Live data from Hacker News

Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

orwell.ru

31–40 of 273 posts

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#31
post #9

There's a fundamental conflict between conceptual Utopia/Heaven and the law of supply and demand. All literary conceptions of a utopia rely on abundance of some good that is scarce in the author's time. Usually ignoring that its ubiquity makes it tend toward zero value. Here's my stab at Utopia, but it requires a belief that Knowledge is infinite: Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen…

"Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen pace."

That's a very specific view of Utopia that I suggest most regular folk would not agree with, moreover, it's a bit odds with metaphysical kind of utopias from antiquity.

Knowledge is ultimately still material, not necessarily enlightening. It's part of the dualist 'trap' that keeps us focused on what's right in front of our noses, 'playing some game' engaged in materiality. To me, bits of knowledge are just bits of lego blocks, tools for helping us describe experience.

Remember in Abrahamic terms were 'cast out of Eden/Heaven' literally for eating from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil', i.e. the start of dualism and this never ending thirst for knowledge which distracts us from simply 'being'. You see this in eastern philosophies as well with 'attachment' to things, including knowledge.

But I do like your point about supply/demand perhaps (think of it especially in terms of social status, not material things especially) and constantly needing something, in your case, knowledge/learning. Neat thought.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#32
post #9

There's a fundamental conflict between conceptual Utopia/Heaven and the law of supply and demand. All literary conceptions of a utopia rely on abundance of some good that is scarce in the author's time. Usually ignoring that its ubiquity makes it tend toward zero value. Here's my stab at Utopia, but it requires a belief that Knowledge is infinite: Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen…

The U.S. founding fathers had another definition which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is very individualized. Suggests it is relevant to the one as opposed to relevant to the masses. Very anti-elitist on its own merit.

The “pursuit of happiness” is what is being discussed, given that “life” and “liberty” are already guaranteed. The question is, how exactly to pursue happiness.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#33
post #18

This article focuses on a utopia of worldy pleasures, and goes on to explain why such a place would be a pretty boring place to live. But that’s just human nature: we’re never permently satisfied with what we have. The only way that we feel happiness from these things is if we get more of whatever it is, and that’s kind of impossible in a utopia. However, I still think there’s a way to get satisfaction out of a world…

I would say through making. Making things gives life purpose, something to struggle against and triumph over. And you also get to learn. Learning for learning's sake doesn't give you the sense of purpose as learning in order to make something great .

> And you also get to learn.

I lumped making under the broad umbrella of “learning”.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you? Do you have no worries in the world?

If we take each of those issues: Ignorance - developed countries have never sent so many people to university. War - Is less common in recent history and the wars we do get involved have fewer casualties. I know people will raise Iraq but you only need to go back as far as Vietnam to find a conflict that was an order of magnitude worse. Poverty - Absolute poverty is very low in the developed world and decreasing else…

>Ignorance - developed countries have never sent so many people to university.

And yet, ignorance is still a significant problem in society, whether it be today's flavour of bigotry, a continued denial of the dangers of climate change, anti-vaxers, et cetera so on and so forth.

>War Less war is certainly not none, and the consequences of our current wars are hitting as close to home as they have in living memory. Terrorism, both domestic and foreign, are problems for real people.

>Poverty "Absolute" poverty maybe, but that doesn't mean that huge chunks of the western world aren't worrying about money constantly. Effective poverty is a tremendous issue.

Well, I could keep going, but I won't - suffice to say, all of those things are still issues. They may not all be the same, or even as bad in some "absolute" sense, but they're still relevant.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#35
post #26

This article focuses on a utopia of worldy pleasures, and goes on to explain why such a place would be a pretty boring place to live. But that’s just human nature: we’re never permently satisfied with what we have. The only way that we feel happiness from these things is if we get more of whatever it is, and that’s kind of impossible in a utopia. However, I still think there’s a way to get satisfaction out of a world…

Unless we radically alter the way the human brain works, there's no chance to "learn everything." We already know much more than any individual could learn in a lifetime.

Hey, it’s a utopia; maybe we do figure out a way to do this. I’m already heavily suggesting that we’ve figured out a solution to aging. And even if we don’t have this figured out, this necessarily a problem: we could just get pleasure out of relearning things.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#37
post #6

I'm always amazed at how readable and relevant Orwell remains. This essay is a good example. It would seem that human beings are not able to describe, nor perhaps to imagine, happiness except in terms of contrast. ... I wonder if this also works in reverse: humans are incapable of describing or imagining unhappiness except in terms of contrast. This reminds me of a line that goes something like: revolutions happen no…

Hmm... I guess I'm not amazed that something written less than 100 years ago seems relevant when Aristophanes is still hilarious.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#39
"This Christmas Day, thousands of men will be bleeding to death in the Russian snows, or drowning in icy waters, or blowing one another to pieces on swampy islands of the Pacific; homeless children will be scrabbling for food among the wreckage of German cities." - Should be some context for how completely alien the world of the writer is to us now.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#40
post #9

There's a fundamental conflict between conceptual Utopia/Heaven and the law of supply and demand. All literary conceptions of a utopia rely on abundance of some good that is scarce in the author's time. Usually ignoring that its ubiquity makes it tend toward zero value. Here's my stab at Utopia, but it requires a belief that Knowledge is infinite: Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen…

> Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen pace.

This is similar to an argument Oscar Wilde made in The Soul of Man under Socialism, although he frames it, as you might expect, around art and the artist.

I find it a little surprising that Wilde does not come up in Orwell's essay.

A pretty good summary of Wilde's case here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_Man_under_Socialis...

Post reply on HN