Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is a pretty cool comparison of Huxley and Orwell, assuming it is true(I read both authors but I never had a deep intellectual analysis of either the books or authors). I like to think the future will be a blend of both. In the end, authoritarianism will be the answer, it is inevitable.
Have we reached a Brave New World? No, that is a big leap. Of course the story of Brave New World isn't meant to be literal, but there is still a huge middle class in America. Anyone from the lower or middle class still has a relatively good shot to the top, not an easy shot, maybe not even historically the easiest time to each the top, but still a relatively good shot, it ain't impossible. I think the Brave New World scenario will never happen, again not literally but the concept of a caste system.
I honestly feel that our current society is a blend of both.
Both of the texts though really struck me as a teen and made me think a lot about society and various forms of government along with the use and the way in which society consumes media and technology. Due to reading a lot of these types of texts along with, ironically, a lot of religious texts, first of which was the King James Bible; I decided to never put my support behind any specific political party or political ideology or organized religion.
I agree with Dusty in that the idea/definition of "freedom" can vary based on the individual, this is due to the fact that the human experience varies based on that particular person and the society of which the individual exists. I believe that people who support and/or advocate for either an extreme socialist and/or communist society/form of government or those who seek to install a more civil libertarian ideology/implementation in a governing capacity - that both lack in realizing that these extreme concepts are in contradiction with the fact that the human experience varies. Also that people have and will always discriminate against others whether it is sanctioned by government or if said discrimination is created by the free will/thought process of society at large based on a perceived "logical" assumption like how in BNW it was assumed that technology was "better" than nature, in regards to the way reproduction takes places in the human species.
In your reference to a caste system, which this was the case in both 1984 and Brave New World, people automatically make castes and put people into a hierarchy of society due to discrimination being a constant in the human experience or it being seen as a "logical" solution, which is what occurred in BNW. So that will happen to an extreme form in both of these extreme scenarios - 1984 or Brave New World along with in a moderate society like our own. However, IMO the more extreme a society is in regards to government and adherence to specific cultural and/or scientific/technological advances, the more extreme the caste system will be.
I honestly feel that our current society is a blend of both.
Both of the texts though really struck me as a teen and made me think a lot about society and various forms of government along with the use and the way in which society consumes media and technology. Due to reading a lot of these types of texts along with, ironically, a lot of religious texts, first of which was the King James Bible; I decided to never put my support behind any specific political party or political ideology or organized religion.
I agree with Dusty in that the idea/definition of "freedom" can vary based on the individual, this is due to the fact that the human experience varies based on that particular person and the society of which the individual exists. I believe that people who support and/or advocate for either an extreme socialist and/or communist society/form of government or those who seek to install a more civil libertarian ideology/implementation in a governing capacity - that both lack in realizing that these extreme concepts are in contradiction with the fact that the human experience varies. Also that people have and will always discriminate against others whether it is sanctioned by government or if said discrimination is created by the free will/thought process of society at large based on a perceived "logical" assumption like how in BNW it was assumed that technology was "better" than nature, in regards to the way reproduction takes places in the human species.
In your reference to a caste system, which this was the case in both 1984 and Brave New World, people automatically make castes and put people into a hierarchy of society due to discrimination being a constant in the human experience or it being seen as a "logical" solution, which is what occurred in BNW. So that will happen to an extreme form in both of these extreme scenarios - 1984 or Brave New World along with in a moderate society like our own. However, IMO the more extreme a society is in regards to government and adherence to specific cultural and/or scientific/technological advances, the more extreme the caste system will be.
I agree that the human experience varies, but I see that as an argument for freedom of choice. You don't want a central planner or authority dictating what every human in their territory must or must not do, because a) people have different values in life, and b) they should be allowed to pursue those values if they aren't violating the rights of anyone else.
That's why I don't agree that a balance of individual choice and authoritarian control is ideal, the same way that a balance between consensual sex and rape isn't ideal.
I agree that the human experience varies, but I see that as an argument for freedom of choice. You don't want a central planner or authority dictating what every human in their territory must or must not do, because a) people have different values in life, and b) they should be allowed to pursue those values if they aren't violating the rights of anyone else.
That's why I don't agree that a balance of individual choice and authoritarian control is ideal, the same way that a balance between consensual sex and rape isn't ideal.
But on the bold, neither could exist without the other - authoritarian control could not exist without individual choice - someone has to choose to be authoritarian.
Same as rape could not exist without sex - someone has to want to have sex for a rape to occur.
Balance and moderation are necessary parts of the human experience because everyone's individual experiences, decisions, and actions may, inadvertently harm another. Therefore, we have to agree to and compromise on the balance for things to work, or you have extreme societies as portrayed in these dystopian classics and third world nations or communist societies around the world.
I think the blue goes back somewhat to what Dusty spoke of, in regards to "freedom." That many civil libertarians only see "freedom" as being free from government, even many liberal governments are seen as authoritative when they aren't compared to the ones seen in both of those texts. One of the themes of the book and what I took from his/her comments is that freedom from government forcing you to do something, doesn't necessarily mean that your rights as a "free person" are protected. People will always choose to believe that their rights are being violated in some way (the character Jon was ostracized in the "savage" indian community and in the "brave new world" he journeyed to with his mother) no matter if there is an authoritative or liberal government and even in the complete absence of government if they live around other human beings.
But on the bold, neither could exist without the other - authoritarian control could not exist without individual choice - someone has to choose to be authoritarian.
Same as rape could not exist without sex - someone has to want to have sex for a rape to occur.
Individual choice can exist without authoritarianism, as sex can exist without rape. Rape and authoritarianism aren't necessary, or acceptable IMO. I'd say rape really falls under the authoritarianism category, because you are ignoring the choice of the other person and imposing your will on them anyway. The key factor is consent vs. non-consent.
Quote:
Balance and moderation are necessary parts of the human experience because everyone's individual experiences, decisions, and actions may, inadvertently harm another. Therefore, we have to agree to and compromise on the balance for things to work, or you have extreme societies as portrayed in these dystopian classics and third world nations or communist societies around the world.
I think the blue goes back somewhat to what Dusty spoke of, in regards to "freedom." That many civil libertarians only see "freedom" as being free from government, even many liberal governments are seen as authoritative when they aren't compared to the ones seen in both of those texts. One of the themes of the book and what I took from his/her comments is that freedom from government forcing you to do something, doesn't necessarily mean that your rights as a "free person" are protected. People will always choose to believe that their rights are being violated in some way (the character Jon was ostracized in the "savage" indian community and in the "brave new world" he journeyed to with his mother) no matter if there is an authoritative or liberal government and even in the complete absence of government if they live around other human beings.
Sticking with the rape/consent topic, you don't need to balance the two. Even if someone says "She's harming me by not having sex with me, and I want the freedom to have sex with whoever I want", that's not a valid argument, in my opinion (and hopefully others'), because she never consented to it.
I wouldn't accept it if someone tried to say "We have to have SOME rape...having no rape is too extreme. There's more to sexual freedom than just being free to reject someone. You also have to consider the freedom to have sex with people you're attracted to. If you're not allowed to have sex with someone you want, are you really free?"
My response to that is that same as it would be to what you said...the foundational societal rule, which most people already agree with in their daily lives, should be that it's wrong to initiate force against an innocent person. Your rights end where another's begin. You're free to live as you wish if you aren't attacking or stealing from anyone. Defensive force is the only justified use of force.
And that's kind of what ChrisC was getting at with his tyranny comment, I think. There are some who prefer freedom of choice, and the freedom of self-determination. Others prefer to trade that in for freedom from responsibility, where they may give up some choice in their life, but they feel like they are freed up to worry about other things.
That's fine if done voluntarily, but political action and state involvement means your choice is forced on those who prefer the first type of freedom. Both forms can coexist with freedom of choice, but freedom of choice is not allowed when the state steps into the equation.
There's the famous Ben Franklin quote about those who prefer safety over liberty deserving and receiving neither, but Samuel Adams summed it up in a quote I use a lot...
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
But what ChirsC failed to understand is that I'm not interested in taking away freedom of choice. That's not my goal or desire.
My point was purely that freedom to 'do' can be superficial, even if it's important.
It's a values based assessment. If we do not have a society that values being free for anything more than superficial reasons, it puts our freedom at risk in a profound way. Then consider the opposite; if we live in a society that very much values being free, but does not have basic freedom of choice, then those people will be away they are living in an unfree society.
I'd maybe word my view as being freedom for freedom's sake, as opposed to the ever common view of freedom for avoidance of tyranny. The latter is fine, but when tyranny is pretty much just viewed as "the government," I worry that we may have a society that is free but with no desire to actually be free. I think you'd probably agree that we have that type of society right now, actually. Perhaps not.
My point, to be absolutely clear, is that freedom should not be defined simply as freedom from government.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
