wyattstorch42

I love how the nature of this topic has completely transitioned to Hemingway, save you and me. It is quite amusing. I've never finished a Hemingway novel myself.... As I've reiterated, Orwell obviously did not completely define his ideas. I think that, like many who haven't read or understood Rand, he probably believed that capitalism leads to a class-based system. He defines capitalists in the book through the "history books" released by the Party--men who had whatever they wanted and manipulated the working class to their advantage: greedy, corrupt, blah blah blah. Capitalism is nearly always criticized, and Orwell probably took such a notion that laissez-faire leads to oligarchy for granted. I'll be going to ASU (Arizona State) to major in Computer Science and minor in Business. I'd like to start a software engineering business someday. I also would love to teach.

Matt: Now that highlighted statement causes me to ask for you to "flesh out" you perception. I see some similarities in terms of being anti state, but I want to hear more. Out of curiosity, what do you do to support the state? Worker slave? or Student slave in training? Adam Um, I read your comment a few times wondering if you were being hatefully sarcastic to me. I am now going to assume you're not. Speaking from a metaphysical or epistemological level, the Party continually denies the existence of a concrete reality. For example, O'Brien "proves" that, once the photograph of the leading Party members who were later considered traitors and executed is destroyed, it had never existed. Anything only exists as long as it is remembered. History can not only be rewritten, but actually altered, because the Party controls reality collectively. Winston is confident that the Party is NOT all-powerful and that, unlike as O'Brien claims, O'Brien cannot simply supersede the law of gravity and start levitating if the Party collectively wished it. Winston believes that "A is A" and reality is objectively independent of the State. O'Brien believes that man invented the Universe in his mind and that, once the mind becomes slave to the Party, the Party controls any aspect of the Universe as it sees fit. The real question is, since the Party ultimately triumphs over Winston, is Orwell attempting to stand by some kind of sick, twisted reasoning, or is he just depicting for us the consequences of complete totalitarianism? I would choose the former, but maybe I'm just an optimist. In any case, he believes in Objective reality and in individualism, he just didn't take the final step to rational self-interest and continues in the direction of socialism. I'm a public (gasp! but I do pay for it either way, so I might as well) high school senior and full-time warehouse worker, so I guess both. To some extent I agree with you. Orwell argued that irrationalism/anti-realism, social metaphysics/consensus reality, and altruism of the Comtean variety ("Obliteration of the Self") were all core ingredients to Totalitarianism. He also argued that totalitarian invocation of moralities like "concern for the sufferring" etc etc. were merely rationalizations for much darker motives. In all cases he shares this with Rand. Orwell was a Democratic Socialist (or Fabian Socialist). He argued for the peaceful use of democratic politics to advance State Socialism. Otherwise I see quite little on which Rand and Orwell disagree. Read O'Brien's speech and tell me it doesn't sound creepily like Ellsworth Toohey's. It does, doesn't it? Only I find O'Brien more fascinating than Toohey. I really do think that Orwell is a fantastic narrator; Rand just has much more well-rounded, complete ideas.

"WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH." (The three party slogans that are so blatantly hypocritical I cringe every time I read them with some kind of morbid fascination.)' - "Whether he went on with the diary, or whether he did not go on with it, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed — would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper — the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever." (Reminds me of Anthem in many respects, "It is a sin to write this" being the opening lines. Winston opens a diary, which is a similar situation.) - "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." (Always an interesting take on the Party's complete and utter subjectivism.) - "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." (Except the Party defeats logic in a horrific way.) - "The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc." (As always, evil is anti-human; therefore, anti-reason.) - "There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad." "Sanity is not statistical." (I love that last one. No matter how many people deny that two and two make five, they always do.) - "'The command of the old despotisms was Thou Shalt Not. The command of the totalitarians was Thou Shalt. Our command is Thou Art.'" (Gives me the creeps. What if the Party could actually get in anyone's head? There's a point where anyone breaks, even John Galt... OK, maybe not John Galt.) - "'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.'" (Reminds me much of power-hungry Ellsworth Toohey.) - "'Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.'" (Again, so creepy to think that the object of evil is simple destruction of productivity and individual thinking.) - "To die hating them, that was freedom." (Jeez, hate to point out the totally depressing ending.) I feel like this book is often discredited because Orwell was actually a socialist. If you look beyond that at the simple messages of the book, at a fundamental level he is just a misguided Objectivist. Of course, a much less uplifting book, but much more psychological and disturbing. And to be perfectly honest, I think Orwell is a superior writer to Rand in conveying a more thematic environment and deeper characters. Then again, as always, Rand is a Romantic, so her characters are perfect and on-the-surface, whereas Winston and Julia are dismal and inevitably fall to the all-powerful Party and ruthless O'Brien, who fascinates me the most.

Thanks everybody. I am a student--a high school senior. I also work at a warehouse. I hear a lot of people complain about how hard they work for how little they get paid. I spare them the truth--I have only worked there a year and a half and my wage is higher than most of my friends--because I tend to work harder. My boss prints out a sheet of "productivity" for us box packers--total number of boxes, shipment gross weight, number of orders filled, etc. I'm always on top by a lot. So the pay isn't totally amazing, but, if I were the boss, I wouldn't change a thing. Manual labor isn't worth the same as intellectual labor--it doesn't accomplish as much, and so it doesn't deserve as much. A laborer is replaceable--anyone can labor. But I aspire, of course, for more. I intend to go to Arizona State University and obtain a Bachelor's, majoring in computer science and minoring in business. No philosophy for me. So yeah. I'm in Arizona, USA. NO, I DON'T ENDORSE SHERIFF JOE. At least Hitler knew how to make a good public image. Again, thanks. And trust me--I'm pretty stubborn, so even if I suck at debate and I don't have a comeback, you probably haven't convinced me yet!

Hello. I'm Matt. The first thing you should know about me is that I'm not very good with introductions. Um. So. When I was in eighth grade, I read George Orwell's 1984 and saw the fallacies of socialism for the first time. My family is very Democratic (in terms of the party) and leaning socialist, so I guess that whole political socialization thing worked on me--it was very difficult for me to make a transition. Even after I finished 1984, I figured that it didn't prove anything--that something like that would never happen, that everything would be fine because government has good intentions. And, after all, the "people's" best interests in that book weren't being upheld. It wasn't socialism! I thought. So I promptly forgot about Mr. Orwell's novel and continued about my life. It wasn't until the last quarter of my sophomore year of high school that I picked up the earmarked copy of Atlas Shrugged at the school library. Oddly enough, I had decided to read it because it had served as the inspiration for the video game BioShock, which I thought was intriguing and cool. In a way, BioShock is a critique--it is the "Atlantis" of Atlas gone wrong. At the same time, I think it was derived out of appreciation for Miss Rand. Maybe I'm just an optimist. So I became obsessed with the book for reasons unknown to me. I neglected homework; I neglected sleep; I neglected meals. I would sit through entire classes, craning my neck to read under the desk; many times teachers yelled at me for texting in my lap. It took me four days, I guess. Then it took about eight months to absorb the concept. I would come to terms with parts of it at a time, then disagree with others. For example, coming from a devoutly Catholic family, I denounced her Atheism as irrational. Of course, stupid people love to call things irrational when they don't want to adjust to new information. I will openly admit my conservatism. Even now, about two years later, I still have some points to argue. Which is why I came here. I'm probably poor at debate, so try not to make me cry when I make a point with a sucky argument. I just want new insight, different perspectives, maybe somebody to explain to me in terms that I can understand why I'm wrong. But I won't go into that right now, since this is just the intro post. Anyway, hi! I like Objectivism! Yay! --Matt