation of a free society into statist slavery or even rule by a tyrant.

As you know, Plato referred to society as a beast. It lacks consciousness and is controlled by natural forces as is the rest of organic life on earth. The Beast is composed of many atoms often in opposition and subject to natural forces it doesn't understand.

Orwell describes in 1984 how information will be filtered and how we will be indoctrinated into an agenda. Huxley describes how we will refuse understanding of what is required to sustain freedom in favor of obsessions with trivialities like tweets. Either way freedom must be lost.

Is there a way out for society from following these paths into the loss of freedom? While there may be for an individual, is freedom ever possible for the Great Beast or must it eventually fall victim to animal trainers? If there is a way out, what is it?

Interestingly these two dystopian / utopian societies ever have come into existence.

So the skeptic who said "they need an ingredient" was right.

I think that ingredient ist human's sense of humour. And music. Music can entice man to move mountains, or dig under, or fill an ocean with tears.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:18 pm
You are referring to an individual but Orwell and Huxley are referring to society. Society as a whole is a living organism. it is born, lives and dies. They are describing the paths leading to transformation of a free society into statist slavery or even rule by a tyrant.

As you know, Plato referred to society as a beast. It lacks consciousness and is controlled by natural forces as is the rest of organic life on earth. The Beast is composed of many atoms often in opposition and subject to natural forces it doesn't understand.

Orwell describes in 1984 how information will be filtered and how we will be indoctrinated into an agenda. Huxley describes how we will refuse understanding of what is required to sustain freedom in favor of obsessions with trivialities like tweets. Either way freedom must be lost.

Is there a way out for society from following these paths into the loss of freedom? While there may be for an individual, is freedom ever possible for the Great Beast or must it eventually fall victim to animal trainers? If there is a way out, what is it?

Freedom is always relative; there is no such thing as freedom, only in relation to a different set of restrictions.

In this sense, freedom is immaterial; happiness, or abject misery, are more in-your-face, than freedom.

I mean, most people use their freedom to better their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Once life is good, freedom loses its thrill value.

Who here uses their freedom otherwise? I'd like to see some real examples of other uses of freedom but to make life pleasant / happy.

-1-

Freedom is always relative; there is no such thing as freedom, only in relation to a different set of restrictions. Freedom is always relative; there is no such thing as freedom, only in relation to a different set of restrictions.

Quite true. The concept of freedom is relative. Do you distinguish between forced obligations and voluntary obligations adopted for both personal and societal good? From this perspective we could be capable of a choice of restrictions rather than just being a slave to imposed restrictions

There are two freedoms. There is outer freedom to move and react within our daily lives. Then there is inner freedom.

Inner freedom is the freedom of conscious choice and freedom from imagination. As we are we are governed by habits and acquired negative emotions. We have very little inner freedom.

Who here uses their freedom otherwise? I'd like to see some real examples of other uses of freedom but to make life pleasant / happy.

"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams."~ Simone Weil-- Gravity and Grace

There is a minority of truth seekers who strive for inner freedom necessary to experience the reality of he world and of the human condition. The dominant desire for pleasure is what produces the descent into the triviality Huxley was concerned with.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:18 pm If there is a way out, what is it?

There is a way out..and that is...'back in'.

Peace of mind, harmony and balance, is an inside job, it does not exist external to you, in the world of duality where people still believe in a 'separate self' ...this belief will always defend itself, ever fearful of losing face.. Finding the 'real self' is the end of knowledge aka the illusion of separation, and what comes with that realisation is permanent inner peace even amid chaos. This has been my experience only, I'm not saying it's the only answer to the way out.

Find out who you are, not what other people want you to be, or tell you to be, or expect you to be. Be who you want to be first and foremost. You can't know the truth of you until you have stood up and faced the lie of you head on..face both faces head on and that will show which face is real, in my opinion, the real face always stands firm. As I've said before, the shadow can never extinguish the light. But the light can extinquish the shadow every time, the light stands the test of time every time, it's the timeless wisdom of the 'real self' that does not exist external to you, it's hidden in plain sight within you all the time.

Be the change you want to see in the world. The external world will never change, because it's built on the consensus of every other persons collaberated collective ''thoughts'' according to their cultures believe structure of what constitues reality. Belief structures put in place, and agreed upon is conformity further endorsing the idea that this is how we do it, and this is how it is going to be, so get used to it. The thing is, if you are not willing to think for yourself, them someone else is going to think for you. This is what generally happens, people get lazy and don't want to put in all the hard work of what it takes to self discover what's really going on, rather they're just happy to get swept along the tide of whatever is flavor of the month.

The problem with that mind set is, what if you don't want to conform, what if it's not how you actually see the world.

So only you can change, only the individual you can change... not the world.

Soceities never change because societies are always and ever exactly what people want them to be because that's the way they like it.

This is my opinion only...not saying that is how it is. People can only make up their own mind about how they see their world...reality.

No named person has ever influenced me personally ...I've always been the type of person who can think for myself, and make my own mind up about things. I will take on board the thoughts of others by listening to what they have to say, but then will always make up my own mind about what's been said, not take what anyone has said to be the absolute gospel truth...only I get to decide that.



.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 10:41 pm "even if we can't prevent the forces of tyranny from prevailing, we can at least "understand the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil

Just reading Weil's statement and considering an article I read recently concerning the incredible proliferation, complexity and even outright unruliness (in some instances) of agencies and organizations employed by the US (alone) in the enterprise of intelligence gathering (there are at least 17 main ones and IIRC apparently in the neighborhood of fifty to a hundred smaller entities), it really seems to bring into question whether any realistic hope of a reversal or dismantling of such an inordinately huge conglomeration is realistically achievable outside of some frightfully cataclysmic change in our world. However, in some sense, as much as Donald Trump maybe represents a significant impediment in the advancement of science, ecology, and minority relations, in other ways he almost seems like the sort of candidate who is rattling enough cages in US politics to come closer than any other US President in creating some sort of relatively dramatic change of direction (whether intentional or otherwise) in terms of the bureaucracy.

Dear Nick.

I stumbled upon this video today, seems like a synchronised coincidence that it just appeared around the same time you made this thread.

It's a good watch, I stongly advise you to watch it before you go to sleep tonight. That's if you haven't already seen it of course.

There is the mention of both Orwell and Huxley and P Trump, and why society is the way it. There is much reference to idea of (The Great Beast) and is why I decided this video was relevant to this discussion.

Anyone interested in this discussion topic started by Nick should give this video a listen...imho..and then maybe leave a comment on what you think about the discussion, whether it be right or wrong or other.

See what you think...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBEOqfAn9Pw


.