1984
discussion
Do you agree with this quote?
date
newest »
newest »
Sort of.I'm more inclined to define them as the books that awaken awareness or knowledge or focus realizations that have been sleeping within your Self.
Perhaps more poetically: they're the books that reveal the patterns in the fabric of your Knowing.
Renee wrote: "Sort of.I'm more inclined to define them as the books that awaken awareness or knowledge or focus realizations that have been sleeping within your Self.
Perhaps more poetically: they're the book..."
I like the way you put it. Nice.
More importantly, the method of our thinking tells us what we should know about ourselves.
Renee wrote: "Perhaps more poetically: they're the books that reveal the patterns in the fabric of your Knowing."well, maybe... But (De gustibus non disputandum and all that) I prefer the ones that tear a hole in the fabric and shove you through it.
And if I end up feeling like an idiot in the aftermath, We Have A Winner... (WHat, you actually thought you KNEW something, you stupid hairless monkey?)
He didn't necessarily mean that. After all it was from the view of the main character and not directly from him. Also it's probably a metaphor anyway.
Gregory wrote: "More importantly, the method of our thinking tells us what we should know about ourselves."I guess this is more like it.
Did someone here read Le Guin's The Word for World is Forest?
This book uses a nice narration trick:
You have the POV of one character first and then it suddenly switches to one that sees the world very differently.
At some point you wind up saying 'character x is a huge racist' but do you realize it at first? Maybe not.
The good thing is, we can always continue to learn.
In the context of this novel, where history is literally rewritten daily, he might be referring to the reassurance he feels in reading something he actually knows is true. Although how anyone in that society "knows" what's true anymore is beyond me.
i interpreted it as The best books for any person are those that refer to him/her, meaning to understand something from your own perspective and relate it to yourself and life.Those are our Best books. The ones that we see ourselves in be that a comic book, a textbook or a romantic novel. what we are and what we wanna be.
Emmett wrote: "He didn't necessarily mean that. After all it was from the view of the main character and not directly from him. Also it's probably a metaphor anyway."I do understand that, but I wanted to know what you think of the quote itself regardless what it means in the book.
Moustafa wrote: "i interpreted it as The best books for any person are those that refer to him/her, meaning to understand something from your own perspective and relate it to yourself and life.Those are our Best bo..."That's a very good interpretation.
Emmett wrote: "He didn't necessarily mean that. After all it was from the view of the main character and not directly from him. Also it's probably a metaphor anyway."That's an important distinction. Many readers mistakenly assume that what the narrator and characters say represents the views of the author.
Emmett points out that this is the view of the character and not necessarily the author. In fact, it seems very unlikely that this is actually Orwell's view. More likely, Orwell is writing this as an ironic device to show how Winston, despite rebelling against the system, is still very much conditioned by it and happy to remain in his intellectual comfort zone.
This reminded me of Plato's Meno, where Plato outlines a lesson in geometry in which one is brought to knowledge through questioning. Plato may have believed all knowledge to be recollection which may need to be prompted by the "correct" questions. Winston and everyone in his society are held prisoner in that metaphoric cave with their heads rigidly held in place to watch the shadows on the wall as in Plato's allegory of the cave. Oceania is a Platonic Republic? A model society designed on the principles of the ancient Greek philosopher?
Ola wrote: "George Orwell said on page 229 "The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already."What do you think of this? Do you agree with it?"
For the most part, yes. We seek like-minded thinkers to validate what we are thinking.
Linda wrote: "We seek like-minded thinkers to validate what we are thinking."Waddyamean, "We" - Ya gotta mouse in yer pocket?
Read Castaneda on "Validation By Special Consensus" sometime - it's just *hilarious*, the contortions he goes through to try to "Validate" whatever...
Ola wrote: "George Orwell said on page 229 "The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already."What do you think of this? Do you agree with it?"
The point of this quote is to show the opposite of truth and to show the depth of his brainwashing. Big Brother wanted people to stay ignorant. You can not learn if all you allow yourself to surround yourself in is what you already know.
If anyone has ever watched the film or th play the History boys, then you'll know the part in which one of the characters is talking about reading and says... "the best moments in reading are when you come across something - a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things - that you'd thought special, particular to you. And here it is, set down by someone else, a person you've never met, maybe even someone long dead. And it's as if a hand has come out, and taken yours." And that's the kind of meaning I take from Orwell's quote. We like those kind of books because in expressing something we have always known or thought, we identify with the writer and the book and it makes us feel un-alone.
Oh, I like that, Sorrel. Very true, at least or me.
Ola wrote: "The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already."What do you think of this? Do you agree with it?"
For me this quote is more about the illusion of knowledge. Thinking that we are wiser than we really are and preferring reading books that support our worldview instead of those that challenged it.
Saving People, Hunting Things~ The Family Business wrote: "Ola wrote: "The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already."What do you think of this? Do you agree with it?"
For me this quote is more about the illusion of knowled..."
Hey, cool name you got there. I love Supernatural!
Ola wrote: "Hey, cool name you got there. I love Supernatural!"Thanks :)
Me too, it's a good show.
I think the quote is true in the sense that any good book is one that puts what you already know - that is to say, the pieces of knowledge you've cobbled together from life - into a greater context. Basically, it makes sense out of what you've experienced and helps you to understand that it's part of something greater.1984 was very effective that way. It took a horrific trend of the 20th century - the emergence of totalitarianism - and put it into a historic context. It examined the very nature of oppression and dominance, and the various strategies people who thrive on it use to make the rest of us accept it.
Duane, a short list of books that forced awakening like this? Please.
I kind of agree with the quote because it helps you understand and go into more depth with the thing you know.
I beleive we do know more than we think we know.
beacause all our feelings ,thoughts, things we experience everyday are building up not only who we are but also what we know . and as long as you're reading literature you will experience the connections between what you know because you actually been interdused to it before.
It makes me think that if we realised everything we experience thought of it in a more sophisticated way we will find much more than we imagine.
beacause all our feelings ,thoughts, things we experience everyday are building up not only who we are but also what we know . and as long as you're reading literature you will experience the connections between what you know because you actually been interdused to it before.
It makes me think that if we realised everything we experience thought of it in a more sophisticated way we will find much more than we imagine.
Moustafa wrote: "i interpreted it as The best books for any person are those that refer to him/her, meaning to understand something from your own perspective and relate it to yourself and life.Those are our Best bo..."I like this. Our favorite books are just that; ours. We love them because they speak to us in some way. It could be just a really funny book we like or it could be something we aspire to live. That's why I like books that others despise and they like books that I think are a waste of paper.
Matthew wrote: "I think the quote is true in the sense that any good book is one that puts what you already know - that is to say, the pieces of knowledge you've cobbled together from life - into a greater context..."I agree with that.
Lamia wrote: "I beleive we do know more than we think we know.beacause all our feelings ,thoughts, things we experience everyday are building up not only who we are but also what we know . and as long as you're..."
True.
Jacque wrote:"The point of this quote is to show the opposite of truth and to show the depth of his brainwashing. Big Brother wanted people to stay ignorant."Yes, Jacque, I agree. Exactly. If you are in your comfort zone you can never learn. In 1984, the comfort zone is dictated. A good citizen accepts.
Yes I agree with the quote, the books solidify what you already know, and makes you believe that it is true.
I guess it's quite limited in its application. I'm sure that many people read books on topics such as self-help, spirituality and conspiracy to affirm or "validate" their beliefs. For instance, I like to believe that there's an afterlife, and I believe that my faith in this isn't flimsy or whimsical, yet I found it reassuring to read-up on some of the literature dealing with the topic: works by Dr Raymond Moody & Dr Eben Alexander, to be specific. Of course, the quote is largely redundant when applied to someone approaching a historical topic, a scientific discourse or an autobiography for the first time.
Johnathan - I had never thought about self-help type of books, but I think that you are right. We seek those books out looking for advice, but are most comfortable with seeing what we already know validated. Again, though, we learn nothing by being validated. I thin this is why a validating personal relationship is so comfortable.
Yes and no. I like books because I will read a writer's expression of something I thought/felt. But were my ideas/feelings worthless until someone else validated them? No.I also like books that show me something I never saw or thought about before, or express the feelings and ideas of someone I may have unconsciously dismissed.
I like books that turn over the dirt in my mental garden and show me things I believe and may not have been aware of, but I also like having brand new varieties planted there.
Jimbo - I think the words "best books" were carefully chosen by Orwell to further drive home the point that the dictating body was shallow enough to think that there was such a thing. It's all rather sarcastic and meant to underline the exact opposite of what is said. All part of being a model (and appropriately scared) citizen.
William wrote: "Jimbo - I think the words "best books" were carefully chosen by Orwell to further drive home the point that the dictating body was shallow enough to think that there was such a thing. It's all rath..."I'd be inclined to disagree. These words were thought by Winston, who stated them about the Goldstein Manifesto. He was basically praising the book because - despite it not telling him anything he didn't already know - it put all his thoughts in order in a way that he wished he was capable of.
These sentiments weren't sarcastic or the result of a subservient mind. They were an expression of a free mind that desired to connect with one that saw the world the same way he did, but was better able to express it and without fear.
Ok - the first thing you need to know about me is how right I can be. In fact, I once won an argument with my wife! Ok: A wife. But still. Unfortunately, I read 1984 about 25 years ago and just can't remember enough to show you how right I probably am about this. I'll come back once I re-read it... then you'll see! Prepare to be amazed... about a year from now.
Wait, with your wife? How is that even possible? I remember my wife admitting she was wrong once, but it was only after she got her way! Luckily, in this case, I think I can save us both some time and post the context of the quote right here: "The book fascinated him, or more exactly it reassured him. In a sense it told him nothing that was new, but that was part of the attraction. It said what he would have said, if it had been possible for him to set his scattered thoughts in order. It was the product of a mind similar to his own, but enormously more powerful, more systematic, less fear-ridden. The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already."
OK - you got me. I lied about winning the argument with a wife. As for 1984 - I can certainly see what you mean. It could go either way for me, depending upon the rest of the book. Seriously, now I want to reread it but have so much to read already. It will happen, though.
For now, I'll conceded based on the fact that you were able to cut and paste with such alacrity. Also, my wife says your right.
William wrote: "Ok - the first thing you need to know about me is how right I can be. In fact, I once won an argument with my wife! ..."Can you corroborate that? :D
If a man says something where no woman hears him, is he still wrong?
I think it's a very realistic quote. Whenever you read a quote that strikes you, for instance, it doesn't say anything new. It perhaps makes a connection between two facts that you may have already -consciously or unconsciously - pondered.
But seeing it written in black and white, having a substance, that makes it striking.
William wrote: "OK - you got me. I lied about winning the argument with a wife. As for 1984 - I can certainly see what you mean. It could go either way for me, depending upon the rest of the book. Seriously, now..."
Woohoo! If you're wife says so then I must be right. Even though you and I (as men) may never get to best them, there is that helpful loophole where they tell us we're right in other situations. Also, if you're rereading the book, pay close attention for the following part. It is my favorite section of the whole book and made me realize why Orwell wrote the Manifesto first and the rest of the book around it (true story!):
"From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process—by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute—the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction—indeed, in some sense was the destruction—of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction."
In short, Orwell was saying that the totalitarian philosophies which emerged during the 20th century - i.e. Fascism, Nazism, Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. - all emerged as extreme responses to the prospect of equality. Together, left and right political philosophies began behaving similarly because they could not stomach the idea of human beings thinking and living freely.
Whereas Fascism and Nazism sought to absorb the common people into a single body dictated by race and nationality, Marxist-Leninism and Communism sought to forcibly condition them to create a society of true (i.e. material) equality. These were the stated ideals, but the reality was a group of elites driven by politics, ideology and the primitive urge to impose their will on the whole of society and transform it into their own sick notions of perfection.
Doesn't that just blow your mind???
Ireny wrote: "Matthew wrote: "In short, Orwell was saying that the totalitarian philosophies which emerged during the 20th century - i.e. Fascism, Nazism, Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. - all emerged ..."Certainly. Fascism and Nazism were forms of extreme conservatism that emerged during the 20th century, but their roots went back deeper. Basically, since the 17th century, political thinkers found that nationalism was a very good way of pushing through domestic opposition and demands for social reform.
They also knew from the numerous political, artistic and scientific revolutions of the 19th century - the Romantic movement, revolutions of 1830 and 1848, the emergence of psychiatry, psychology and sociology as disciplines - how much power the irrational had over human behavior.
During the 20th century, social conservatives were frightened by the emergence of political philosophies like Marxism, socialism, and the were still unhappy with the changes caused by the 18th/19th century revolutions that created institutions like the democratic franchise, political parties, parliaments, trade unions, and such all over Europe. They believed the way to prevent further change was to use war and nationalism as a weapon.
Nowhere was this more popular and effective than in Germany and Japan, which were both taken over by ultra-right-wing regimes in the 1920's and 30's. Italy and Spain also fell to Fascist regimes, mainly because they were politically divided and unhappy with their roles as 2nd rate European military powers.
If there was one thing that united all of these regimes, it was the desire to be a powerful nation that wasn't plagued by democracy, socialism, or any of the other political movements that threatened the rule of a single group of elites. Basically, they wanted to turn back the clock politically on their countries and erase the legacies of 1917 (Russian Revolution) and 1789 (French Revolution).
Key their policy of dominance at home and abroad was the unification of the state with both the church and heavy industry, ensuring that they had the blessing of the former and allegiance of the ladder. Also, they demanded total loyalty of their citizens and pursued war to ensure that society was constantly on a war footing to prevent any kind of opposition.
Orwell relied heavily on these to create the Party in 1984. He also cited the Fascists/Nazis reliance on xenophobia, racism and scapegoating to ensure that their citizens were too afraid to step out of line and were focused on a common enemy.
Ireny wrote: "Matthew wrote: "In short, Orwell was saying that the totalitarian philosophies which emerged during the 20th century - i.e. Fascism, Nazism, Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. - all emerged ..."As for Marxism, that and other branches of socialist thought also emerged around the same time. Basically, they began to grow as philosophies in the early to late 19th century, but their roots also went deeper. For example, the American and French Revolutions in the 18th century unleashed a tidal wave or radical democratic thought.
At the same time, the industrial revolution, during the late 18th to mid 19th century, caused a lot of painful changes for peasants, farmers, and working-class people who lived in large cities. Conditions in the factories were dirty, dangerous, and the pay quite pitiful. Attempts to reform conditions were constantly being blocked by rich industrialists who had essentially become the new elite of society.
This led thinkers like Karl Marx to conclude that the revolutions of the 18th century were basically just "middle-class revolutions" that overthrew the aristocracy but did nothing for the working-class. He reasoned, like many socialists, that the next revolution, which would come in the 19th or 20th century, would establish the workers as the new ruling class, and that true equality would reign.
Basically, it too was a response to the problems of modernity. It grew out of common people's frustration with a democratic franchise and a capitalist, free-market economy. These, many intellectuals and reformers felt, were merely tools of the wealthy to create the illusion of opportunity and an open society; when in fact, it was just a different kind of elitism.
As such, Marx and his followers believed that violent revolution was the only way society could change. They also believed that revolution was inevitable and it would happen once conditions were ripe. However, many grew impatient as time went on and progressive reforms in the 19th century began to make revolution look unlikely. By this time, many socialists had become "moderate socialists", people who believed reformers would continue to make progress and revolution was undesirable.
Men like Lenin, however, were especially impatient and continued to preach revolution since countries like Russia were behind the times and refused to reform. He created a form of Marxism that was entirely controlled by the Party and sought revolution by any means to get power, and then force the necessary changes through.
This became the basis for Stalinism, Maosim, and all other extreme forms of Marxism-socialism. Those who followed it believed that the key to creating a socialist society was to purge every element of a capitalist one. This often meant the purging of capitalists, and anyone who resembled one, as well. The result is well known, millions dead in Russia, China, South-East Asia and Africa - all in the name of "engineering a society of equals".
This policy of total cultural and intellectual control to ensure that people were conditioned to be loyal, and think they were working towards equality, also informed a great deal of 1984 and how the Party ruled.
Ireny wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Ireny wrote: "Matthew wrote: "In short, Orwell was saying that the totalitarian philosophies which emerged during the 20th century - i.e. Fascism, Nazism, Marxist-Leninism, Stalini..."I don't have negative views on Christians, Ireny. I thought I was clear on that. And these posts are not attacks on Christians. I don't know why you insist on seeing that, especially here. The point I was making was about extreme reactions to the emergence of equality from both ends of the political spectrum. How and where religion was involved in this is totally incidental to me.
If ever I have made disparaging remarks, its against people who use their religion as a political tool to force their views on others. I've also taken a stance against religious institutions seeking to control others because they fear people thinking for themselves.
However, I prefer to confine myself to instances of where this has happened, or with individuals who've done this, and not target all people of a religion. And that's exactly who those last two posts in the 1984 thread were meant to address. Those people were members of a conservative ideology,
This has nothing to do with your faith or you personally. Please don't make it about that. And if you wanted to discuss this further, perhaps we could do so away from a public thread?
I guess I perceived the quote as "Yes,I'm giving you something you know already, but let me tell you from my point of view" sort of thing. Books always gave us something new though, no matter small or insignificant it is.
Lamia wrote: "I beleive we do know more than we think we know.beacause all our feelings ,thoughts, things we experience everyday are building up not only who we are but also what we know . and as long as you're..."
I am totally agree Lamia! It could be a good way to say the same! "The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already" Those that tell you what you know already, but you are not aware of this, and then, when you read it, you say: Yeees!! It's true!!! I knew it!! But before reading it, we were not able to explain that. Some books make us build a new knowledge joining previous knowledges...
Well, thinking out of context, I have to answer that these books are kind of a validation of your thinking and knowing, which certainly makes you feel better about yourself, but that's all you get from them. So, no, I do not agree. However, following the story line, it is quite important that history is not rewritten over and over to suit political interests. Unfortunately it is. Just try reading history school books of neighboring countries and focus on a period of conflict between them.
I think that this is definitely true. Whenever I read a book that puts forth observations or theories about society and people that I have previously thought of/formed on my own, I think to myself, "damn...this book is amazing." I connect with the book on a whole other level than I would if it was giving me new information.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
1984 (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Word for World Is Forest (other topics)1984 (other topics)
What do you think of this? Do you agree with it?