This is a wonderful selection of quotes. Thank you!
They resonate for me, as I have been reflecting on the dominance of prevailing conventional wisdom. It seems that evolution has equipped human brains with the capacity to identify sources of authority, in the sphere of belief systems no less than in that of social power. Consequently, most people develop representations of epistemic authority, or reliable guides to what one should believe, early in childhood and continue to rely on those models throughout their lives. Very few people can even identify, much less question, their fundamental assumptions.
It seems that the normal way people distinguish between fact and falsehood is by deferring to the epistemic authorities to which they have delegated authorship of their primary beliefs. In other words, it's virtually impossible for most people to think for themselves.
Typically, a cardinal rule established by those who think within genuinely original frames of reference is that people should think for themselves. Naturally, this precept becomes assimilated along with the epistemic authority granted to the originators of influential doctrines, so the followers become convinced that, having successfully internalized the ideas of their intellectual leaders, they too have become original thinkers.
Awash in self-appointed experts, intelligent people have generally come to confuse the ability to select from among a multitude of opinions with the ability to critically analyze arguments and build a framework of first principles by which to distinguish between sense and nonsense.
An emperor with no clothes, masquerading as appareled by reason, thus rules the realm of foundational beliefs entrenched within most modern and enlightened minds. Enthroned at the root of each mind's hierarchy of accepted precepts sits a naked emperor shrouded in the garb of credulity, which always stylishly imitates the haut couture designs fashioned by prevailing purveyors of epistemic authority.
“Are there aspects of human nature that make some people more susceptible to accepting or even desiring authoritarian rule?”
Some people are terrified of, even paralyzed by, uncertainty. Uncertainty of the state of a situation or its outcome can drive people to accept authoritarianism when the “authority” promises certainty of a situation or an outcome. Such as, “This thing *is* bad, and I’m the only one who can fight it.” This seems to me to be a textbook example of the circumstances under which people might willingly accept authoritarianism
Conservatism contributes to social stability and cohesion by seeking to 'conserve' the institutions, beliefs and mores that have served society well for long enough to prove their worth. It values not only tradition and legacy, but that which can be and has been added or built upon tradition. It does not seek to replace or tear down the touchstones and frameworks for living a life. At the same time, it allows for change, in the creative, not destructive sense. Like anything built and requiring maintenance, however, it can become ossified and sclerotic, creating a tyranny in which the traditions no longer serve society, rather society serves the traditions. That's where conservatism can fail.
One can admire Orwell's work and thought whilst still remembering the context of the man in his times and the constraints and influences he was subject to as a result. Great thinkers and their thoughts can be useful but must be tempered with an acknowledgement of the changed context of the present day. There may be universal truths of ages but IMHO we havent yet identified them. If humans are anything they are adaptable.
Thank you for all the interesting and thought provoking work that you post here.
I have often questioned Orwell’s work and over many years my understanding and / or appreciation, or lack thereof, has waxed and waned. However, what might be interesting for some who read Orwell would be to read this book called Wifedom by Anna Funder link https://www.annafunder.com/wifedom/. Anna explains her reasons for writing this and her other books on this podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/es/podcast/always-take-notes/id1224996246 and talks about her research and discoveries which certainly doesn’t put Orwell in a well respected light in my opinion.
I hated the first quote. What kind of love and community is so violent as to force an individual to be something against their will more forcibly than the society we already have.
Here's how I understand the quote. He is contrasting impersonal 'law' with the kind of compulsion that can be created on the more personal, social level. The former constitutes 'the rule of law', equal for everybody, while the latter is arbitrary, and at worst, is governed by the whims of a dominant social group that demands conformity on pain of ostracism without recourse. Thus we become victims of our natural need to belong and become less free than when we are subject to broader, more consistent rules that don't punish you for merely personal reasons. Depending on the society, the 'law' tolerates a much wider range of behaviour and opinion, ie. 'eccentricity' than a powerful social group might.
I think I agree with the point but at the same time I’m not that optimistic about the rule of law. Where I’m from the rule of law isn’t particularly free and open. Your mileage may differ I guess.
Yes, well it’s definitely under threat in the west where it’s been valued more than most anywhere else in the world. It’s a principle hard won over centuries, that we could lose very quickly if we are not careful.
I could be wrong but I think he was referring to people’s willingness to simply ‘fall in line’ due to pressure created by their own psyche in response to a society set up supposedly to promote ‘love & equity’. I would argue we are seeing the results of this today as we get certain things, certain ideologies, certain “marginalized” groups shoved down our throats… in the name of ‘love & equity’ of course.
I’m not or never have been religious, nor do I claim to be very familiar with scripture, but even I can see the irony in having a rainbow flag at the entrance to a church… within a religion with a figurehead that warned against the worship of false gods or idols.
So again, I ‘think’ he was talking about people’s own susceptibility’s to going along with the narrative…. Weakness of mind rather than societys use of violence would be the way I would put it.
Thank you! You have activated the thinking mode. 🤔
Francyne, the thinking mode?
Self-evaluation
Of course.
This is a wonderful selection of quotes. Thank you!
They resonate for me, as I have been reflecting on the dominance of prevailing conventional wisdom. It seems that evolution has equipped human brains with the capacity to identify sources of authority, in the sphere of belief systems no less than in that of social power. Consequently, most people develop representations of epistemic authority, or reliable guides to what one should believe, early in childhood and continue to rely on those models throughout their lives. Very few people can even identify, much less question, their fundamental assumptions.
It seems that the normal way people distinguish between fact and falsehood is by deferring to the epistemic authorities to which they have delegated authorship of their primary beliefs. In other words, it's virtually impossible for most people to think for themselves.
Typically, a cardinal rule established by those who think within genuinely original frames of reference is that people should think for themselves. Naturally, this precept becomes assimilated along with the epistemic authority granted to the originators of influential doctrines, so the followers become convinced that, having successfully internalized the ideas of their intellectual leaders, they too have become original thinkers.
Awash in self-appointed experts, intelligent people have generally come to confuse the ability to select from among a multitude of opinions with the ability to critically analyze arguments and build a framework of first principles by which to distinguish between sense and nonsense.
An emperor with no clothes, masquerading as appareled by reason, thus rules the realm of foundational beliefs entrenched within most modern and enlightened minds. Enthroned at the root of each mind's hierarchy of accepted precepts sits a naked emperor shrouded in the garb of credulity, which always stylishly imitates the haut couture designs fashioned by prevailing purveyors of epistemic authority.
“Are there aspects of human nature that make some people more susceptible to accepting or even desiring authoritarian rule?”
Some people are terrified of, even paralyzed by, uncertainty. Uncertainty of the state of a situation or its outcome can drive people to accept authoritarianism when the “authority” promises certainty of a situation or an outcome. Such as, “This thing *is* bad, and I’m the only one who can fight it.” This seems to me to be a textbook example of the circumstances under which people might willingly accept authoritarianism
Conservatism contributes to social stability and cohesion by seeking to 'conserve' the institutions, beliefs and mores that have served society well for long enough to prove their worth. It values not only tradition and legacy, but that which can be and has been added or built upon tradition. It does not seek to replace or tear down the touchstones and frameworks for living a life. At the same time, it allows for change, in the creative, not destructive sense. Like anything built and requiring maintenance, however, it can become ossified and sclerotic, creating a tyranny in which the traditions no longer serve society, rather society serves the traditions. That's where conservatism can fail.
“Is there a moral or ethical dimension to luck—do people "deserve" their luck, good or bad?“
Oh, the ease of ascribing it all to the work of The Fates.
One can admire Orwell's work and thought whilst still remembering the context of the man in his times and the constraints and influences he was subject to as a result. Great thinkers and their thoughts can be useful but must be tempered with an acknowledgement of the changed context of the present day. There may be universal truths of ages but IMHO we havent yet identified them. If humans are anything they are adaptable.
Thank you for all the interesting and thought provoking work that you post here.
I have often questioned Orwell’s work and over many years my understanding and / or appreciation, or lack thereof, has waxed and waned. However, what might be interesting for some who read Orwell would be to read this book called Wifedom by Anna Funder link https://www.annafunder.com/wifedom/. Anna explains her reasons for writing this and her other books on this podcast https://podcasts.apple.com/es/podcast/always-take-notes/id1224996246 and talks about her research and discoveries which certainly doesn’t put Orwell in a well respected light in my opinion.
I hated the first quote. What kind of love and community is so violent as to force an individual to be something against their will more forcibly than the society we already have.
Here's how I understand the quote. He is contrasting impersonal 'law' with the kind of compulsion that can be created on the more personal, social level. The former constitutes 'the rule of law', equal for everybody, while the latter is arbitrary, and at worst, is governed by the whims of a dominant social group that demands conformity on pain of ostracism without recourse. Thus we become victims of our natural need to belong and become less free than when we are subject to broader, more consistent rules that don't punish you for merely personal reasons. Depending on the society, the 'law' tolerates a much wider range of behaviour and opinion, ie. 'eccentricity' than a powerful social group might.
I got it now. Thanks for your answer.
I think I agree with the point but at the same time I’m not that optimistic about the rule of law. Where I’m from the rule of law isn’t particularly free and open. Your mileage may differ I guess.
Yes, well it’s definitely under threat in the west where it’s been valued more than most anywhere else in the world. It’s a principle hard won over centuries, that we could lose very quickly if we are not careful.
I could be wrong but I think he was referring to people’s willingness to simply ‘fall in line’ due to pressure created by their own psyche in response to a society set up supposedly to promote ‘love & equity’. I would argue we are seeing the results of this today as we get certain things, certain ideologies, certain “marginalized” groups shoved down our throats… in the name of ‘love & equity’ of course.
I’m not or never have been religious, nor do I claim to be very familiar with scripture, but even I can see the irony in having a rainbow flag at the entrance to a church… within a religion with a figurehead that warned against the worship of false gods or idols.
So again, I ‘think’ he was talking about people’s own susceptibility’s to going along with the narrative…. Weakness of mind rather than societys use of violence would be the way I would put it.