a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by b_b
b_b  ·  4674 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Huxley to Orwell on why Brave New World is more realizable than 1984
I think its not really supposed to matter. Huxley came from a family of eminent biologists; his grandfather was the Huxley, Thomas Henry that is, Darwin's great friend and colleague. Therefore, I'm sure he would be familiar with biologic diversity, that no matter how tight the controls everyone is going to be a little different, total control can be approached but in the end is impossible.

In the book everyone says "alcohol in the decanter" behind Bernard's back. I think this is Huxley's way of pointing out that eccentricities and original thoughts are immediately dismissed as mental illness by the majority of non-thinking people, but that its actually the differences among us that makes us great.

The scary part of BNW isn't the World Government; after all, everyone in the story has a comfortable life. No, the scary part is the lack of free will. Everyone has their place ordained before birth, and it cannot be changed. Differences between you and I are what tell us that we are able to decide our path in life. If we were all the same, then how could we in any way claim that we have ever made a choice? That is what is scary, and that is why I don't think Bernard's different way of looking at life really needs an in depth explanation.





alpha0  ·  4673 days ago  ·  link  ·  
> the scary part is the lack of free will. Everyone has their place ordained before birth, and it cannot be changed. Differences between you and I are what tell us that we are able to decide our path in life.

Surprised at this remark. That has been the general case, historically. (e.g. born into a peasant family in middle ages.)

BNW is predominantly about a reactionary "scientific" global autocratic governance, womb to grave. That is indeed a thing to fear, as uprooting such a system is a very low probability event and would likely happen as side effect of a long period of internal decay/implosion. In other words, a Luther could upend the Catholic Church's grip on European minds with mere words nailed to a door, but good luck to the Luther of the Millennial Scientific Reich.

.: In T we trust

b_b  ·  4673 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I had a sneaking suspicion a BNW debate would bring you out of the woodwork!

Let me clarify what I meant when I said that its the lack of free will and not the government itself that is the scary part of BNW. Let's contrast it to the obvious choice, 1984. In 1984 (or the Soviet Union or Medieval Europe or any myriad other regimes) the government was the entity of fear. Severe punishment could be exacted on anyone for almost any reason, with no recourse. One needed to step lightly or face consequences, which could include torture or imprisonment, which I sure as shit would fear.

In BNW on the other hand, we have an ostensibly benevolent government. Food is plentiful, as is entertainment and pleasure. Every person has exactly what they need except will, the very thing that makes us human. Lives are preordained and conditioned to fit a useful niche, and the victims in this scheme don't even know they're being victimized.

Obviously, in the end, its the government in BNW who is responsible for this clandestine oppression, and so it is they who should be feared, but in a more immediate sense, the reason they should be feared is that they've taken away the free will, and thus the humanity, of their subjects.

alpha0  ·  4672 days ago  ·  link  ·  
> I had a sneaking suspicion a BNW debate would bring you out of the woodwork!

Chance event; not lurking.

> Let me clarify what I meant when I said that its the lack of free will and not the government itself that is the scary part of BNW.

The fundamental pov of the ideological clique (ch 2-3) is that unmanaged nature is oppressive and the very source of human misery; that we do not have free will in a meaningful sense; that any notion of meat widget x jumping to siren song of hormones or to a manufactured psychological impulse (pavlovian) given by a social hierarchy being expressive of free will is an error; that the psychological comfort of projecting meaning into an otherwise mechanical existence is not worth the collective price. In T we trust. (aside: that T is the other crucifix ...)

b_b  ·  4672 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Free will may be illusory. I hope not, but if so its the illusion that keeps me from wanting to kill myself; I think I'll keep believing!
alpha0  ·  4672 days ago  ·  link  ·  
A believer. I knew it.
caio  ·  4673 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Would you say one could also make the argument the proles in 1984 also lack free will? Or would it be more correct to say they don't know they're being oppressed or they don't feel the oppression?
b_b  ·  4672 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I'm don't think I'm too qualified on this. I've read 1984 once a long time ago; I'm much more familiar with BNW. But I think you're correct that they lack free will and are oblivious to the fact. Where I think the governments differ is in intent. Big Brother (or whoever is actually running the government) is a strongman whose main goal is to hold on to power, proles lacking free will is the best way to maintain power, so it is imposed, but robbing of will isn't, I don't think, the goal, its just a side effect. One the other hand, the world government sees themselves are a benevolent force, robbing the people of will for their own good, under the guise that free will doesn't really exist anyway, so why not just adjust the experience of the individual? (See alpha0's post above for a more eloquent explanation that I could come up with).

So maybe both groups truly lack free will, but I think intent separates the governments qualitatively.

b_b  ·  4672 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.