Give the similarities in government between 1984 and BNW.
Although these two governments and dystopias are starkly different, there are a handful of similarities between the two. To view these societies on a political map, one would see that BNW is from the left, and 1984 is from the right. However, both of these governments are strictly authoritarian. If there is a conflict in ideology between denizen and government, then the repurcussions are quick, drastic, and complete. Also, both of these societies seems to possess technology outside of our current society's ability. Sure, we have TVs and helicopters, but 1984 is able to impliment the screens in a completely ubiquitous and totalitarian way, while BNW contains soma, the selective birthing ability, and extremely fast modes of transportation. In addition, it seems both societies have the inevitable fate of reality a la free thought. The ability to see the trueness behind each society makes clash between the invidividual and the government. Sure, ideally these governments can control people to ensure peace, but the world does not live in idealism. If a government's founding principle is to essentially destroy free thought - a natural human tendency - then naturally, the government will fall due to human nature. Even though we do not see the fall in the governments in the books, we can infer that these types of government will probably never happen.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
BNW vs. Today
Although BNW seems starkly different from society today, there are many scary ideas and topics that are still similar between these two societies. One of these disgusting similarities is the use of helicopters (can you say repulsive?). The advancement of technology in today's society mimics the technology in BNW as well. Today, we are at the verge of genetically selecting our offspring by filtering sperm. Also, the advancement of medically-available drugs can somewhat mimic the idea of soma. Anti-depressants are being developed so addiction is not possible (just like soma) as well as limiting any side effects. Sex in society has grown towards BNW standards and drastically away from society in the 1930s. Due to the free market both in today and in BNW, consumer goods have nearly defined society via political influence, day-to-day life, and the mentality of success through material. Also, the social mentality is for security rather than freedom, just as many shortcuts were made around 9/11 to ensure the public safety rather than public liberty. All in all, there are a handful of similarities, but for the most part, the two societies are distinct and will probably never merge.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
BNW II
BLOG topic: Compare and contrast the social conditioning of Lenina (through hypnopaedia especially) and John (through Shakespeare's works especially). How are both characters unable to understand each other because of their social conditioning?
One major difference between the two is volunteerism. Lenina involuntarily was conditioned to act according to the hypnopaedia that the Human Conditioning deparment controls. John, on the other hand, voluntarily read Shakespeare and seems to be almost crazy with his interpretations of the works. Both can rattle off quotes from their conditionings, but at the same time, both repeat with little comprehension or justification. The two are unable to fully understand one another because their conditioning is mutually exclusive of one another. The patterns and truths implanted in each other's brains are completely different, if not opposite in many instances. Their values clash (the love of Shakespeare is romanticized, the love of hypnopaedia is open), and their lifestyles are extreme (the religious whipping, the alcohol, the soma, the technology, etc.). The philosophy behind each civilization allow for little compromise between the two, ultimately showing the clash, and later exclusion of John in BNW.
One major difference between the two is volunteerism. Lenina involuntarily was conditioned to act according to the hypnopaedia that the Human Conditioning deparment controls. John, on the other hand, voluntarily read Shakespeare and seems to be almost crazy with his interpretations of the works. Both can rattle off quotes from their conditionings, but at the same time, both repeat with little comprehension or justification. The two are unable to fully understand one another because their conditioning is mutually exclusive of one another. The patterns and truths implanted in each other's brains are completely different, if not opposite in many instances. Their values clash (the love of Shakespeare is romanticized, the love of hypnopaedia is open), and their lifestyles are extreme (the religious whipping, the alcohol, the soma, the technology, etc.). The philosophy behind each civilization allow for little compromise between the two, ultimately showing the clash, and later exclusion of John in BNW.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Brave New World
What connections have you seen between Utopia and BNW? What seems good about BNW? What one thing troubles you most about it?
1. One odd connection that I saw was the use of a 'passport.' When Bernard went to New Mexico, it echoed the ideas of Utopia that trips can be approved by the government, but it seemed to be regulated in the same way.
2. Soma. How awesome is that? A drug approved by the government to make you have a good time seems pretty sweet. The only downside I see is that it is regulated by the government completely. However, if used appropriately, soma seems like some social perk the government can use as an incentive of production.
3. Conditioning. From an early age, humanity seems to have norms and behavior that is determined by the state. Although social norms are present today, there is much more of a choice. Bernard's character readily shows how freedom of expressions is severely looked down upon even if it is logical.
1. One odd connection that I saw was the use of a 'passport.' When Bernard went to New Mexico, it echoed the ideas of Utopia that trips can be approved by the government, but it seemed to be regulated in the same way.
2. Soma. How awesome is that? A drug approved by the government to make you have a good time seems pretty sweet. The only downside I see is that it is regulated by the government completely. However, if used appropriately, soma seems like some social perk the government can use as an incentive of production.
3. Conditioning. From an early age, humanity seems to have norms and behavior that is determined by the state. Although social norms are present today, there is much more of a choice. Bernard's character readily shows how freedom of expressions is severely looked down upon even if it is logical.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Book III
Ok, I will jot down what I have on my notes:
Prisoners of war are taken in as slaves. Women are prohibited to marry before 18; likewise, men before 22. Polygamy and divorce are almost always prohibited, yet some divorce is allowed via the state. Fools are used for enjoyment as well as lessons of utility. Utopia does not have any strong, foreign alliances. They detest war, but help friends in times of need. War is not used for killing - the Utopians try to limit death and unrest. They hope to take more prisoners, then casualties. Utopians know that others have different and varying religions, yet respects others' beliefs. Utopians are free to choose what religion to practice - the state does not choose for them. They greatly respect the dead via funeral and commemoration - talking only of the glory and honor of the deceased. Priests are raised to study from an early age, help others, and are very respected from citizens. The worst crime of a priest is to not help everyone. They hold music and art as a great beauty, often coming from a superior god.
My opinion varied greatly from one portion to the next in this last book. I usually found that if the state was unilaterally interfering with people's behavior, then I disapproved of the state's actions. But if sovereignty and choice was given to the Utopians, I usually agreed with what the state was suggesting. Some examples. I do not believe that the state should have the right to bar people from marriage based strictly on age, alone. Yes, we do not want 9 year-olds marrying, but 18 year-olds and 17 year-olds are complete idiots. Divorce should not be prohibited by the state, either, due to the free will people should have. Marriage is too close to people's lives that the state should not dictate for them what is 'right' and what is 'wrong.' I do like the idea that Utopia believed in not being in strong, foreign alliances. Just as George Washington told America not to get into entangling foreign alliances, most nation states should not get into strong alliances (see WWI or WWII for reasons why not). I liked the idea that Utopians could choose their own religion. Sovereignty in this area co-aligns with America's separation of church and state. If church and state were not separated, tensions between religions would probably be so tense that outbreaks would probably be deadly (see Saudi Arabia and 16th century England for examples).
At the end of all this, I could sum up my belief about Utopia as this: there are areas where the state could suggest improvement of utility in people's lifestyle, but most of these should not be entirely and unilaterally enforced by the state. Yes, I know that is vague.
Prisoners of war are taken in as slaves. Women are prohibited to marry before 18; likewise, men before 22. Polygamy and divorce are almost always prohibited, yet some divorce is allowed via the state. Fools are used for enjoyment as well as lessons of utility. Utopia does not have any strong, foreign alliances. They detest war, but help friends in times of need. War is not used for killing - the Utopians try to limit death and unrest. They hope to take more prisoners, then casualties. Utopians know that others have different and varying religions, yet respects others' beliefs. Utopians are free to choose what religion to practice - the state does not choose for them. They greatly respect the dead via funeral and commemoration - talking only of the glory and honor of the deceased. Priests are raised to study from an early age, help others, and are very respected from citizens. The worst crime of a priest is to not help everyone. They hold music and art as a great beauty, often coming from a superior god.
My opinion varied greatly from one portion to the next in this last book. I usually found that if the state was unilaterally interfering with people's behavior, then I disapproved of the state's actions. But if sovereignty and choice was given to the Utopians, I usually agreed with what the state was suggesting. Some examples. I do not believe that the state should have the right to bar people from marriage based strictly on age, alone. Yes, we do not want 9 year-olds marrying, but 18 year-olds and 17 year-olds are complete idiots. Divorce should not be prohibited by the state, either, due to the free will people should have. Marriage is too close to people's lives that the state should not dictate for them what is 'right' and what is 'wrong.' I do like the idea that Utopia believed in not being in strong, foreign alliances. Just as George Washington told America not to get into entangling foreign alliances, most nation states should not get into strong alliances (see WWI or WWII for reasons why not). I liked the idea that Utopians could choose their own religion. Sovereignty in this area co-aligns with America's separation of church and state. If church and state were not separated, tensions between religions would probably be so tense that outbreaks would probably be deadly (see Saudi Arabia and 16th century England for examples).
At the end of all this, I could sum up my belief about Utopia as this: there are areas where the state could suggest improvement of utility in people's lifestyle, but most of these should not be entirely and unilaterally enforced by the state. Yes, I know that is vague.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Book 2
Ok, I just wrote down some notes. I did not touch everything because some of the details were trite and redundant.
More talks about the physical nature of Utopia, which seems somewhat bland and standard. He does note some scientific ideas to be used (such as in breeding) to help the overall utility of Utopia, but this is not his main point. He talks about the rivers, the beauty, history, etc. of Amaurot and of Utopia. Finally, he talks about the government and the people. Some notes: everyone wears the same clothes that they make, specialization in trade, it is the job of people to make sure other people are doing their jobs, people only work six hours a day, women are kept generally idle, people are 'voted' to stop working, and unnecessary labor is never done.
'Of Their Traffic'
Families have quotas and limits as to the number per household. The oldest man in each family is the governor of that family. Slaves are forced to do the dirty work for the Utopians who are too good for that sort of work. Medicine is distributed in a hierarchy, from hospitals, to government officials, then finally to families. The best of food and provisions is given to the elders. Everything seems to be determined by age. Food is always served with music (awesome).
'Of the Traveling of the Utopians'
Travel is socialized. Passports are administered. AWOL results in harsh punishment. No alcohol houses. They use 1/7 of exported surplus to poor people in foreign countries. Bonds are used to fund major expenses. Mercenaries are used in extreme events. No use of money. Iron has more value than gold or silver. Gold and silver are used in odd instances, while iron, earth, clay, etc. are used in more useful areas. Funny thing: they make fun of foreigners who wear traditional jewelry. Science, philosophy, and religion are practiced. Two factions debate over how virtue and happiness interact. Wisdom = man to pursue personal pleasures as far as law allows, while piety = man to pursue societal pleasures over private pleasures. Utopians believe that nothing within them is pleasant. Health = greatest bodily pleasure. They are constantly pursuing knowledge.
Some points that I disagree with: the state should not describe almost every detail which a person should do and live by. Examples: clothes, housing requirements, job duties, disassociation of wealth, precise traveler permits, among others. Perhaps one major downfall is the motivation of people. In this state, virtue, knowledge, and utility are sought after traits. Although well meant on paper, not practical in a real world situation. Extrinsic motivation, not intrinsic motivation is needed for people to actually do things. The 500 people are exempt from working serve as the primary motivation for Utopians. People need an array of things: convertibles, Las Vegas, ball games, beer, midlife crises, and money. Some of the insights More gives might help some of the utility of the state, but would critically go against the foundations of a laissez faire society.
More talks about the physical nature of Utopia, which seems somewhat bland and standard. He does note some scientific ideas to be used (such as in breeding) to help the overall utility of Utopia, but this is not his main point. He talks about the rivers, the beauty, history, etc. of Amaurot and of Utopia. Finally, he talks about the government and the people. Some notes: everyone wears the same clothes that they make, specialization in trade, it is the job of people to make sure other people are doing their jobs, people only work six hours a day, women are kept generally idle, people are 'voted' to stop working, and unnecessary labor is never done.
'Of Their Traffic'
Families have quotas and limits as to the number per household. The oldest man in each family is the governor of that family. Slaves are forced to do the dirty work for the Utopians who are too good for that sort of work. Medicine is distributed in a hierarchy, from hospitals, to government officials, then finally to families. The best of food and provisions is given to the elders. Everything seems to be determined by age. Food is always served with music (awesome).
'Of the Traveling of the Utopians'
Travel is socialized. Passports are administered. AWOL results in harsh punishment. No alcohol houses. They use 1/7 of exported surplus to poor people in foreign countries. Bonds are used to fund major expenses. Mercenaries are used in extreme events. No use of money. Iron has more value than gold or silver. Gold and silver are used in odd instances, while iron, earth, clay, etc. are used in more useful areas. Funny thing: they make fun of foreigners who wear traditional jewelry. Science, philosophy, and religion are practiced. Two factions debate over how virtue and happiness interact. Wisdom = man to pursue personal pleasures as far as law allows, while piety = man to pursue societal pleasures over private pleasures. Utopians believe that nothing within them is pleasant. Health = greatest bodily pleasure. They are constantly pursuing knowledge.
Some points that I disagree with: the state should not describe almost every detail which a person should do and live by. Examples: clothes, housing requirements, job duties, disassociation of wealth, precise traveler permits, among others. Perhaps one major downfall is the motivation of people. In this state, virtue, knowledge, and utility are sought after traits. Although well meant on paper, not practical in a real world situation. Extrinsic motivation, not intrinsic motivation is needed for people to actually do things. The 500 people are exempt from working serve as the primary motivation for Utopians. People need an array of things: convertibles, Las Vegas, ball games, beer, midlife crises, and money. Some of the insights More gives might help some of the utility of the state, but would critically go against the foundations of a laissez faire society.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
First and foremost - More, if you have a reincarnate, please revise any literature or political science work you write. Although politics and literature often times come together, and often times work in a meaningful and enjoyable manner, your book does not. At first thought, there are two ways to approach this. 1) Mr. More, you can write a political philosophy or political science book that basically outlines what you think society should or should not do. This happens frequently, as many political books are written solely for the sake of politics. 2) You can write a literature book that is engaging, that has political undertones that the reader can draw conclusions to by actively think about the work, and that has some sort of literature meaning to it. Just please don't try to draw some sort of fictitious, superfluous plot into your political science book or make the conclusions so straightforward that the thoughts become so less self-found that the thoughts are more dictations.
Yell at long-deceased author? Check. Next on the to-do list: say something semi-meaningful.
Skipping straight to the politics: there are many facets in More's argument (ultimately with himself) of what a society should/should not be and should/should not do. First note of interest is the will and position of self vs. society (More presumes a monarchy). The idea of a republic or a democracy has not really not been well orchestrated or delivered since Golden Age Greece, but even that was sub-par in comparison to the ideals set forth in modern times. Considering the era in which this piece is written, the pragmatism of a monarchy was appropriate - although history has progressed the most utility-driven society towards the democratic republic (a micro and macro evolution seems to have taken place in the course of history to what it is today). The next topic of interest to me is the idea of capital punishment. More seems to take a Draconian approach to punishment - even something as a mere petty theft. Bluntly said, this is ridiculous. "You steal a loaf of bread! Now, you have to go be in our army or be a slave for the rest of your life." Awesome, I guess that I should be enslaved for the piece of gum I stole in first grade. The irony: forgiveness does not seem to have been mainstream in a predominantly Christian society (or even a predominately Christian More himself). More (not the Thomas kind) or less, each facet of this argument can be dissected, but the big picture gets called into question. Moral and social presumptuousness. Who is it to decide what the meaning of the cog of a person is in the machine of society? More decides for himself and for everyone else what their newly radical style of life is going to be in this Utopia. Immediately he knows what is the perfect best for society (nothing against More, but is it a person's, a congress's, or even a nation's duty to define every movement of a person?) The character, the creativity, even the essence of man is distorted into the unquantifiable idea of 'utility.' Sure, this idealism works if people can be reduced down to equations. But, that is all people would be - equations of function, ideas, actions, and life. Sigh. Keep your Utopia, please.
Yell at long-deceased author? Check. Next on the to-do list: say something semi-meaningful.
Skipping straight to the politics: there are many facets in More's argument (ultimately with himself) of what a society should/should not be and should/should not do. First note of interest is the will and position of self vs. society (More presumes a monarchy). The idea of a republic or a democracy has not really not been well orchestrated or delivered since Golden Age Greece, but even that was sub-par in comparison to the ideals set forth in modern times. Considering the era in which this piece is written, the pragmatism of a monarchy was appropriate - although history has progressed the most utility-driven society towards the democratic republic (a micro and macro evolution seems to have taken place in the course of history to what it is today). The next topic of interest to me is the idea of capital punishment. More seems to take a Draconian approach to punishment - even something as a mere petty theft. Bluntly said, this is ridiculous. "You steal a loaf of bread! Now, you have to go be in our army or be a slave for the rest of your life." Awesome, I guess that I should be enslaved for the piece of gum I stole in first grade. The irony: forgiveness does not seem to have been mainstream in a predominantly Christian society (or even a predominately Christian More himself). More (not the Thomas kind) or less, each facet of this argument can be dissected, but the big picture gets called into question. Moral and social presumptuousness. Who is it to decide what the meaning of the cog of a person is in the machine of society? More decides for himself and for everyone else what their newly radical style of life is going to be in this Utopia. Immediately he knows what is the perfect best for society (nothing against More, but is it a person's, a congress's, or even a nation's duty to define every movement of a person?) The character, the creativity, even the essence of man is distorted into the unquantifiable idea of 'utility.' Sure, this idealism works if people can be reduced down to equations. But, that is all people would be - equations of function, ideas, actions, and life. Sigh. Keep your Utopia, please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)