"Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too, all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides. But all these suggetsions are our suggestions!"
It was brought up in class that Brave New World society disregards any meaning to life, however, in order to argue that, this meaning has to be defined. I'm personally not religious and my beliefs change day to day so neither of these for me really define the meaning of life. Of course I know the standard differences between right and wrong because they've been ingrained into me since birth, however, I don't think my "moral compass" or anything can give my life meaning. It was brought up that to BNW citizens, their standard of living is normal to them. Of course just because WE say something is RIGHT or NORMAL doesn't make it so. So even knowing this information, a society where humans are "pharmaceutically anesthetized to passively serve a ruling order" still bothers me. Although the people are content and it can be said that they live in a sort of utopia, I guess what bothered me most was the complete disregard of freewill, not so much the meaning of life, or maybe they're the same thing, I'm not entirely sure. But anyways, I believe free will allows humans to make decisions, to love, to make history, etc, so I guess in a way it does give a life meaning. The above quote demonstrates how the childrens' minds are able to be manipulated into anything their "superiors" want it to be and I don't like this neglect of decisions and the individual mind. Man was predestined to have freewill right? Anyways, maybe Huxley is trying to argue that postmodern society is becoming mindless and incapable of complete free thought, with all of the technology and the propaganda, etc.
"..the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power..." -Huxley
Monday, September 21, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
9/8/09
These concepts confuse me:
Simon describes how Texas is battling over emphasizing the role of the Bible in American History. To me it is not the Christianity in textbooks that is bothersome, it is the fact that some people believe they have the right to control certain, if not not all aspects of other people's lives. To me it had nothing to do with politics or religion, just changing history in general bothers me may it be a small change or a tiny slant. I feel robbed. I've been confused about this History thing. How should a history book be written? But how DO you write a history book objectively? I stumbled upon this quote: "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."- Napoleon Bonaparte
Again this added to my confusion. History should be completely objective. But we all know that is impossible. So to even have history we must agree and the majority must decide on what is relevant, what truly happened, and who came out victorious. There are too much many cultures represented in today's society to even come close to some sort of agreement. Still my heart tells me, history should be objective, it is unfair to to change events so a certain group gets more recognition, or comes out the "good guys." How I have interpreted 1984 (subject to change): 2+2=5 is wrong. Winston ends the novel by writing 2+2=5 in the dust on the table. This move is symbolic of the Party's power to control the majority. "What knowledge do have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in ALL minds truly happens." Right now I'm arguing the 1984 defines reality/history as a majority vote, just as Napoleon did. Is 1984 society wrong for believing 2+2=5? Its what the majority believes, you die if you don't believe it. The most confusing part is that, to me, the History problem is impossible and the majority should rule. 1984 seems to argue that 2+2=5 if everyone believes it is so.
Ultimately what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is history should be objective, but that's impossible. But how do we make history as objective as possible? In 1984 society history is defined purely as majority, however, we don't live in a Totalitarian regime. There are too many aspects to our culture to come close to agreeing upon anything. In trying to answer the question how do we write history objectively I've pretty much decided that you can't. Writing history that will bests serve the education and future of the populous as a whole that a majority decides upon just seems logical. Obviously we aren't 1984 hypothetical London and I'm definitely not saying the Party is correct, I'm just saying the book argues a majority rule concept and maybe that is what Orwell tried to show. Maybe society can't handle too much information. But why beat a dead horse?
Simon describes how Texas is battling over emphasizing the role of the Bible in American History. To me it is not the Christianity in textbooks that is bothersome, it is the fact that some people believe they have the right to control certain, if not not all aspects of other people's lives. To me it had nothing to do with politics or religion, just changing history in general bothers me may it be a small change or a tiny slant. I feel robbed. I've been confused about this History thing. How should a history book be written? But how DO you write a history book objectively? I stumbled upon this quote: "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."- Napoleon Bonaparte
Again this added to my confusion. History should be completely objective. But we all know that is impossible. So to even have history we must agree and the majority must decide on what is relevant, what truly happened, and who came out victorious. There are too much many cultures represented in today's society to even come close to some sort of agreement. Still my heart tells me, history should be objective, it is unfair to to change events so a certain group gets more recognition, or comes out the "good guys." How I have interpreted 1984 (subject to change): 2+2=5 is wrong. Winston ends the novel by writing 2+2=5 in the dust on the table. This move is symbolic of the Party's power to control the majority. "What knowledge do have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in ALL minds truly happens." Right now I'm arguing the 1984 defines reality/history as a majority vote, just as Napoleon did. Is 1984 society wrong for believing 2+2=5? Its what the majority believes, you die if you don't believe it. The most confusing part is that, to me, the History problem is impossible and the majority should rule. 1984 seems to argue that 2+2=5 if everyone believes it is so.
Ultimately what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is history should be objective, but that's impossible. But how do we make history as objective as possible? In 1984 society history is defined purely as majority, however, we don't live in a Totalitarian regime. There are too many aspects to our culture to come close to agreeing upon anything. In trying to answer the question how do we write history objectively I've pretty much decided that you can't. Writing history that will bests serve the education and future of the populous as a whole that a majority decides upon just seems logical. Obviously we aren't 1984 hypothetical London and I'm definitely not saying the Party is correct, I'm just saying the book argues a majority rule concept and maybe that is what Orwell tried to show. Maybe society can't handle too much information. But why beat a dead horse?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)