Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

orwell.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 273 posts

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

#61

Post by irrational »

projektir wrote: post #24

I never liked the formulation that utopia is not worth it because people lack the creativity to imagine what could be done for fun in it. It's like we've never tried but hey here's an explanation as to why you shouldn't want it! It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have, because that's simply how…

>Utopia is about letting people live in a manner that they would want, not in the manner, currently, prescribed by the law.

This is so unrealistic. If the manner I want to live is hunting and killing other people for sport, but the only thing restraining me right now is the law (such an inconvenient thing is the law), then most people would say laws are preferable to utopia. Even with laws people do crazy hurtful things, I can't even imagine what things would be like if there were not laws and the threat of punishment.

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

#62

Post by 0x2a »

stcredzero wrote: post #48
projektir wrote: post #24

I never liked the formulation that utopia is not worth it because people lack the creativity to imagine what could be done for fun in it. It's like we've never tried but hey here's an explanation as to why you shouldn't want it! It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have, because that's simply how…

It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have The psychological research suggests that this is how people are wired up. Just as we're wired up to consume fat and sugar whenever we come across it, we're basically wired up to start marauding our neighbors if they're way richer than we are. https://www.y…

Do you have a source aside from Jordan Peterson?

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

#63

Post by jokoon »

n4r9 wrote: post #41
projektir wrote: post #24

I never liked the formulation that utopia is not worth it because people lack the creativity to imagine what could be done for fun in it. It's like we've never tried but hey here's an explanation as to why you shouldn't want it! It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have, because that's simply how…

> Utopia is about letting people live in a manner that they would want One of the lessons I learnt from Huxley's Brave New World is that this phrasing is very ambiguous and the meaning of utopia is more complicated, if the word is indeed meaningful. The people in BNW live in the manner that they desire, but not many would call it a utopia. Sure, those desires themselves are the result of genetic and environmental con…

> some element of struggle and overcoming of adversity is necessary for human flourishing

This sounds like "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" or "no pain no gain".

I know there needs to be work to make things better, and to come up with solutions that will always incur adaptation, but I don't see how it necessarily involves struggle and difficulty.

Difficulty is not the goal, but we should not stop at difficulty if the result is worth it.

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

#64

Post by umvi »

saagarjha wrote: post #11
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #7

Judging by the list of "Ignorance, war, poverty, dirt, disease, frustration, hunger, fear, overwork, superstition all vanished." it seems many of us are living in a utopia yet we still aren't satisfied.

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

I think GP's point was that measuring utopianess is difficult because it's all relative (like poverty or torture).

In other words, you can't measure it directly. For example, if you went to the future and noted a person owned a flying car, had infinite food and a huge castle would you be able to measure the poverty level of that person? No - it depends on how much his peers have. If his peers own spaceships and planets, then he is rather poor by comparison.

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

#65

Post by stcredzero »

0x2a wrote: post #62
stcredzero wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have The psychological research suggests that this is how people are wired up. Just as we're wired up to consume fat and sugar whenever we come across it, we're basically wired up to start marauding our neighbors if they're way richer than we are. https://www.y…

Do you have a source aside from Jordan Peterson?

Look up his. He's a widely cited psychological researcher, and regarded as an authority by other researchers. His lectures like this one are based on specific research.

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

#66

Post by badcede »

daodedickinson wrote: post #37
apo wrote: 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.

Almost nothing from 50 years ago is even remembered, let alone still read, let alone as fresh as Orwell. You make the same point by giving him Aristophanes for company.

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

#67

Post by umvi »

saagarjha wrote: post #30
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t disagree that it’s getting better, but it’s disingenuous to suggest that there aren’t still problems in the world that should be solved.

> but it’s disingenuous to suggest that there aren’t still problems in the world that should be solved

I don't think anyone's arguing this. I think the argument is that we don't realize how good we have it since Orwell's time. What he described is many people's (especially on HN's) effective reality.

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

#68

Post by nradov »

eezurr wrote: post #53

Note: I am responding to comments here, haven't read the article yet. Utopia is not possible because the desires and wants of millions of people (focusing on a country) don't overlap with everyone else's 100%, or sometimes not at all. We also don't live long enough to truly appreciate what we have today, as I'm sure people from hundreds of years ago would think today's society is a utopia: (basically) infinite potabl…

That's pretty close to some schools of Buddhist philosophy.

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

#70

Post by stcredzero »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #52
projektir wrote: post #24

I never liked the formulation that utopia is not worth it because people lack the creativity to imagine what could be done for fun in it. It's like we've never tried but hey here's an explanation as to why you shouldn't want it! It should really not be a surprise that imagination is lacking here because for a lot of people, happiness is just defined as having things other people don't have, because that's simply how…

I've always thought of Utopia being peace insofar as a society that cannot harm an individual, and cannot allow individuals to harm other individuals, which I suppose aligns pretty closely to Orwell's notion of "brotherhood". Such simple principles would solve the issues of: * racism * homophobia * moral indignation * xenophobia * extreme economic disparity, such that those with means are actively holding down or hol…

moral indignation

What if the vast majority of society wants to harm the individual, saying that, "you can't tolerate the intolerant?" In recent years, that seems to me to be a doublethink way of justifying intolerance in the name of intolerance.

extreme economic disparity, such that those with means are actively holding down or holding back those without

Reality is rarely black and white, 0 or 1. Very often, people using some unfair non-meritocratic means to preserve their position are also creating more wealth. Also, exactly what constitutes "unfair non-meritocratic means" is often up for debate.

The human race is flawed enough as it is. We don't need manifest disagreements spawned by religion or dogma, for instance, to fuel the flames.

Angry adherence to dogma is a kind of human flaw! It seems that almost anyone can convince themselves they're fighting for a good cause, as they are oppressing or even murdering people. The most used emotional-descriptive word used during the Nuremberg rallies was, "Love." If you want to judge intolerance, don't pay attention to the dogma. Note who is hating whom, and who is using violence on whom.

Post reply on HN