/lit/ - Literature

So edgy and dark

well i thought the same when i first read it, then i realized that yes most people would be happy living a dull non-monetary based life interspersed with sex and drugs all for nothing other than fulfilling a societal role thrust upon them from birth... well most people live like that anyways... its when you start thinking nineteen eighty-four would be a better world to live in that you should be concerned with yourself.

Dunno. It sounded wonderful at first, but when you think about it, it sounds like a nightmare. At least for me.
I am someone who strives for knowledge and experiance. Sure laying at home all day, having silly entertainment can be a nice change once in a while, but always? No! I am very happy, that I wasn't born in such a society and actually can go and aquire knowledge and try finding myself.

What I thought it was, was that Huxley was basically objecting to the direction the world is taking with things being automatic and produced immediately, without having to work for it. Y'know, instead of having to rear pigs yourself, simply push button, receive bacon. I thought he felt it undervalued human existence by taking out the bad parts leaving only good feels for things you never achieved by yourself.

>>3323003
You'd be engineered to have little interest in those things.

There were only two people who had contempt for this society. If you think Huxley was going for a dystopia, you're wrong. He was simply stating that there will be a few who will not be satisfied given their circumstances.

It was a nightmare world, although you would have been extremely happy living in it.

Define Utopia.

It boils down to what you consider to be a good life. If you consider being happy as having a good life, then 99% of the population being happy makes it damn near a utopia. If something else is needed (freedom? intellectual pursuits? equality?) you might argue differently. It's kind of hard to judge though.

>>3323018

Well, when you're looking at it as the whole world it would be more like 95% of people would be happy.

It's a bad society. You need to work to feel good. Tolstoy calls it the curse on man that he gets his sustenance from the sweat of his brow.

We can't be idle since that leads to ennui; we work and feel exhausted but satisfied. Ideally we should all live in mud-huts in a salubrious climate with healthy food, satisfying work, plenty of social interaction and very few fulfilled wants.

>>3322976

A utopia is obviously very subjective, so no

>>3323018

But what is happiness? 4chan, video-games and ice-cream forever wouldn't make me happy.

>>3323018

People feel happy because they are engineered to.

But don't they feel happy and whole all the same?

I'd say their life is pretty good, though it misses the meaning of life for most people: the family.

This is the only thing I don't like in it, and this fascist ideal of being a cell of a body called society. You shouldn't be for the good of society, society should be for the good of you, it's reversed.

>>3323024
It would make ME happy.

>>3323028

Yea if there were no diseases, illnesses, weight gain ect.

>>3323026
>You shouldn't be for the good of society, society should be for the good of you, it's reversed.

Perhaps that's where the Dystopia comes in? You work for society, you get absolutely nothing in return but you're happy because they force the feeling on you.

>>3323038
True, but you never experience suffering from this.
It makes you happy, because you are PROGRAMMED TO feel happy.

From an intellectual 3rd point of view it's totally not an ideal world, but if you'd be living it you'd be happy.

How many people are truly happy in our world? It's pretty rare. Almost all people are happy in Brave New World except the protagonists, whom are quite the outcasts from the start.

No outcast is ever happy, whatever the circumstances.

>>3323053
>It makes you happy, because you are PROGRAMMED TO feel happy.

You can be 'programmed to feel happy' but have a biological deficiency in hydroxytryptophan or another amino dependant neurotransmitter and constantly feel unhappy. Alternatively, you can be unhappy and keep your serotonin, dopamine, or opiate receptors in a constant state of stimulation and feel constantly happy.

>>3323073

This man/woman speaks the truth

If you think it is a utopia, then like all the characters besides the protagonist, you probably do not think much OP. Dust off that muscle inside your head and use it once in a while.

>>3323083

>brain=/=muscle

>>3323089
It's a muscle. Get with modern neuroscience you dwit. Oh wait...you don't like thinking...WHOOPS sending advice in the wrong direction.

>>3323091

>thinks the brain is the origin of thought
>2012

>>3323109
>implying it isn't

grow up, religion and the prospect of a "soul" is just a fairy tail

your life is on the same level as of a worm's, you'll die as unsignificantly as the ugliest bug you have ever known

have a nice day

>>3322976
>sick, horrible person
No, you're just a sheep. It's ok since most people are like you (unless most of them aren't even aware of it). This is Huxley's point: our society's goal is to live in such world. That's what's scary and about it all.

>>3323091

>brain
>muscle

>>3323091
I think you've pulled a neuron, buddy.

>>3323113
I like the concept of fairy tail. Sounds sexy.

>>3323003
>aquire knowledge and try finding myself.
You're in for a disappointment, friend.

It's all about experiencing the full spectrum of the human condition, not just contentment. Joy and happiness are two distinctly different things.

I think Huxley was trying to be deliberately subversive with this dystopia. It's extremely subjective as to whether its good or bad so its a lot more thought provoking. That's one of the reasons that makes it more interesting than 1984; its not so black and white.

>>3323179
In this aspect, it reminds me of Nozick's "Experience machine". It's meant to make people realize there's more than what our contemporary society takes as "good". People should be able to realize there's something inherently wrong with conformism.

>>3323139
Well I know that I will one day be food for the worms like everyone else. But I just think there is a little more to life then getting money and fucking bitches.
Maybe I won't find out anything, but at least I tried and maybe I will be happy with that life. Why not doing it, friend?

I have not read this book.

Should I?

>>3323399
yes

>>3323259
Theres nothing inherently wrong with anything it´s fukcing subjective.

>>3324029
I'd say as a form of behavior its quite illogical because its exercise rests on the idea that the beliefs of society are better or worth respecting over one's own.

You're not sick or horrible. Just dumb.

>>3323399
skip it and read brave new world revisited instead. it covers all the topics more comprehensively and is amended to reflect what is actually happening in the world versus some of his more outlandish ideas like cloning becoming the main form of human reproduction. also island was interesting if you want to see his idea of the flip side of that coin and how these tools could be used to create a more individually liberating society

>>3323026
I'd rather be dissatisfied and unhappy than artificially happy all the time.Happiness and satisfaction all the time defeats the purpose, especially when you have no choice.

“People are afraid of themselves, of their own reality; their feelings most of all. People talk about how great love is, but that's bullshit. Love hurts. Feelings are disturbing. People are taught that pain is evil and dangerous. How can they deal with love if they're afraid to feel? Pain is meant to wake us up. People try to hide their pain. But they're wrong. Pain is something to carry, like a radio. You feel your strength in the experience of pain. It's all in how you carry it. That's what matters. Pain is a feeling. Your feelings are a part of you. Your own reality. If you feel ashamed of them, and hide them, you're letting society destroy your reality. You should stand up for your right to feel your pain.”
--Jim Morrison

Just saiyan.

>>3324425
please refrain from posting

>>3322976
There's no problem with relating to the world that Huxley creates and understanding why that world would be an enticing place to live in. But if you think it through for a while and you are still viewing it as a utopia then you have missed Huxley's purpose altogether.

Also, what are your opinions of Huxley's After Many a Summer?

>>3322976
Only if those little islands let all us e/lit/ists in.

If you only live with the carnal desire of sex and are perfectly happy accepting your lot in life, never to change it, Brave New World's world was a utopia. But the human spirit crap is how we are free and able to do as we please and prize our individuality, and the book was a nightmare for people who wanted that.

Also, they forced kids to have sex with each other.

>>3324611
/lit/ - alpha +

/b/ - epsylon -

you know it's true

read better dystopian fiction kids

>>3324630
Pastoralia wasn't really dystopic. End of Firpo in the World?

>>3324667

maybe not so much that one, but, like, "sea oak" and shit

Huxley's entire point was that happiness is not actually what we want.

It won't leave any of us satisfied. What we really want is to experience all of life - a wide variety of emotions.

A child stood at the foot of the rollercoaster, sucking on a lollypop. Screaming faces rushed past, caught in the uncaring grasp of the terrifying machine.

And then the child got on.

The main problem with interpretation of this book is that we already live in society very similar to that from Brave New World.

ITT: Epsilons

Feels good to be double plus alpha. Stay jelly epsilon fags.

>>3322976
>It's not like we are free in this world anyways.
I know this is a big, intellectual thing that all the edgy cool kids are saying, but what do you really mean? (Please no conspiracy theories about Jews! Seriously? They're just saints and scum like the rest of us.)

Huxley wrote BNW as a utopia, so you've just been conned by the author, OP.

>>3324822

>>3324822
Your life is more or less predestined since very moment of birth, your behaviour is society+genes. Whats more?

>>3324893
op here, pretty much this

also, although it's possible to "break out" from the material status you were born into, but this kind of Napoleon story is quite rare

as an orphan you'll most likely won't be a senator no matter how hard you try

>>3324893
op here, pretty much this

also, it's very hard to change your material status, to become a rich man from poverty. I'd bet that 9 out of 10 people with this ambition don't make it

>>3324029
Conformism leads you to be (literally) a tool. I mean, it's ok if you've got some kind of masochist fetish, but I wouldn't like it to be the rule of human relationships. Maybe I'm a little bit too picky, but I'd like for rational animals to be at least responsible of their own actions.

>>3322976
>blue pill
So appropriate

Really? The world seemed so inauthentic and meaningless. You would probably become detached and bored quite easily.

>>3324209
This is the point of this kind of literature. But this is like those edgy teenagers who watch Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" or the fucking "Fight Club" and think the point was just fuck everything and try to look like you don't care about anything.

>>3324767
THIS is the scary part of the book. Like it or not, this is where we live...

>>3326196
It takes either a really pessimistic or a really honest man to write about a future world where nobody can be arsed to read his work.

>>3326188
Or maybe not, if they feel bad, they just drug themselves

>>3324893
>>3325028
That's it?! Holy melodrama, that's nothing!
>our life is more or less predestined since very moment of birth, your behaviour is society+genes.
Ofc, but the illusion of free will is not the same thing as an illusion of freedom.
>t's very hard to become a rich man from poverty.
Yeah, so? Being poor doesn't stop you from being free!

I think it's perfectly utopia. Everyone is happy with the society, and if you're not happy with it then they don't punish you, they calmly allow you to move to an island with others who don't, provide everything you need to live and let you live however you want to.

I think the truth is there are multiple utopias, multiple perfect ways to arrange society. Brave New World (outside of the way they treat the "uncivilized") is a utopia

Just because something doesn't seem right about it to you does not not mean it's not utopia

Am I the only genius-level I.Q. poster on this board that has come to the realization that the world we live in, currently, is, in fact, utopia?

>>3327731
It isn't, there are millions in poverty, few people are truly happy.

But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions". In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.

>>3327731

Tell that to the starving and the enslaved

>>3327731
You are the only genius-level I.Q. poster on this board who deserves this mediocre society.

>>3327704
This. If you don't like the pursuit of happiness you get to leave and pursue knowledge.

I don't see why all these people are complaining so much about BNW's world, you'd most likely be on the islands. Unless you're an epsilon, in which case please leave /lit/

>>3327731
Truly, the human mind creates it's own utopia once the basic needs are met. But many go without these basic needs, I don't see how you can claim a utopian society when basic needs aren't met for all

>>3328315
Well sure we would be on the islands. But would you really not care about the rest of society? I mean we would sit on that island, read philosophy, talk about it, read books. Write our own books and what not. But we would see, that everyone else doesn't care shit about it.
Just think. Everyone on the planet except a few people on the islands watch Jersey Shore and love it. No one has heard about any writers at all. And on the other hand, we would probably realize that what is going in, is bullshit. Wouldn't you have the desire to 'change' society?

>>3328344
Do you honestly think the people who watch Jersey Shore right now would appreciate the art and work we talk about regulary?

The only fault I have with Brave New World is that the progress made on the island would never trickle down as we see in our world today. Great advances in artistic and scientific thought eventually penetrate the collective mind. "Haters gonna Hate", modernist moralities, perceptions of time and relationships. All of these things have changed in the collective conscious after the changes happened in the intellectual sphere. BNW does miss that, although perhaps not considering the brainwashing lessons must come from somewhere.

I couldn't say that ethically I would have a reason to push for change. I would push for artistic freedom though. BNW's society has great need of that.

>>3328315
In Fahrenheit 451, people thought they were happy, when in reality they were all suffering. How do you know real people in world like BNW wouldn't experience this?

>>3328344
>Just think. Everyone on the planet except a few people on the islands watch Jersey Shore and love it. No one has heard about any writers at all.
Isn't that already the case? Seems pretty similar to our world except there's no war, hunger, very little disease you don't have to work, drugs are legal, sex is free... what's the problem?

>>3328344
> Everyone on the planet except a few people on the islands watch Jersey Shore and love it. No one has heard about any writers at all.

This happens when we have a free society. Certainly the brainwashing seems excessive, but it's essentially the same as any other cultural system.

>>3328364
Of course not. But even in a society like the one in BNW, there are people who are not dumb and would be able to understand it, if you gave it to them. But well they are happy the way they are so this is ok.
But what I wanted to say, is that all we do on our islands, will be worth nothing. Because the only people who will ever do anything with it, are the people on the other islands. I mean, great literature is most of the time (If not always) appreciated by a very small part of the population, but it still finds it ways into the world history and gets preserved. The stuff we would do on our islands? Nope. We would sit there do our shit, be happy about it (or not) but all we did, all the amazing works of prose, poetry, philosophy and art, would be worthless, because society doesn't have any meaning for it. Sure we do it for ourselfs, but isn't a big part of being an artist the idea of changing the world or the people a little? To instill some of your thoughts and ideas into others? In BNW this would not be possible.

>>3328373
you know nothing of the world.

>>3328393
I think we agree, like I said, the trickle down system is missing. The permeation of the cultural ideas. With this in mind, I'm honestly not certain that Brave New World would even be possible. The culture is practically a blank slate. I don't think you can have a culture like that without violence or something like that springing up.

I should really re-read it.

>>3327794
>-Neil Postman

>>3328418
Well the question is what brings out violence. But I don't really wanna push the thread in that direction.
First thing, yes, they don't really have a culture at least as it seems. The cultur is basically boulevard news and mindless entertainment. There isn't anything else. But people are happy about it.
I don't really get what you mean by the fact that such a culture can't be without violence. Do you mean you would need opression to make it happen, or do you mean that there would be voilent crimes in such a society?

And I agree, I have to re-read it too.

>>3328394
I know more than you, Mr Non-sequitor.

I found it to be a utopia simply on the basis everyone, for the most part, seemed to be enjoying themselves just fine.

captcha: "opiate Forster"

>>3328617
But a utopia is supposed to be a desirable future. Would you really like to live on that world?

>>3328606
no you don't, or you would know how to spell non sequitur correctly

>>3329262
who wouldn't like to live in bwn

>>3329272
I didn't say I wouldn't "like" it if I was born there. But from my actual perspective, that's not desirable at all. My morality wouldn't allow me to desire such a thing.

>>3329357
like to live != like living

why don't you desire it? seems desirable to me.

>>3329364
Because I'm not a fucking hedonist. I need to solve problems and produce something to be proud of myself. A life without pride isn't worth living imo.

>its not like are free

why are you not free? are you in jail?

>>3329370
> I need to solve problems

what if there were no problems?

>produce something to be proud of myself

even if you're just producing for the sake of it?

pride is silly.

>>3329374

I think he's talking about free will.

>>3329382

... yeah i got that
im just trying to engage the retard and liberate him from his hidden dualist conceptions on identity (which is quite ironic given that he's the generic determinist physicalist)

>>3329379
If there are no problems I get bored. If I get bored and there's no way to escape boredom, life becomes shit.
>even if you're just producing for the sake of it?
This is exactly my favorite kind of production (music, drawings, writing...)
Pride is as silly as love or eudaimonia.

What a beauty numbers are.

>>3329395
>there's no way to escape boredom

that's what soma is for

>This is exactly my favorite kind of production (music, drawings, writing...)

the production of art is done for the sake of art not for the sake of production. there's a different.

>Pride is as silly as love or eudaimonia.

eudamonia is silly as well, and love has to be dealt with.

I've never read it. Is it good?

>>3323073
This is the utopian future however. Soma never required more and more doses, so I believe human brains were redesigned to reduce tolerance to drugs and other chemicals

>>3329420
>that's what soma is for
Soma would be not enough for me. I've used lots of drugs to escape boredom, and they still weren't enough.
>the production of art is done for the sake of art not for the sake of production. there's a different.
I'm talking about me, not about idealist hippies who think they're special snowflakes because they got some sensibility.
>eudamonia is silly as well, and love has to be dealt with
I tried to point at how pointless is talking about the "silliness" of such things. It's like saying planets or the letter g are silly.

>>3324627
"Forced" is a bit harsh for just letting kids run around naked in a field

>>3324723
Fucking beautiful.

Using this as my senior quote, no joke

>>3329426
>Entire thread posting about a book
>Is it good
I fucking Shiggity diggity

>>3329492
http://asoiaf.westeros.org/

>>3323024
yeah, speak for yourself, ashole

>>3324723
nice

>>3329470
>>3329470

>beautiful

i thought so too.

though in the end, pleasure (and the appetite towards pleasure) triggers the need to feel those other emotions, and ultimately validates them. imagine if that child got on, felt the terror, and after climbing out the coaster, instead of feeling rewarding pleasure at his bravery, the terror endured. such a thing would prompt one to never get on a coaster.

>>3327794
duuuuuude, you should like...write a book or something, man

>>3329515
Even if pleasure is involved (it is), one must not be too reductionist. Happiness, in hedonist terms, isn't enough to describe what do humans seek for. Pleasure is important, maybe something indispensable, but not all remotely satisfactory feelings are pleasure.

>>3329535

>but not all remotely satisfactory feelings are pleasure.

this is a very tough argument to settle.
to be honest i struggle against reductionism and even actively strive to romanticize otherwise 'perfectly explainable through brutish reductionism' notions, but i have to disagree with you here. i see it as the singular motivating force. even 'noble' suffering (stemming from realization of existential void, or from a broken heart, or self induced pain) which some people find comforting, and which i find to be at the top of a loosely constructed and semi-paradoxical emotional hierarchy, is ultimately reduced to pleasure.

>satisfactory

think of what you are saying when you use the term 'satisfactory'. how would any conception of satisfaction exclude pleasure?

>>3329556

>exclude

this is too weak, i should have said:

how can any conception of satisfaction not be fully dependent on pleasure?

>>3329535

also keep in mind that reduction does not necessarily negate the outer layers.

>>3329556
>how would any conception of satisfaction exclude pleasure?
Example:
When constant pain ends you get a satisfactory feeling.It's not really pleasure since it's just the lack of an unpleasant sensation.

Or another example:
I feel no pleasure on studying for my exams, for example. But it's somehow satisfactory to make the effort.

>>3329559
Think about asceticism. Do you really think there is pleasure?

>>3322976
You're not a horrible person, you just have different beliefs and visions for a perfect world.

Unless you want people to suffer (mentally and/or physically), then you've done nothing wrong. Your perspective is just different.

>>3323113
kill yourself