Brave New World

In a way they I think they are both right...

I read Brave New World when I was 13 and it changed my entire way of looking at the world. I definitely think Huxley's view of the future is more accurate and more likely than Orwell's. A lot of it is happening already, as demonstrated by the examples in this post. I believe that we have become so accustomed to being afraid all of the time that we fail to realize how harmful our need for distraction from that fear has become.

Nice, though one would seem to include the freedom to choose (by being open infers to me that truth would still be available, just not 'popular'), while the other doesn't. I'd rather the former and let people be responsible for their own choices.

It says a lot though if we were to consider if human nature was to swing towards either oppressing oneself or letting someone else oppress us... except for us Jedi of course perfectly balanced and able to move freely across the spectrum
:blink: :S :laugh:

It presents the illusion of choice.

If I sign up for a website that I need for networking/job hunting/etc and during the sign-up process it forces me to accept a user agreement that essentially waives any rights I have to material I post on the site, one might assume that if I continue and sign up I've made a free choice - after all, I could just not sign up at all. But what if every website offers basically the same deal? What if, in order to receive the service that I need, I'm only technically forced into accepting a waiver of my rights. Sure, I didn't have to sign up at all, but that's an incredibly narrow understanding of the argument. Technically you had a choice, but practically you didn't because every service has the same requirements. Visa or Mastercard. Discover or AmEx. Yeah. Great choices.

To put this under a broader lens, we technically have the option not to interact with all the Huxleyan distractions that we're presented with - we can pack up a backpack and decide to live by ourselves in the woods (assuming we live someplace where that's truly feasible). Or, on a more realistic level, we could refuse to use the internet except on a limited basis for absolute necessities, not own a phone that does anything but send and receive calls, avoid almost all modern forms of entertainment and interaction... but I seriously doubt many people would accept that as a practical application of our right to choose.

Anyway, the reality seems to be that it's actually a mixture of both ideas. We repress and amuse ourselves to death, and in the rare event that someone steps out of line, they're crushed - either by police force, economic/political pressure, or worse... social pressure if the rest of your society refuses to act/supports the established powers.

Yeah, we have free will, to a certain degree, but it's extremely limited in the broader sense by the power structures we allow our society to have.

I don't think its an illusion of choice, just particular natures of choice. To think its anything beyond what it 'is' would be running the risk of misrepresenting its nature. Since we cannot have complexity without structure, once accepting that the structure has inherit limitations by its capacity to serve as a structure, then its either its an open structure or a closed structure based on ones capacity to participate, and the systems capacity to allow new structures to be created. There would be many examples of insufficient choice, but so long as the system allows new choices to be created I still think its a better approach to empower individual agency and growth.

I disagree, but I appreciate your point.

Edit: I disagree regarding certain fundamental concepts of free will and limitations of choice - specifically under consideration of choice limitation and coercion. I don't disagree that the system we have now is personally preferable to a totalitarian nightmare scenario. To be clear.

Black or white ... ? Which one is right ? :dry:

We are even supposed to have learnt something about the Hegelian dialectic in the IP ... (remember that ?)

Essay 1: Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis

It can be said that there are 3 aspects of any discussion: thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

What are the meanings of the words thesis, antithesis and synthesis?

What’s the importance of synthesis for a Jedi?

Can you think of an example you’ve experienced or heard of where synthesis has been important?

Here is an example ....

Unfortunately, this very well done presentation, messed it all up by presenting it in those terms : Orwell was wrong ; Huxley was right ...

... whereas they were both right. There is a lot of Orwellian control in place, and it is the Huxleyian effect that gets us to accept it. And not only accept it, but eagerly join in the enforcing ...

There is a lot of interesting research done on the illusion of choice. Barry Schwartz (economist) and Renata Selacl come to mind first off, but there are other interestingly repeated studies done also, like the one Dan Pink talked about (financed by the American Federal Reserve, no less ...) on what tends to motivate us.

https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice?language=en

https://www.thersa.org/discover/videos/event-videos/2010/07/the-paradox-of-choice/

Anyway ... it isn't a matter of "who was right ?" between Orwell and Huxley - they were both pretty clear visionaries. They were both 'wrong' in the sense that their novels have not come to pass 'exactly like that' -- they weren't supposed to : they were fiction. The question is : how were they both 'right' ? The common denominator is 'thought control', after all ... It seems pretty clear to me that by influencing the value judgements (hence the 'choices' - sic -) of the populace, one certainly saves a lot on ammunition and gets just about the same results.

Look at it again ... :whistle:

Alexandre Orion wrote:
Anyway ... it isn't a matter of "who was right ?" between Orwell and Huxley - they were both pretty clear visionaries. They were both 'wrong' in the sense that their novels have not come to pass 'exactly like that' -- they weren't supposed to : they were fiction. The question is : how were they both 'right' ? The common denominator is 'thought control', after all ... It seems pretty clear to me that by influencing the value judgements (hence the 'choices' - sic -) of the populace, one certainly saves a lot on ammunition and gets just about the same results.

'xactly!

I should have pointed out more clearly I was reflecting on our societies in the context of the OP, being more like one then the other, and not the examples in those pieces of fiction.

I still don't think blame can be associated to the mechanisms of free choice, just because they use the vulnerabilities of human nature. To me that sounds quite pessimistic view, as if you are going to judge a system then I would think it more accurate to assess its structure rather then any particular point of view from within the structure. So as mentioned I say that only so long as new choices can be created and people have the freedom not to make a particular choice. The choices to many might not be competitive, and therefore the illusion is actually no choice, rather then choice IMO.

From another point of view it can also be seen as the best opportunity for the most growth, a mix of freedom and competition... it's just we easily feel slighted because the combination of the pressures of living and how we handle them, together with this freedom means we end up getting sucked in and feel like its not our fault for not making certain decisions and that illusion of no-choice. Obviously there are limits, and all manner of examples which demonstrate all sorts of circumstance, like do we even have free will, and if so how much, and how does it exist within the wider population! So yea, from a systems view I tend to think its more an illusion of no-choice faced by individuals within in our systems.