/lit/ - Literature

>>6771728
Nice 'literally', Dickens. Maybe I'll get to pick up on your grand moral high-mindedness, where someone who (probably) hasn't experienced homelessness, or an inescapable abusive relationship, or a suicide of a close friend, or real hunger, or addiction, or an unhappy family life, who would decide for everyone everywhere that having every need of every human met is a bad thing because you're too simple-minded to see the world as anything but this black-and-white Zoroastrian mythos where every joy must have a price paid in suffering. I admit (again) that Huxley is not a scientist or a sociologist. What if, in such a society, education was revered as a virtue? Imagine these people versed in Shakespeare and Thoreau, worldly and well-traveled and consciously choosing to support a society that works out so well for so many. I mean lordy it's like you've got this Stockholm syndrome for your own first-world-problem existence. 'Going through the motions'? Do you know how many human beings live in slavery right now? One in every 250 people live with 'going through the motions' and you would refuse them a world without beatings and dehumanizing conditions because you don't want them to 'seek pleasure instead of meaning.' What the hell does that mean? That's supposed to be an ultimatum? Why the hell not both? Meaning is one of the greatest pleasures!
>it is easier than the alternative of thinking critically and coming to conclusions based on the self
so purely subjective ones? Like the one you're reaching with an argument of 'I can see through the illusion and it is bad in a way that makes sense in my head but I can't explain. Contradictory antisocial misanthropes like you like to feel superior to those stupid sheeple and their happy lives because they are all trapped in some lie that you're smart enough to see through, you are such an anchor around humanity's neck.

>>2040535
Well done on choosing the best Communist ideology.

...