I greatly enjoyed the Huxley excerpt on an emotional level, because unlike Pinker's work where I found myself morally opposed unable to get overcome his arrogance as he destroys religion, politics, and culture all within a few paragraphs, Huxley's piece only alludes to his opinion and interpretation of the human condition. The central question raised by Mustapha Mond, 'do you want to suffer?' To suffer is to be human, when void of all pain, as in the presented utopia, people cease to be people reduced to a mere robotic state, forever to go through the motions of life. In this world happiness is tantamount to fulfilled necessities, "they're well off; they're safe; they're never ill; they're plagued with no mother or fathers; they've got no wives of lovers to feel strongly about..." But in reality i feel in order to experience true happiness one must first experience suffering, for how is one to feel the trueness of any emotion without its counterpart as well? Yet perhaps i am mistaken for according to Mustapha Mond, "happiness is never grand."
This fabricated happiness parallels the world presented in the Matrix, where individuals are living in a state of delusion, and in both a reluctant hero emerges, unable to accept reality. Neo and John the Savage, both make a choice, they to choose to suffer and in doing so accept the entire human condition, to experience beauty and pain, to love and to suffer. For Neo this choice is represented in taking a pill, for the Savage it is Shakespeare. A pill, medicine representative of science paradoxically collides with Shakespeare the embodiment of humanities as the two men embrace the same conclusion.
The role of science in both is worth examination, for rather than being an illuminating force revealing truth, science as technology is used to mask reality. The matrix itself is comparable to "soma" both devices seek to disrupt the human condition by eliminating pain and with pain knowledge of beauty, "it hasn't been very good for truth of course. But its been very good for happiness."
My final comparison to be drawn is that of the role of knowledge. In both works knowledge is synonymous with power, for with the knowledge comes the ability to create a new reality. A fairly Latour-ish concept creating a reality, but bear with me. For Neo the ability to wake others from the matrix, thus creating their reality, is a direct result of his own knowledge that they're current state of existence is one generated by artificial means. Likewise, John the Savage is able to create reality as he embraces beauty in-lou of happiness.
I found the Huxley excerpt very intriguing too—after finishing it, I decided I actually do want to read the whole book (when I have time, that is…). Anyway, I find the conflict between the Savage and the other men in the passage very interesting, since the preference of living or not living under the circumstances of this scientifically fabricated utopia comes down to whether or not you agree with the ideas of quantitative utilitarianism. That is, if you believe the ultimate goal of humanity and human life is to accumulate as much pleasure as possible. Whether it’s individual pleasure or that of a greater community is up for debate, but the general principle is the more, the better. Basically a cost-benefit analysis of pleasure versus pain. I personally don’t think this would be any way to live; what would happen to any kind of innovation or development if everyone became complacent with and accepting of live the way it is? Besides the fact that at least some level of struggle and suffering is what makes us appreciate what do have when we have it. Kind of like how the summer is so much better after six months of freezing cold and snow. Maybe I think this because I’m a Minnesotan, but I’m with the Savage.
ReplyDeleteI am with the Savage as well. I think it is natural for many people to side with the Savage because it is more closely related to the way that we live now, inwhich science, art, love, passion, and free-will, are "accepted." I see it as being a more socialistic view, which is what I see our own society slowly turning into. When I think of Mond's views, I think of communism, which from past historical events has been looked down upon by many. It is hard to side with Mond's views when we really don't have any kind of reflection of this kind of society to look upon. We are rooted to what has developed us as humans, and Mond's views are abstract ideas hard to grasp.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Mond's society would never work. Yes, maybe it would be great to have every person be looked at equally and be content with life, but identity and diversity are what shape our world. If every person was taught the same thing in school- if there would even be schools- and nobody was able to 'think outside the box' or 'have an opionion,' nothing new would ever be discovered. Did the famous scientists that shape many of our scientific laws and theories today not step out of some sort of boundry in their time. Many of them were criticized or thrown in jail because their beliefs were out of the 'norm' for the society they lived in at that time. But how else would we have found out that it wasn't the earth revolving around the sun, but that planets revolved around the sun. Or how would segregation have been solved if Martin Luther King Jr didn't stand up against the 'norm' and fight for what he believed in? If all of these thinkers or nonconformists were simply thrown on an island, or into a lethal chamber, that oh-so-great society would never grow or develop.