Freedom--Orwell vs. Huxley

[chewybrian]

Does man want, need or deserve freedom? Do threats from the outside world exceed the danger from the desires inside? If freedom is desirable or worth the risk, then how should it be protected or managed? How much is too much, and on what basis should we decide who deserves to be free and how free they should be?

Orwell warns us against the dangers of totalitarianism, and surely we should take this threat to heart (and, yes, he also has plenty of warnings of the dangers of our own western methods). This is perhaps best represented by the old Soviet Union or the Chinese government today. The denial of freedoms in these regimes achieved, or achieves, few ends to justify the means. The people suffered in the USSR, but there was little progress. There is some progress in China, but it comes at a cost of human rights violations and terrible damage to the planet, and undercuts wages in the rest of the developed world.

Huxley warns us of the danger of too much freedom.

"Intelligence and knowledge without good will and charity are apt to be inhuman, and good will and charity undirected by intelligence and knowledge are apt to be either impotent or misguided."

Of course, these dangers are well represented by the culture here in the U.S. We medicate ourselves instead of solving our physical, intellectual or emotional problems. We chase after a meaningless long shot at "riches", mostly unaware that riches have little power to make us happy, give our lives real meaning, or let us live with inner peace. We think we are fighting to protect our own freedom when we are largely protecting the right of others to exploit us. We are going nowhere at a terrific clip, and also gobbling up resources we don't need and damaging the planet directly or by proxy.

So, does man lose if one or the other of these systems prevails in the world? Do we lose both ways? Is there a better way? What countries might represent this better way in your eyes? If this better way in fact exists, how might we push the two extreme 'ideals' toward this compromise? Does man have a too strong tendency to see everything as a dichotomy? Can we overcome this tendency and make the world better before we destroy it?

[Steve3007]

I assume you're contrasting 1984 with Brave New World. It's an interesting comparison. I remember studying both of those books at high school in 1984 when I was 16. As you discuss, they're two very different and contrasting visions of the future but both dystopian.

[Steve3007]

So, does man lose if one or the other of these systems prevails in the world? Do we lose both ways? Is there a better way? What countries might represent this better way in your eyes? If this better way in fact exists, how might we push the two extreme 'ideals' toward this compromise? Does man have a too strong tendency to see everything as a dichotomy? Can we overcome this tendency and make the world better before we destroy it?

I have to say that, despite its problems, I'd prefer to live in Brave New World than 1984. But, of course, the world of 1984 is about as hellish a world as has ever been imagined.

If you want an image of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

Spending life in a soma-induced stupor would at least be better than that.

I guess the real-life inspirations for those two worlds were, in the case of 1984, Stalin's USSR and Nazi Germany and, in the case of Brave New World, largely the western consumerist world as exemplified by the worship of the Model T Ford; the symbol, at the time of writing, of modern mass production and consumerism.

[chewybrian]

I assume you're contrasting 1984 with Brave New World. It's an interesting comparison. I remember studying both of those books at high school in 1984 when I was 16. As you discuss, they're two very different and contrasting visions of the future but both dystopian.

Yes, I suppose I could have said that explicitly, but I knew you would get it.

On a side note, both those guys are quite good and not one-hit wonders by any stretch. Neither sets up camp at either extreme, so it's only an exercise to compare them through these two works in this way, but these were the most appropriate and easily understood examples I could summon. I've enjoyed Orwell's other books, essays and short stories. Of course, there is "Animal Farm", but I am particularly fond of "Down and Out in Paris and London".

http://www.george-orwell.org/Down_and_O ... index.html

I haven't read any other Huxley, but I enjoyed many of his lectures on Youtube. It's like attending that class you never missed because the teacher cared and brought the material to life. Here is the source of that quote I gave earlier, and you'll find a bunch more videos worth checking out in the suggestions that accompany it:

[Steve3007]

I've enjoyed Orwell's other books, essays and short stories. Of course, there is "Animal Farm", but I am particularly fond of "Down and Out in Paris and London".

Yes, I enjoyed those two. I also liked Keep the Aspidistra Flying. The main protagonist in that was a bit of a downtrodden poor-intellectual Winston Smith kind of character. Perhaps a prototype for him.

[Steve3007]

I haven't read any other Huxley, but I enjoyed many of his lectures on Youtube. It's like attending that class you never missed because the teacher cared and brought the material to life. Here is the source of that quote I gave earlier, and you'll find a bunch more videos worth checking out in the suggestions that accompany it:

I'll check those out later.

[Steve3007]

"Intelligence and knowledge without good will and charity are apt to be inhuman, and good will and charity undirected by intelligence and knowledge are apt to be either impotent or misguided."

A bit like the "classical" versus "romantic" character types created and discussed by Robert M Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

[Pattern-chaser]

Does man want, need or deserve freedom? Do threats from the outside world exceed the danger from the desires inside? If freedom is desirable or worth the risk, then how should it be protected or managed? How much is too much, and on what basis should we decide who deserves to be free and how free they should be?

Just what do you wish to be free of, or free to do? Some things you might wish to be free of - for example, the vagaries of British weather - are not within your control. Some things you might wish to do - for example, live forever - are not within your capability.

So, like freedom of speech, we start with some significant real world constraints. Only within them can we decide what our freedom could or should be. Do these real world constraints leave "freedom" as a plausible thing, or do they make a nonsense of it?

[detail]

Man and mankind always deserve freedom , the freedom of thought and self-expression. What we don't need are exploiters , that treat us like their personal property without any personal payment from them. These assume an unnormal and unusual authority compared to other people which cannot be justified. We should better ask ourselves how we can preserve the freedom of every individual in a society which tends to generalize a person without even the slightest touch of information of the person (perhaps just his looks ).

[Steve3007]

One thing I know is that if I had the job of promoting the future as a fun place to go I wouldn't hire George Orwell to write the advertising slogan.

[chewybrian]

Does man want, need or deserve freedom? Do threats from the outside world exceed the danger from the desires inside? If freedom is desirable or worth the risk, then how should it be protected or managed? How much is too much, and on what basis should we decide who deserves to be free and how free they should be?

Just what do you wish to be free of, or free to do? Some things you might wish to be free of - for example, the vagaries of British weather - are not within your control. Some things you might wish to do - for example, live forever - are not within your capability.

So, like freedom of speech, we start with some significant real world constraints. Only within them can we decide what our freedom could or should be. Do these real world constraints leave "freedom" as a plausible thing, or do they make a nonsense of it?

The freedom from physical reality is another subject, and an interesting one. We are partly free in that we can alter reality to make possible new courses of action. We could not cross the ocean until we could, and we could not visit the moon until we did. Dick Tracy with his watch communicator was science-fiction until it became reality. So, we should not underestimate our ability to (eventually) make our imagination come to life.

Here (in this thread) we are talking about political and economic freedom. These ideas are not nonsense, and don't become so due to some common sense limits being imposed upon them. We clearly have a preference one way or the other in the Chinese/Soviet model or the American model. We will err on the side of the state or the individual and be willing to suffer the consequences for what we see (or report that we see) as the greater good. Legitimate freedom of speech with reasonable consequences is still freedom of speech. I can be guilty of libel or slander for intentionally making false statements, or be responsible for damages that result from yelling "fire" when I know there is no fire. But, I am still free to say what I wish without consequences for simply speaking a truth that someone did not want spoken, or simply voicing an opinion about the way I think things should be.

So, within the framework of 1984 vs. A Brave New World, we are talking about the freedom to engage in commerce or not, to work or not, to speak out or be silent, to marry or not, to have children or not, to vote and have your vote counted or not, to pursue happiness in most reasonable ways that don't crush someone else's chance to do the same.

[Sculptor1]

Does man want, need or deserve freedom? Do threats from the outside world exceed the danger from the desires inside? If freedom is desirable or worth the risk, then how should it be protected or managed? How much is too much, and on what basis should we decide who deserves to be free and how free they should be?

Orwell warns us against the dangers of totalitarianism, and surely we should take this threat to heart (and, yes, he also has plenty of warnings of the dangers of our own western methods). This is perhaps best represented by the old Soviet Union or the Chinese government today. The denial of freedoms in these regimes achieved, or achieves, few ends to justify the means. The people suffered in the USSR, but there was little progress. There is some progress in China, but it comes at a cost of human rights violations and terrible damage to the planet, and undercuts wages in the rest of the developed world.

Huxley warns us of the danger of too much freedom.

"Intelligence and knowledge without good will and charity are apt to be inhuman, and good will and charity undirected by intelligence and knowledge are apt to be either impotent or misguided."

Of course, these dangers are well represented by the culture here in the U.S. We medicate ourselves instead of solving our physical, intellectual or emotional problems. We chase after a meaningless long shot at "riches", mostly unaware that riches have little power to make us happy, give our lives real meaning, or let us live with inner peace. We think we are fighting to protect our own freedom when we are largely protecting the right of others to exploit us. We are going nowhere at a terrific clip, and also gobbling up resources we don't need and damaging the planet directly or by proxy.

So, does man lose if one or the other of these systems prevails in the world? Do we lose both ways? Is there a better way? What countries might represent this better way in your eyes? If this better way in fact exists, how might we push the two extreme 'ideals' toward this compromise? Does man have a too strong tendency to see everything as a dichotomy? Can we overcome this tendency and make the world better before we destroy it?

I do not think you have justifyably posed Huxley against Orwell since they both warn against the dangers of authoritarianism. Their visions of the future though necessarily different are neither positive, free, nor recommended by them.
And the quote from Huxley would not necessarily fly against anything Orwell would say, unless you can find somewhere he recommends unbridled freedom of the mob?

[polargirl]

The question of too much versus too little freedom cannot be compared in the context of Huxley versus Orwell since neither is a choice to anyone who understands and accepts generation theory.

Both are dystopic allegories of what Strauss & Howe called the Great Power Saeculum. Huxley's is a third turning allegory of what Strauss & Howe called World War I & Prohibition that Huxley published Brave New World only three years after that turning ended. George Orwell's 1984 is a fourth turning allegory of what Straus & How called World War II & Depression that ended four years before Orwell published 1984.

1984 is a significant year in generation theory since that is when the second turning ends and the third turning begins in the next saeculum Strauss & Howe called the Millennial Saeculum. That turning ended in 2008 and we are now in a fourth turning that won't end until around 2029 Straus & Howe guess.

Turning are analogous to seasons whereas saeculums are analogous to years. The former is stated as seasons in the biblical book of Ecclesiastes that the Bryds made a popular song "Turn Turn Turn" by copying almost verbatim from.

To conclude your original question, choosing between Huxley or Orwell is analogous to choosing autumn versus winter as solar seasons since third and fourth turnings are described as autumn & winters respectively by Strauss & Howe. For all practical purposes, it isn't a choice short of leaving the Earth. Seasons will come and go whether mankind likes it or not. The best anyone can do is prepare for them.