Pragmatism, that is what I think he is getting, not phenomenology. Pragmatism is just whatever works, with a small w, not a big w. I have an answer because I am getting my master's degree in philosophy. Epistemology does not dictate metaphysics. Just because we don't have 100 percent certainty on reality does not mean that there is not reality. So, epistemology does not dictate metaphysics. It is the other way around.
agniotio - you wrote something along these line; no one except the insane would believe that one can control reality, therefore control a people under their dictatorship... So, what exactly is propaganda? No, it may not be controling reality to thr same degree, but it still controls reality. Have you ever heard of paradigms? If by changing the way we think, we can create a new reality, then why can't it be the other way around?
There are better arguments and worse arguments. If all truth is culturally bound -- relative -- would you go to an African witch doctor if you broke your leg or to a western doctor? Supposedly neither doctor has a greater understanding of the outside world because there is no objective outside world. I had a lit prof who, despite all his admiration of magic realism, went to a regular doc. Moral: There is a great difference between putting a bone through your nose and sending a man to the moon.
"[T]here are the litle shysters of the intellect... who delight in arguing for argument's sake and stumping opponents by means of ready-to-wear paradoxes... Whatever the combination of motives, neurosis is stamped in capital letters across the whole movement, since there is no such thing as rejecting reason through an innocent error of knowledge".
Ayn Rand, 'The Cashing In: The Student "Rebellion" (1965)'
There is only brainwashing. We brainwash ourselves into thinking anything is real. Why can't you see that?! It's so obvious. It's a self-evident truth. None of your Kantian sophistry can save you.
One doesn't need an explicit counteracting of O'Brien's arguments because they are already exposed for what they are by Orwell: insane and depraved. Nobody should come away from 1984, believing that a "normal person" could believe the things O'Brien does, unless they completely misunderstood the novel.
I've always seen Orwell's 1984 as showing what you call postmodern ideas here as nonsensical gibberish, even as a 15 year old. I think that -if anything- this book will push you towards realism, not the other way around. I mean, it shows these ideas as deceptive mind-control tools.
Orwell, never really takes one side or the other. He leaves one to believe that a person or society can get away with denying reality forever. He prefers freedom and implies that people should be free to believe that two plus two is four but he doesn't lay out what will happen if collective lunacy becomes the norm. I think that was one of Rand's great acheivements. She didn't just say, this is true or what she liked, she layed out the consequences of denying reality.
rofl pyrrho314. Judging by the thousands of objectivist minions on youtube with Atlas Shrugged listed as one of their favorite books, and presumably many more in the real world, you might be right there!
Your point that thousands of high school students are being "brainwashed" by O'Brien is ridiculous. O'Brien is one of the most malevolent and least sympathetic characters in all of literature. He extendedly tortures and kills the protagonist! why should students subscribe to what O'Brien is saying? Orwell is satirizing and pointing out the misuse of "postmodern" ideas with the character of O'Brien, not disseminating them.
Yes, I think she has a point. The main thing one is left with is a world in which evil wins. Orwell, from what I can remember never suggests these societies will starve to death, even though this is what the historic record shows.
He never really shows that these societies would be weak or face drastic consequences which might leave kids to believe that denying reality is an option.
Just because he "wins" doesn't mean people would interpret this as correct, true, or good. The point of the book is to show the terrors of oppressive regimes and totalitarian systems, not to say that they're good because they win.
"O'Brien is one of the most malevolent and least sympathetic characters in all of literature. He extendedly tortures and kills the protagonist! why should students subscribe to what O'Brien is saying?"
Just because he's evil doesn't mean that everything he says is incorrect, and smart students realize this. For all they know, a person can be quite normal and still believe these things. How are they to know that he's incorrect unless they know how to counteract his arguments?
Um, guys, Nine9s (Jennifer) makes is clear in her video that she's not of the opinion that O'Brien's idea's are being painted in a positive light for high school student. Instead, and much more importantly, she points out that today's educational system has no answer to O'Brien. They're just there; unanswered.
That HE is held up as the intellectual, whereas Winston is seen, to a 15 year old, as a simple rebel who's only arguments are his common sense.
"For all they know, a person can be quite normal and still believe these things. How are they to know that he's incorrect unless they know how to counteract his arguments?"
O'Brien is not a normal person, he's obviously a psychotic sadist. Orwell is engaged in satire, which involves exaggeration of a position in order to make it ridiculous. Virtually nobody (barring the insane) believes what O'Brien claims, that reality itself can be invented and controlled by an all-powerful dictatorship.
Just one last support for what I was writing... O'Brien actually says in the novel: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever". I'm sure a lot of teenagers are going to want to follow that.
i *was one of those teenagers that had no counterargument to O'Brien, though i can't say that i spent long thinking that objective reality was a fabrication. i was just blown away by the concepts in 1984, particularly by the thought control inherent in newspeak. it was the first time i realised how limited our thinking is by the language we use. you mentioned 'brave new world', i'd add 'a clockwork orange' to the list of dystopias that all teens should read.
Hmmm. The idea that many students end up not understanding O'Brien's philosophy to be lunacy is quite interesting. I remember reading 1984 and being terrified by O'Brien's ramblings. Today, I get angered, not terrified at them. I'd like a 1982 part 2: "O'Brien meets Dirty Harry". At the climax, Dirty Harry, gun pointed at O'Brien, says "I know what you're thinking: how many bullets did I use. The answer, as you know, punk, is: as many as I say I did. Not one more, and not one less."
Horvay, you've gotta listen to "The 19th Century Atomic War." It talks about the influence Kant had on physics. People thought atomic theory was a useful blueprint, but had nothing to do with reality.
George Orwell's 1984 was influential in my intellectual development. I was, I believe, 17. It was required reading in my English class. I read Ayn Rand's works soon after. Her works were NOT on the required reading list. Your point about O'Brien post modernism and contemporary English teachers is insightful. ARI thinks Objectivism needs to get into the Academia to reverse the trend. Agreed. But...
University level students have already been thoroughly indoctrinated in irrational belief systems by their parents and by High school/Elementary school teachers. Sure, Objectivism is making inroads in Academia. Yet, Objectivists, based on my experience, don't really like socializing with each other (not just me). We also need to form strong communities, not just on the web, for our meme to compete. And, we need to make babies! Make Objectivst love, not war. :)
In his July 15th press conference, President Bush acknowledged that his oil proposals will do little to bring new supplies to the market and thus lower prices, but he said that new offshore exploration for oil could "change the psychology," and convince the markets that supplies would increase -- a factor, he said, in setting prices.
G makes a good point, but given different concretes that point isn't obvious.
Attempt to translate: Bush is not advocating achieving values in actual reality through production, instead his words changes the perspectives and attitudes of others, which according to Bush is what is really powerful, so that the reality of oil prices change.
Or to put it in 1984 terms, according to Bush it is not important that 2+2+1=5 but that people will believe that 2+2+0=5 and that will change reality.
Pragmatism, that is what I think he is getting, not phenomenology. Pragmatism is just whatever works, with a small w, not a big w. I have an answer because I am getting my master's degree in philosophy. Epistemology does not dictate metaphysics. Just because we don't have 100 percent certainty on reality does not mean that there is not reality. So, epistemology does not dictate metaphysics. It is the other way around.
natedaug1 1 year ago
Loved ur video.
agniotio - you wrote something along these line; no one except the insane would believe that one can control reality, therefore control a people under their dictatorship... So, what exactly is propaganda? No, it may not be controling reality to thr same degree, but it still controls reality. Have you ever heard of paradigms? If by changing the way we think, we can create a new reality, then why can't it be the other way around?
aveyowyns 2 years ago
There are better arguments and worse arguments. If all truth is culturally bound -- relative -- would you go to an African witch doctor if you broke your leg or to a western doctor? Supposedly neither doctor has a greater understanding of the outside world because there is no objective outside world. I had a lit prof who, despite all his admiration of magic realism, went to a regular doc. Moral: There is a great difference between putting a bone through your nose and sending a man to the moon.
BlindEyeJones 2 years ago
"[T]here are the litle shysters of the intellect... who delight in arguing for argument's sake and stumping opponents by means of ready-to-wear paradoxes... Whatever the combination of motives, neurosis is stamped in capital letters across the whole movement, since there is no such thing as rejecting reason through an innocent error of knowledge".
Ayn Rand, 'The Cashing In: The Student "Rebellion" (1965)'
ChrisThe87 3 years ago
There is only brainwashing. We brainwash ourselves into thinking anything is real. Why can't you see that?! It's so obvious. It's a self-evident truth. None of your Kantian sophistry can save you.
thesubjectivist 3 years ago
thesubjectivist -- Who the hell are you? I know you're not being serious. Your account was just set up today. Unmask yourself!
nine9s 3 years ago
Very well.....
I am none other than....
The Ghost of Immanuel Kant!
thesubjectivist 3 years ago
Perhaps you have been brainwashed into thinking nothing is real. Hmmmm?
marneedear 3 years ago
You understand me.
thesubjectivist 3 years ago
You're cracking me up.
marneedear 3 years ago
continued...
One doesn't need an explicit counteracting of O'Brien's arguments because they are already exposed for what they are by Orwell: insane and depraved. Nobody should come away from 1984, believing that a "normal person" could believe the things O'Brien does, unless they completely misunderstood the novel.
Agnotio 3 years ago
I've always seen Orwell's 1984 as showing what you call postmodern ideas here as nonsensical gibberish, even as a 15 year old. I think that -if anything- this book will push you towards realism, not the other way around. I mean, it shows these ideas as deceptive mind-control tools.
koenichfuerst 3 years ago
Agreed, the message is implicit and often explicit in the book.
Agnotio 3 years ago
Orwell, never really takes one side or the other. He leaves one to believe that a person or society can get away with denying reality forever. He prefers freedom and implies that people should be free to believe that two plus two is four but he doesn't lay out what will happen if collective lunacy becomes the norm. I think that was one of Rand's great acheivements. She didn't just say, this is true or what she liked, she layed out the consequences of denying reality.
diggingpitt 3 years ago
for a moment I thought you mean that Rand's lunacy was a perfect example of lunacy becoming the norm.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
rofl pyrrho314. Judging by the thousands of objectivist minions on youtube with Atlas Shrugged listed as one of their favorite books, and presumably many more in the real world, you might be right there!
Agnotio 3 years ago
Your point that thousands of high school students are being "brainwashed" by O'Brien is ridiculous. O'Brien is one of the most malevolent and least sympathetic characters in all of literature. He extendedly tortures and kills the protagonist! why should students subscribe to what O'Brien is saying? Orwell is satirizing and pointing out the misuse of "postmodern" ideas with the character of O'Brien, not disseminating them.
Agnotio 3 years ago
Yes, I think she has a point. The main thing one is left with is a world in which evil wins. Orwell, from what I can remember never suggests these societies will starve to death, even though this is what the historic record shows.
He never really shows that these societies would be weak or face drastic consequences which might leave kids to believe that denying reality is an option.
diggingpitt 3 years ago
The point that kids will get is that O'Brien seems to win. The philosophy he represents seems to win.
diggingpitt 3 years ago 2
Just because he "wins" doesn't mean people would interpret this as correct, true, or good. The point of the book is to show the terrors of oppressive regimes and totalitarian systems, not to say that they're good because they win.
zorio 3 years ago
"O'Brien is one of the most malevolent and least sympathetic characters in all of literature. He extendedly tortures and kills the protagonist! why should students subscribe to what O'Brien is saying?"
Just because he's evil doesn't mean that everything he says is incorrect, and smart students realize this. For all they know, a person can be quite normal and still believe these things. How are they to know that he's incorrect unless they know how to counteract his arguments?
nine9s 3 years ago
Um, guys, Nine9s (Jennifer) makes is clear in her video that she's not of the opinion that O'Brien's idea's are being painted in a positive light for high school student. Instead, and much more importantly, she points out that today's educational system has no answer to O'Brien. They're just there; unanswered.
That HE is held up as the intellectual, whereas Winston is seen, to a 15 year old, as a simple rebel who's only arguments are his common sense.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
"For all they know, a person can be quite normal and still believe these things. How are they to know that he's incorrect unless they know how to counteract his arguments?"
O'Brien is not a normal person, he's obviously a psychotic sadist. Orwell is engaged in satire, which involves exaggeration of a position in order to make it ridiculous. Virtually nobody (barring the insane) believes what O'Brien claims, that reality itself can be invented and controlled by an all-powerful dictatorship.
Agnotio 3 years ago
Just one last support for what I was writing... O'Brien actually says in the novel: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever". I'm sure a lot of teenagers are going to want to follow that.
Agnotio 3 years ago
Do you remember Columbine?
I think a lot of young people almost revel in mindless violence nowadays.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
i more subscriber :)
i *was one of those teenagers that had no counterargument to O'Brien, though i can't say that i spent long thinking that objective reality was a fabrication. i was just blown away by the concepts in 1984, particularly by the thought control inherent in newspeak. it was the first time i realised how limited our thinking is by the language we use. you mentioned 'brave new world', i'd add 'a clockwork orange' to the list of dystopias that all teens should read.
niceonetom 3 years ago
Hmmm. The idea that many students end up not understanding O'Brien's philosophy to be lunacy is quite interesting. I remember reading 1984 and being terrified by O'Brien's ramblings. Today, I get angered, not terrified at them. I'd like a 1982 part 2: "O'Brien meets Dirty Harry". At the climax, Dirty Harry, gun pointed at O'Brien, says "I know what you're thinking: how many bullets did I use. The answer, as you know, punk, is: as many as I say I did. Not one more, and not one less."
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago 3
"We just use things as maps to get along in the world."
Reminds me of the quote,
"Science is merely graphing appearances"
Both deny causality.
Post-modernism in quantum mechanics anyone?
horvay 3 years ago
Horvay, you've gotta listen to "The 19th Century Atomic War." It talks about the influence Kant had on physics. People thought atomic theory was a useful blueprint, but had nothing to do with reality.
nine9s 3 years ago
Is that one of David Harriman's lectures?
Nelapidae 3 years ago
Yes. His lectures are awesome.
nine9s 3 years ago
George Orwell's 1984 was influential in my intellectual development. I was, I believe, 17. It was required reading in my English class. I read Ayn Rand's works soon after. Her works were NOT on the required reading list. Your point about O'Brien post modernism and contemporary English teachers is insightful. ARI thinks Objectivism needs to get into the Academia to reverse the trend. Agreed. But...
Intellisecular 3 years ago
University level students have already been thoroughly indoctrinated in irrational belief systems by their parents and by High school/Elementary school teachers. Sure, Objectivism is making inroads in Academia. Yet, Objectivists, based on my experience, don't really like socializing with each other (not just me). We also need to form strong communities, not just on the web, for our meme to compete. And, we need to make babies! Make Objectivst love, not war. :)
Intellisecular 3 years ago
In his July 15th press conference, President Bush acknowledged that his oil proposals will do little to bring new supplies to the market and thus lower prices, but he said that new offshore exploration for oil could "change the psychology," and convince the markets that supplies would increase -- a factor, he said, in setting prices.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
G makes a good point, but given different concretes that point isn't obvious.
Attempt to translate: Bush is not advocating achieving values in actual reality through production, instead his words changes the perspectives and attitudes of others, which according to Bush is what is really powerful, so that the reality of oil prices change.
Or to put it in 1984 terms, according to Bush it is not important that 2+2+1=5 but that people will believe that 2+2+0=5 and that will change reality.
jwoodswce 3 years ago
2+2=It's all subjective.
thesubjectivist 3 years ago
S,
How so if four entities exist in external reality? Then they are four existents independent of consciousness.
Are you suggesting that those four entities existing in external reality independent of consciousness do not really exist?
jwoodswce 3 years ago
Excellent series of videos.
Your take on the book highlights that it remains important and relevant in way generally not acknowledged.
The point about the link between 1984 and the classroom identifies that these issues are critically important for parents raising teenagers.
jwoodswce 3 years ago