/lit/ - Literature

>>6771050
yeah

jk didnt read it

What didn't you like about it?

>>6771050
Cinder odes.

>>6771050
The ending was fine. That middle part where they go to Mexico though, that was horrible.

>>6771062
why didn't he try to fix the world?

>>6771083
One man can't fix the world

>>6771129

>>6771137
thanks for the example

>>6771083
why haven't you?

>>6771083

Because he realized that there was fixing it. If even he, a devout ascetic, gave in to the madness and couldn't escape the empty pleasure seeking then what hope did the rest of humanity caught up in it have? He was ashamed and disgusted with himself so he took the only option he saw available since he was not allowed to be exiled.

>>6771147

>there was no fixing it
>fix'd

I love how angry I get trying to convince people Huxley's world sounded like a utopia. <spoiler>This kid was raised in an abusive home with a negligent alcoholic mother and abusive alcoholic father in a society that ethnically hated him and taught him self-flagellation and self-mortification, couldn't cope with a society that wasn't painful enough and
// || || || || \\
somehow proves that the society he grew up in was better for the world?
I will argue this all night. I'm not even tired.
COME AT ME BRO!
<spoiler>

>>6771167

Utopia like any other ideal is subjective. If it sounds like a utopia to you then it is, just understand that to some that world sounds like a nightmare. To me the BNW world sounds like a place I might want to visit for some fun, but I wouldn't want to stay long, like Vegas.

>>6771213
See this, this right here, it baffles me. I want you to read really closely and explain how it's not true.
Right now, as you are reading this, someone is getting raped. Somewhere in the world. A murder, a suicide, a slave, a prostitute, an addict. I don't even need to know the details, because in this world it is statistically definite that at this moment it is happening somewhere. And you look at this, this Brave New World, there is no rape, no murder, no hunger, no unemployment, safe drugs, safe sex, and people are raised specifically to want certain things so that, taa daa, they spend their whole lives getting everything they want. Huxley's specifics, naturally, are informed by 20th-century understanding of genetics and psychedelics. You look at this world and say, 'I dunno it's kinda like Vegas, I'd give up a real utopia for the fantasy of mine specifically.'
I DECLARE NEMESIS!

this book was okay at best. 6/10. better than the horseshit that is 1984

>>6771532
But it's all fake. It's a film of foil that the slightest introspection scrapes away.

>>6771532
Why not just wirehead everyone for the rest of their lives? Why not build a super-amazing Matrix?

Hell, if we're just talking negative utilitarianism, let's let all the nukes loose and we have a rape-free, murder-free, hunger-free, unemployment-free utopia in 15 minutes.

>>6771553
a film of foil what the hell?? You would turn away low violent crime and low suicide and okay I admit, Huxley's science background makes it unfit for a perfect holy-book template, but as an idea to be improved upon you really think it's much worse than most of Africa? Or most of the Middle East?
The truth does not fear scrutiny, it is not embarrassed by honest questions. I don't see how you could possibly argue that that's the case here, aside from 'it makes me think too much.'
>>6771562
You really think that a society of peaceful, healthy, cooperative, sociable individuals is comparable to human extinction? You think an attempt to make the human race better is a tough decision compared to wiping humanity out completely?
Did you lose a family pet when you were very young?
The Matrix fails every couple of years. Why not try something where everyone involved has an interest in helping each other solve the world's problems?

fuckers and their books. i didn't ask for this shit.

>>6771622

You are literally the worst.

The citizens in BNW live life in a box, 'going through the motions'. They are the example of the 85%, the ones that don't think too hard. To them (and you), they view this existence as perfect, because there are no negatives. Sure none of those horrible things happen, but because of that, the good things also lose their value. If they begin to think, apathy begins to creep in, and then depression.

Duality gives rise to meaning, the good cannot exist without the bad. BNW is an allegory for today's society, where the majority seek pleasure instead of meaning. Because it is easier than the alternative of thinking critically and coming to conclusions based on the self. Without that meaning and without a concept of self, you have two choices. Ride the merry go round pretending you don't see through the illusion, or accept that there is an illusion and create new meaning.

Or kill yourself, but fuck that.

>>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.

>>6771050
>>6771083
>Americans so childish they need a happy ending
ahahahaha

>>6771137
Exactly. He lost.

>>6771532
>people unrelated to me getting raped and murdered bothers me
>I am a sensitive girl babby

>>6772035
well aren't you a wonderful person. You really want me to respect your idea of what the world should be if you're going 'oh so thousands of people are raped a year boo hoo.' Excuse me for being an objectively better person than you.

>>6772081
>objective morality
>every single human bean is worth something

you are a weak spineless slug

Should I read this or Catch 22?
I mean I'll read both but which one tonight.

>>6771167
The joke is that Huxley started out writing a book about a vapid, americanized society to be turned upside down by the Savage. Then he realized how noble savage primitivism is complete bullshit at worst or doomed at best, seeing how the native americans had already been reduced to cheap tourist attractions during Huxley's time. There is no dignity to be found at either extreme and so he rewrote the draft accordingly.

The even bigger joke is that the old humanity had to be replaced by zoo animals before they could finally be happy and stable.

>>6772238
BNW is 200 pages and I think Catch 22 is 600. You might think BNW is easier to read but it's actually just kind of depressing when you start to compare the novel to our present society. Also, it was rewritten in a hurry so it's not very pleasant in a stylistic sense.

>>6772238
BNW SUCKS DIX

Agree. But u have to read The doors of perception in order to undertand why that ending.

>>6771778
Nice projection asshat. Umad?

I rest my case. Life is good regardless of the bad. Remove one side of the spectrum and you fuck it all up. You cannot escape the physical law of 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. There IS always a price to be paid. BNW even goes to lengths to show this.

Oh, and you saying that I don't have any pertinent life experience? You don't know me blowhard mcblowington. Just because you're wrong doesn't give you permission to make baseless claims that exist outside of the arguement.

Tldr - you're bad, and you should feel bad.

>>6772087
I value human life and I want to prevent as much rape and murder as possible. What kind of fucking moral high ground are you pretending to have?
>>6772933
>I rest my case
Behold, the conviction of someone who doesn't want to think.
>life is good regardless of the bad
Truly spoken like someone with first-world problems.
>remove one side of the spectrum and you fuck it all up
>'equal and opposite reaction'
>always a price to be paid
This, children, is talking out of your ass. Tell me, scholar, should we give up on agriculture? Having an abundant, regular food supply must be damning us to some 'equal and opposite reaction.' How about medical science? How about frickin' light bulbs, would being able to read at night doom humanity because being able to see after the sun goes down would 'remove one side of the spectrum'? Everything we have today is built on the shoulders of giants who fought against opposition and dire odds in their own time to bring us a world better than the one they lived in, and you're carrying on the tradition of hindering progress because you're afraid it will anger the gods of some karmic scale where fortune and misfortune are perfectly balanced. Life is not fair, sometimes people are born, live, and die in misery, but the fortunate flipside is that if people are always happy there is no physical consequence. The universe plum don't give a shit if you're fasting or cutting yourself 'just so I can feel unlike those brainwashed sheeple'.
>BNW even goes to lengths to show this
please PLEASE give me a good example.
>claim someone using a computer and internet to defend sophomoric views of science fiction probably can't comprehend the poverty, hunger and violence that is the reality of millions
>Makes no claim to the contrary
>Gives bogus 'Shut up! Y- you don't know me! You can't prove I live in a developed country with enough money and leisure time to read scifi, so you're wrong!' argument to ignorance.
I think I know what's going on. That pain you feel in your head is called 'cognitive dissonance.' It's the stress of being confronted with evidence that contradicts prior beliefs. I'm not blaming you, a lot of college students would tell you to think about BNW like that, but can you give any solid, falsifiable reason that a happier world would be a bad thing?
>you're bad, and you should feel bad
spoken like a true high-minded simpleton convinced of their own wisdom.

>>6773137
Do you value security more than liberty? Would you be willing to give up your freedom and individuality for a violence-free world?

If yes, you must understand that some of us would rather not. Even Mustapha Mond states that he sometimes regrets not being exiled to an Island to conduct his experiments as he wishes.

>I value human life and I want to prevent as much rape and murder as possible. What kind of fucking moral high ground are you pretending to have?

You talk as if morality is objective in the first place. You also assume that saving as many people as possible is the ultimate best thing you can possibly do, everyone is great and everyone deserves to live. It's foolish and gullible, you talk like a teenage idealistic moron.

>>6773137
>Having an abundant, regular food supply must be damning us to some 'equal and opposite reaction.'
Pesticides, droughts, pollution, erosion.... Agriculture supports a larger population, and the more people we need to feed, the more harmful the side effects of agriculture become.

>How about medical science?
The progress of medical science is partially dependent on people receiving crude, inefficient or even ineffective treatments and their doctors learning from those mistakes. Overmedication and dependence on drugs (like the BNW is dependent on Soma) can cause more problems than they solve.

>How about frickin' light bulbs, would being able to read at night doom humanity because being able to see after the sun goes down would 'remove one side of the spectrum'?
Light pollution is one of the major causes of urban stress, disrupting sleep cycles and obscuring our view of the cosmos at night. It also contributes to the deleterious effect cities have on their surrounding ecosystems; for example, some flowers depend on moths for pollination, and manmade lights keep those moths from traveling the way they otherwise would.


How can you make such large posts and yet have such simplistic views? The advancement of civilization is not a simple, pleasant thing. It is one of the most complex and difficult subjects for humans to understand, which is part of why so many books get written about it. On a related subject, the users of 4chan do not all fit your stereotypes. Your ignorance and arrogance do not make you an "objectively better person" than the internet acquaintances you blithely insult.

>>6773151
I thinks it's absurd to force someone to choose between security and liberty. Why wouldn't it work having a society of well-educated, well-informed adults with access to an astounding selection of safe life paths? Also, I'm picking up a real first-world vibe. There are millions of people living in slavery, and those are just extreme examples. How many people living in your own country spend all day working a job they hate just to earn enough to stay fed and healthy enough to continue working with no idea for a way out. Is that freedom to you? How about religion? Do Catholics and Muslims make sure that their children understand freedom and individuality before giving them a set of laws that they are forbidden to deviate from? Hell no, anywhere you go in the world there are people in power who live off of the powerless. If we could bring about a world where the powerless could enjoy a violence-free, disease-free, hunger-free life, hell yes I would support that.
>some of us would rather not
Perfect! A system like this would only work if it was 100% voluntary. A system like this would only survive the test of time if all members were willing participants. It would create a dichotomy of non-members who dismiss the society as a cult and members who are baffled at how people can be so in love with their own suffering.
>>6774112
>morality is objective
Hardly, a study of religious history shows that morals, even those taught as objective, are at the mercy of local culture and circumstance. However, I would be willing to get behind the notion that
>saving as many people as possible is the ultimate best thing you can possibly do
, while it may not be the BEST thing POSSIBLE, would be heaps better than the world as it is.
>everyone is great and everyone deserves to live
And the idea of that is so offensive to you that you would stop other people from trying to make it true?
>It's foolish and gullible, you talk like a teenage idealistic moron
personal attacks AND name-calling? All without research or evidence? Or a solid logical argument? Forgive me if you aren't changing my mind.

>>6775251
Okay, let's work with that. I'll nominate you as king an ruler of the world. Let's look at your platform;
>Pesticides, droughts, pollution, erosion
so... we stop using agriculture? We go back to hunter-gatherer systems, where any random year could cause enough scarcity that society can't be sustained beyond local tribes?
>The progress of medical science is partially dependent on people receiving crude, inefficient or even ineffective treatments and their doctors learning from those mistakes.
Yes, that is medical science. I'm pretty sure that that's science in general. Isn't it nice that we can benefit from learning from past experience to improve the future?
>Overmedication and dependence on drugs can cause more problems than they solve
So... we don't have medical science in your world? Lots of people OD on oxycontin, so we should have people just bite a bullet during surgery? Have you never known someone whose life was improved thanks to modern miracles of medical research? Ask around, you'll find plenty.
>light pollution
>urban stress
>disrupting sleep cycles
>obscuring our view of the cosmos at night
I nearly pulled a muscle reaching high enough for the toppest kek that gave me. I have a new nonsense sci-fi goal; I want to build a time machine and take you back to anyplace, city or country, any continent, any point in time before two hundred years ago. I want to watch you explain to people who plain don't leave their homes at night because it's dangerous to walk in the dark, and show them pictures of whole cities where every street has plenty of light 24/7 and there are such marvels of science. Then I want you to try and talk them out of it because it'll cause 'urban stress' and they won't see the stars.
>large posts, simplistic views
there's nothing 'simple' about it. This would be an undertaking of herculean effort beyond any accomplishment in human history. It's important to have goals, but maybe it seems 'simple' because you're trying to think of reasons it won't work?
>objectively better person
I'm gonna assume you're
>>6772035
this gentleman, and say yes, I am confident that if I care about people 'unrelated to me getting raped and murdered' and you don't to the extend that you mock me for caring, yes I am an objectively better person than you.
FLCL was the bomb dot com tho, props on a legit .jpg

>>6775353

>let's join forces to establish another way of life

wtf does that even mean? They want to evenly distribute wealth among seven billion people? They want to depose the people in charge and just see what happens? I don't get people who rail against the system. This is the best we can do. The only thing that's gonna save the planet is mass sterilization.

>>6775353
>there's nothing 'simple' about it. This would be an undertaking of herculean effort beyond any accomplishment in human history. It's important to have goals, but maybe it seems 'simple' because you're trying to think of reasons it won't work?

Let me try to highlight what I consider "simplistic views".

>I'll nominate you as king an ruler of the world.
Step back a moment and examine this. What do you think being ruler of the world would entail? You're treating it like a simple idea, but how does one reach that status? What powers does the ruler of the world have? How are those powers organized and enforced?

This may seem like pedantry, but it's directly related to the point I was making, which is that you're oversimplifying the world's problems to such a degree that none of your opinions have any merit.

If you're not trying to think of reasons your own utopian ideal won't work, then you're simply letting yourself remain stupid and wrong in order to feel smarter than everyone who responds to you. Speaking of which:

>I'm gonna assume you're this gentleman
Nope. If you're trolling, you're more successful than you thought. No image this time, since you missed the point of the last.

>>6775374
Yes, but what if we could? What if it was possible to have a sustainable, self-sufficient, safe, happy existence where children are taught to like certain things specifically so that they can spend their lives doing exactly what they want, for 7 billion people? What if it were possible? It would take thousands of years and three to five hundred years. I believe strongly in the system as it exists. That's why it's so exciting to think that we can do even better.
>>6775401
How? I'm giving it to you. I hereby nominate and, by the powers vested in me as an archpope of the Erisian mysteries, I nominate you head and unopposed dictator-for-life of the entire globbing universe. How do you solve all the problems you just listed? What is your solution to mankind's woes?
>think of reasons your own utopian ideal won't work
Exactly! If there's anything wrong with it, I want to know! I want to believe only in things that are factually correct. If there's something I should change, I want to change it, but for beliefs I can get behind the idea of a less painful world is one I believe in. Could you please tell me one?
>missed the point of the last
Key points in your argument depend on whether I can understand the poignant, esoteric, unique interpretation of a landscape shot of the lovely and talented FLCL universe. I'll listen to reason, but you could at least make an argument instead of 2deep4u
>>6775401
wait, so
>>6772035
this isn't you? Have I been talking to the wrong person? I'm sorry for being out of place, of course I would assume nothing of you. I'd guess you're smart. Smart enough to get the point across.

>>6775287
>And the idea of that is so offensive to you that you would stop other people from trying to make it true?

Yes. it's a ridiculous notion

>>6775353
>"capitalism is a pyramid scheme"

>"this poster sells for $8"

>>6771959
Why would you even post if you're going to shitpost and bait/troll so blatantly

>>6776363
I bet it was made by a bunch of hippie undergrad trust fund kiddies

>>6776324
so said they about the lightbulb, or heavier-than-air flight or a train between New York and Chicago that takes less than twelve hours. Not saying your wrong, but if you're going to try to stop other people from doing something you should at least be able to explain WHY.
>>6776363
it's a .jpg from the internet that I downloaded for free. Please don't send me money, and if someone pretending to be me asks for $8 to look at an image please ignore them.
>>6776378
what was? Capitalism?

>>6772933
what about the VTR treatment or whatever it was called, where they make people suffer like once a month, wouldn't that make them appreciate their life more because this would resemble the bad?

also, I don't know if the notion that happiness is dependent on experiencing periods of unhappiness is quite true, if we look at it on a simple chemical level, don't high concentrations of dopamin and serotonin just lead to enjoyment and happyness (albeit simple) could thus be maintained indefinitely?

>>6776449
Forcibly saving people by putting them on your benevolent life support just creates legions of idiots who are incapable of doing anything on their own. Gullible alturism ruins progress.

>>6775353
> if there is a diffrence in quality of life between diffrent people it must mean those who are better off are exploiting those who are below them

that picture is a typical socialshit propaganda. if you have no education there's no reason you'll have the same quality of life as a professor has. fuck off

>>6776524
Neuro nerd here, I agree. Extended periods of uninterrupted happiness can lead to dopamine and serotonin exhaustion, but if you could figure out a way to offset that with a violence or passion serum, you could get all the benefits of occasional suffering without actually suffering.
>>6776612
which is why- and I keep saying this, so I hope you'll listen this time- Huxley did not describe a perfect model, there are countless improvements to be made on his 1930s- era grasp of genetics and neuroscience. For the system to thrive, every individual needs to be intelligent, well-informed, mature, rational and the freedom to choose their own life, but the system works so well that sensible people choose to stay. If it isn't 100% voluntary it will collapse, compared to 90%+ of every type of current government where anyone born into a certain country is just forced to play along.
>gullible altruism ruins progress
you could say that any major religion boils down to gullible altruism, but it acts as a community binding agent that allows for greater cultural organization and, to a point, progress.
>>6776987
>that picture
>that picture
>that picture
>picture
>picture
you dickless turd burger. I wasted 400 words carefully rendering multiple points into a coherent argument, and all you do is look at the fucking picture and decide I must be wrong because it doesn't represent our perfect meritocracy where the most deserving are most successful and nobody in power exploits the powerless. Oh wait, can I assume you're the same sage mind that thinks
>>6775251
this cartoon drawing of a giant iron is an accurate and unambiguous explanation of national-level social and economic policy? Do you only understand things in picture form? Do you look through new books to make sure they have pictures, because you only like ones with lots of pictures? I'm still waiting for you to provide any rebuttals;
>I want to stop rape and murder QED I'm a better person than you
>engineering, medicine and agriculture are a massive net benefit for humanity
>it's shameful to inhibit progress because things like engineering, medicine and agriculture have downsides, therefore any attempts to improve are bad.

>>6771532
>it's good because you're so drugged up you can't even imagine why it's bad

>>6771778
>because i personally don't like these things about it, it's 100% objectively terrible

>>6778366
>it's bad because drugs are bad!!!

>>6777610
>you dickless turd burger. I wasted 400 words carefully rendering multiple points into a coherent argument, and all you do is look at the fucking picture and decide I must be wrong because it doesn't represent our perfect meritocracy where the most deserving are most successful and nobody in power exploits the powerless. Oh wait, can I assume you're the same sage mind that thinks
maybe next time you can use less words and try to shit out a coherent thought instead

>>6771532
rape is bad because one person is dominating another person against their will but brave new world is good because a group of elites is able to control how every single person will grow up and live their lives

>>6778420
How about I make you my slave and just keep you on drugs 24/7. That should be fine yes?

>>6778436
no rape is bad because people don't like being raped, and elites managing lives is good because the lives in question are enjoyable

way to miss the point

>>6771080
This

>>6778444
>no rape is bad because people don't like being raped
there are people who orgasm when they are raped

there are people with rape fantasies.

there are people in this world who don't like alcohol. in brave new world they are conditioned to need it without a choice.

>>6778436
>rape is bad because one person is dominating another person against their will but brave new world is good because a group of elites. . .

There are only 6 people: five men and one woman, and the five men gang rape the woman. Now it's no longer bad?

>>6778441
>implying you have good enough drugs to make me happy being a slave to your disgusting 4channer self

>>6778458
i'm legitimately confused at what point you're trying to prove

We're supposed to think that Brave New World's vision of the future is bad because of the systems of control that are in place, which were willingly adopted by most people out of weakness, out of a desire for comfort and security at any cost. It stifles individuality and so forth, weakens the human spirit and so on, by reducing us to machine-like organisms that merely exist without creating or whatever: striving and suffering being necessary parts of the 'human condition' in this view . . .

But there's definitely a way of looking at it in which it takes on a certain appeal: if everything were predetermined, the suffering which accompanies 'finding oneself' would be eliminated. The very concept of seeking, or striving; the very notion of finding meaning, purpose, order, etc., would be dissolved. One would have one's unquestionable place as a necessary part of a necessary larger framework. No 'why,' no 'what,' no questions or feelings of pointlessness. The absurd dilemma resolved.

>>6778455
and there are people who got boners when they were hung

that doesn't mean people like being hung

and fantasy=/=reality unless you're next going to say people go on shooting sprees because they like call of duty

and conditioning people to NEED a harmful drug is a stupid idea, but conditioning people to LIKE a harmless thing is a good one.

seriously, if you're trying to troll carry on, but if you're so stupid you actually think you're making good arguments you can fuck off

>>6778462
>i'm legitimately confused at what point you're trying to prove
I'm not trying to prove a point, i was just asking a question.

The premise was "rape is bad because one person is dominating another person against their will," so I wondered if you would still hold that from a utilitarian perspective; if it wasn't one person benefiting from the suffering of one person, but the majority of people benefiting.

>>6778462
either he's a troll, or a moron who thinks the peeny-weeny feel-good of 5 people is even remotely comparable to the suffering of being raped, or that somehow the only way people can ever have fun is at the expense of others

>>6771778
The happiness they're experiencing isn't really genuine because they don't experience any adversity, that's what you have to understand. It's yin without yang. If the pleasure was immersive as you think it is Bernard wouldn't be such a little bitch.

>>6778504
>The happiness they're experiencing is a SPOOK because they don't experience any SPOOKS, that's what you have to understand. It's SPOOKS without yang SPOOKS. If the Huxley wasn't so SPOOKED, Bernard wouldn't be so SPOOKED.

Ftfy

btw this is memeposting but its dead serious too

>>6778513
Get @ Horace

>>6778484
>a moron who thinks the peeny-weeny feel-good of 5 people is even remotely comparable to the suffering of being raped

Oh, fuck off with your cultural moral bias, faggot. The so-called suffering is mainly superimposed by the shackles of semantics. The physical pain that may be felt during a rape is probably less than a typical fight outside bar, yet you don't see guys in therapy seven years later saying "I just can't get over the fact that the drunken guy planted his knuckles in my face outside that Irish bar." The reason "rape victims" are is because we are conditioned to react to the event of rape in a certain way. In cultures and older civilizations with a vastly different semantic framework describing the event of 'rape', the reaction is completely different. The girl (or boy, as is currently common practice in the Massai tribe) would dust themselves off afterwards and go about their day, free from the cultural baggage and shame attached to them.

As to the other guys question, it's also semantics. You can construct a framework in which 5 people getting pleasure from the suffering of one is tagged as "good", just as easily as one where it's "bad". Within the framework of utilitarianism, as you brought it up, it would seem to maximize utility in the short term.

>>6778557
I never brought up utilitarianism, the rape-guy was the one who brought it up

and in any case, utility can be maximised by those guys masturbating instead. Regardless of the actual suffering caused by rape, it's pain that is entirely unnecessary.

>>6771553
that's why they did away with introspection, and separated the introspective from the "control group"

Keeping John around was a mistake on the director's part, but fortunately everything went right anyway somehow.

>>6778584
>I never brought up utilitarianism, the rape-guy was the one who brought it up
Hence: "As to the other guys question..."

>and in any case, utility can be maximised by those guys masturbating instead.
Precisely why I said 'short term'. Long term, in a hypothetical scenario where there are only 6 people, five of which male, it could be highly beneficial for every male to mate with the female. After all, rape of that nature and female promiscuity has been crucial for our ancestral survival, as it still is among certain primate species.

"Many examples of rampant ritualized group sex, gang rape, mate-swapping, unrestrained casual affairs, and socially sanctioned sequential sex are all reported in cultures that anthropologists insist are monogamous simply because they've determined that something they call "marriage" takes place there. Just look at the females of our closest cousins. Primatologists say that female primates are highly attracted to novelty in mating. Unfamiliar males appear to attract females more than known males with any other characteristic a male might offer (high status, large size, coloration, frequent grooming, hairy chest, gold chains, pinky ring, whatever). The only consistent interest seen among the general primate population is an interest in novelty and wide variety.

And why is this? Because multiple sexual partners, forced or not, ensures that none of the males know which of them is the father, and the offspring is not in danger from a jealous rival male.

>It's pain that is entirely unnecessary.
As illustrated above, it is necessary. To pursue the original 'maximization of overall happiness', suppose the five guys love the pain they cause, and their collective sadistic urge is greater than the alleged pain felt by the girl? Or by the other token, what if they are all very gentle and the girl experiences very little physical discomfort, may even find the unconsensual acts pleasurable?

In a world where it's absolutely normal for men to just take women whenever they want, why would women find discomfort in it? Isn't it a utopia? :^)

>>6778677
No, it's 'necessary' within the confines of an absurdly specific hypothetical scenario utterly devoid from the context of the scenario and much like
>>6778462
I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish. That rape trauma is cultural and some cultures rape a lot? Congratulations, you're right and irrelevant.

Rape only came up because one moron thought Elites controlling the populace by MAKING them happy was bad in the same way rape is bad because it involved the oppression of the individual will, and they presumably brought up rape because they wanted to #trigger the tumblr boogeyman that pursues them through their nightmares

I said no, rapes bad(in the sense of people don't like it, not objective morality) because it causes pain, and the elite control is not bad because people like it.

then you and someone else brought up utilitarianism and then you said 'well what if the rape isn't really hurting people or is making people happy' and I have no idea why you did that.

let's replace rape with 'Human sacrifice.' Yes it could make people happy, or sad, or whatever, based on their conditioning, and make more people happy than sad to satisfy utilitarianism but personally I don't know why the fuck you're bringing it up unless you're trying to argue that it's 'better' to condition people to take pleasure in destructive actions, which seems too retarded even for 4chan.

But again, why?

>>6778743
why not just nuke the world and replace all humans with drugged-up hamsters so everyone is happy all of the time

>>6778743
it's incredible how badly your brain functions.

>>6778753
That's a good idea anon :) It would be the perfect utopia!

>>6771050
I read this book at 16 and said the exact same thing. I would still say the same thing now.

inb4 ur still 16

>>6771050
Thread theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgaL1MB8EjM

>>6778743
>I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish.
Mainly this:
>Congratulations, you're right
which I thank you for.

>I said no, rapes bad(in the sense of people don't like it, not objective morality) because it causes pain, and the elite control is not bad because people like it.
>unless you're trying to argue that it's 'better' to condition people to take pleasure in destructive actions, which seems too retarded even for 4chan.
Now you have me confused. You maintain "elite control is not bad because people like it" while arguing against conditioned responses to actions, by hinging on "destructive actions." It's pretty easy to expose "destructive-ness" as a linguistic concept as opposed to an essence and pull it back into the conditioning framework. You conceded that rape trauma is cultural, but seem oblivious to the fact that 'people liking things' and even 'people considering certain actions as destructive' is a result of the same cultural conditioning, or adoption of a particular semantic worldview. Your stance is contradictory.

>>6778753
In case you don't know, that's actually a critique of Negative Utilitarianism(minimizing suffering) called the Abhorrent Conclusion. No life=no pain

The Abhorrent conclusion of positive Utilitarianism(maximising pleasure) is go for the quantity over quality approach and breed untold hordes of people while keeping them just happy enough to keep breeding and not kill themselves.

>>6778885
My method both minimizes suffering and maximizes the thing some call happiness, because the hamsters are really, really happy.

>>6778885
The two seem to overlap a bit in BNW. You can start to wonder if the people in the world state can even be called humans anymore. Brainwashed, decanted, chemically stunted slaves, bred in factories to meet a quota of workers.

>>6778864
>while arguing against conditioned responses to actions
>your stance is contradictory

No, you're misinterpreting what I implied by 'destructive.' I'm not arguing against conditioned responses determining whether people like things or not- that's for the most part true.

Let's use a less linguistic term than destructiveness. 'Entropy.' That's just physics. Life itself is a (doomed)struggle against succumbing to entropy. If you condition favorably towards entropy, that's irrational- you're trying to make people like something that brings them closer to not existing and thus being unable to like anything at all. And that's not the stated goal of the Brave New World.

Rape is more entropic compared to consensual sex. If one party is resisting, physical damage can occur. So I'm against rape being conditioned for because it's an inefficient, irrational choice for our Brave New World conditioning program, when we could condition for masturbation or everyone always consenting instead. So it's a matter of what is rational within this prescribed goal of 'condition people to be happy in Brave New World" than a utilitarian weighing pain vs pleasure thing.

So as I understand it, you were arguing for rape because you were trying to expose a perceived hole in my logic, but you were being all oblique and Socratic Method so I had no idea where you were coming from, so I wasn't able to address the perceived hole, and thus we ran in circles needlessly.

>>6778366
>it's good because you're so convinced you'll go to heaven you can't even imagine why it's bad
all history is made of the powerful exploiting the powerless. BNW pictured a society that was self-empowered, where industry and reproduction had total transparency and no corruption. You think that having drugs that makes them happy proves there's something wrong with the system?
>because i personally don't like these things about it
I don't think that rape and murder are objectively terrible, BECAUSE I personally don't like them, simpleton, they are objectively terrible by their own nature, my opinion doesn't even factor into it.
>>6778432
Oh a coherent thought like 'my picture is 2deep4u' and 'ur picture isn't as smart as me' like you do? I'm amazed that you're still grasping at the straws of pretending you're TOO intelligent for me. You know how you could convince me? By actually addressing any of the coherent points I've been making. Please?
Or is it just that, if a sentence is too long or a thought is more complicated than an advice animal meme, or a picture, it's not worth you thinking about? Holy shit, I see why you don't like BNW, Huxley must have hit too close to home. You have all the negative qualities of the brainwashed slaves you're so convinced you aren't.
>>6778436
check
>>6778444
>>6778458

>>6778441
Honestly, if I was born into that system and never knew anything else, and had all my needs provided for, and was kept entertained, and had a social life, AND was constantly high? I think that'd be a better life than at least half the human population already have.
>>6778455
what the
wow
oh wow all of my merciful tits
are you actually trying to argue that rape is a good thing? I'm just asking because it really looks like you're trying to argue that rape is a good thing. And rape is like drinking alcohol? Because some people don't like alcohol, which makes it like rape? Your awful, inhumane ideology is circling the bowl like the turd it is.
>>6778471
I agree. The model would only work if it was self-controlled by a population of intelligent, ethical, well-educated and hard-working citizens. Making it like people are cogs in a machine that occasionally need replacing would be great for two, maybe three thousand years. I'm talking about something that will have front-row seats when the sun burns out.
>>6778474
I hate to make assumptions but I think you're one of the smarter people here
>>6778481
pretty good analogy. Five men oppressing one woman works great for the majority, just like most societies have a bottom-class that do menial work that benefits the majority. Are the poorest not worth helping, since they're only 1/6th of all people?

>shit ending

literally the most irrelevant criticism only an ultra pleb would make. you should expect a lot of this when you're reading the classics

>>6778504

>>6778504
>genuine happiness
"I don't care if you think you're happy! The laughing and cheering and friendship are meaningless, I know you're REALLY unhappy!" You sound like a bible thumper.
>yin without yang
I completely agree. Both genetic, geographic, ideological and mental diversity will be vital for such a system to flourish.
>Bernard wouldn't be such a little bitch
you realize the book is fiction
>>6778557
0_0
I'll kindly ask you to leave. pic related.
>>6778584
I love a win-win solution! Now you're thinking with portals!
>>6778659
yes, non-introspective people was a flaw worth correcting.
>>6778677
that is some damn interesting anthropology. Sauce?
>>6778733
...well there's an idea. I wonder how much discomfort is socially inclined, and could be removed in a culture without stigma?
>>6778743
I want to be your friend and ally
>>6778753
You think that'd be worse than the world as it is?
>>6778885
Neat! I learned something today!

why?

>>6779397
>You think that'd be worse than the world as it is?
not that anon but... yes, significantly

>>6780341
Sorry, let me rephrase that- do you think dropping the bomb and ending humanity would be BETTER than some alternative? Shit like, aliens arrive and they think humans are delicious and they start breeding them as animal stock to be sold as meat to fast-food joints, seven billion locations across the galaxy. With alien advanced tech, hundreds of billions of humans are kept in conditions like battery farms, or stray animals. Yeah, nah, I wanna be a stoned space hamster. I like your jibe, sir, and I wanna thank you for giving me the title track of my next album.

>>6771213
Utopia in its purest sense is a society free of suffering.

>>6782593
suffering is subjective.

>>6782723
Yes, as in determined by the suffering of a given subject. A nation is made of many subjects, each with a view of what suffering is. The goal would be a society whose subjects are free of their version of suffering.