5 ms·

Not without its dangers. Doublethink: "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deli

Not without its dangers. Doublethink: "The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies[..]" 1984, George Orwell

brightball 11y ago
Opposed ideas doesn't necessarily mean conflicting ideas. For example, it's possible to appreciate that in the US people need some means of getting an education in order to get a job while at the same time realizing the demand for quality education far outstrips supply, which when paired with federal loans inflates the cost of education so much that it puts it farther out of reach for people. That's a problem with a solution that exacerbated the problem while trying to solve it. Processing both doesn't involve telling deliberate lies, it just means the solution is more complex than we'd like to admit.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. The issue with polarized politics is that it encourages one-mindedness. Instead of trying to understand where your political opponents are coming from, you are encouraged to reject them and their ideas as "the enemy". A very anti-intellectual "Us versus Them" mindset.
  - wolfgke 11y ago
    > To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. That is basic science. This is also why physicists still try to unify general relativity and quantum physics. So instead of accepting multiple ideas use your mind to 1. create predictions that each of the conflicting theses imply, such that the two theses will do different predictions, which if they can't be observed will convince you that the thesis was wrong. 2. develop an experiment with which you can observe these predictions 3. execute the experiment
    - aangjie 11y ago
      I don't know why your answer was downvoted. Your point is a sane approach to handling opposing/conflicting ideas. Though I didn't read the Original quote as accepting opposing/conflicting ideas.
      - mfoy_ 11y ago
        I believe it was originally down-voted for making the assumption that science could solve politics (we're talking opinions, not facts, so you cannot rigourously apply the scientific method). The comment also fell for the trap of falsely equating opposition with conflict. As a thought experiment, take the issue of abortion. GP is telling me that certainly either "Abortions should be allowed because of the mother's rights" or "Abortions should not be allowed because of the unborn child's rights" is WRONG. Tell me how anyone could possibly create an "experiment" which would result in a meaningful answer. How would you measure the morality and goodness of the event in a way that everyone could agree upon? Do you see the problem?
        wolfgke 11y ago
        > As a thought experiment, take the issue of abortion. GP is telling me that certainly either "Abortions should be allowed because of the mother's rights" or "Abortions should not be allowed because of the unborn child's rights" is WRONG. Tell me how anyone could possibly create an "experiment" which would result in a meaningful answer. How would you measure the morality and goodness of the event in a way that everyone could agree upon? Do you see the problem? The problem here is that biological and neurological research has a long way to go to resolve the question after what week of pregnancy what level of consciousness or intellectual capacity is there. So at the moment there is no way to answer this question in an acceptable way.
        thyrsus 11y ago
        This is a fruitful example: the vast majority of those opposed to abortion will concede that a zygote has no conciousness or intellectual capacity, yet most of them will nonetheless insist on the zygote's personhood and right to life.
- RobertoG 11y ago
  I think we use different definitions of "opposed ideas". To keep two opposed ideas in mind should be done with the aim of solving contradictions. If you can distill a better abstraction you are solving the contradiction and you finish with only one idea.
  - jacobr1 11y ago
    It is more than that. There needn't even be a contradiction, many of the most contentious issues of the day have different base axioms supporting their arguments and different levels of credibility assigned to empirical evidence. Further part of the objective is developing empathy for those holding alternate positions. Resolving conflict often requires taking into considering irrational or wrong beliefs (from one's own perspective) but is nevertheless still necessary. In fact, a big part of the current disagreements is holding oneself oblivious to the different paradigms held by those with opposing views. If you presume they are working from the same assumptions, then of course the only motivation for their views must be malice or some other vice. But that is rarely the case.
ikurei 11y ago
Could awareness of the tension between the two be the difference between doublethink and intelligence, as defined by GP? I love the irony in following the first quote by holding both quotes in my mind, and considering that there is some wisdom to both.
- RobertoG 11y ago
  I think you are right. I think both quotes speak about the same. The GP is talking about the ability to think and find the truth, Orwell is talking about using the same skill to lie (to oneself and the others).
mistermann 11y ago
Boy, this describes some people I've worked with to a T.
thanatropism 11y ago
Doublethink was a satire/parody of communist "dialectical materialism" - in turn a development of Hegelian dialectics and finally of Heraclitus. Orwell is embarassingly simpleminded in accounting for this, and it's a crying shame he wasn't acquainted with Whitehead and Bergson and other thinkers that were fully aware that reality is process rather than essence. Bonus: Heraclitus on Wikiquote: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heraclitus https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heraclitus
scott_s 11y ago
In this context, "hold" likely does not mean "accepting". I read it to mean closer to "consider", which means that one is able to consider two opposing arguments, and understand them to the point that one could articulate the negatives and benefits of each side. That is very much not doublethink.
dragonwriter 11y ago
The difference between Fitzgerald's intelligence and Orwell's doublethink, as I see it, is that Orwell's doublethink is when the conflicting ideas are understood as binary absolutes, held to exactly represent reality, while Fitzgerald's intelligence is when the conflicting ideas are understood as fuzzy approximations held to convey something important about the world without exactly representing it. And, going further, I think the root of the danger found in Orwell's doublethink lies even lower -- the danger starts with holding even one idea as a binary absolute that perfectly reflects the real world. Ideas, particularly ideas which can be reduced to language, are more like Platonic forms, which elements of the natural world might fuzzily reflect but will never perfectly embody.

brightball 11y ago

Opposed ideas doesn't necessarily mean conflicting ideas. For example, it's possible to appreciate that in the US people need some means of getting an education in order to get a job while at the same time realizing the demand for quality education far outstrips supply, which when paired with federal loans inflates the cost of education so much that it puts it farther out of reach for people. That's a problem with a solution that exacerbated the problem while trying to solve it. Processing both doesn't involve telling deliberate lies, it just means the solution is more complex than we'd like to admit.

mfoy_ 11y ago
To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. The issue with polarized politics is that it encourages one-mindedness. Instead of trying to understand where your political opponents are coming from, you are encouraged to reject them and their ideas as "the enemy". A very anti-intellectual "Us versus Them" mindset.
- wolfgke 11y ago
  > To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. That is basic science. This is also why physicists still try to unify general relativity and quantum physics. So instead of accepting multiple ideas use your mind to 1. create predictions that each of the conflicting theses imply, such that the two theses will do different predictions, which if they can't be observed will convince you that the thesis was wrong. 2. develop an experiment with which you can observe these predictions 3. execute the experiment
  - aangjie 11y ago
    I don't know why your answer was downvoted. Your point is a sane approach to handling opposing/conflicting ideas. Though I didn't read the Original quote as accepting opposing/conflicting ideas.
    - mfoy_ 11y ago
      I believe it was originally down-voted for making the assumption that science could solve politics (we're talking opinions, not facts, so you cannot rigourously apply the scientific method). The comment also fell for the trap of falsely equating opposition with conflict. As a thought experiment, take the issue of abortion. GP is telling me that certainly either "Abortions should be allowed because of the mother's rights" or "Abortions should not be allowed because of the unborn child's rights" is WRONG. Tell me how anyone could possibly create an "experiment" which would result in a meaningful answer. How would you measure the morality and goodness of the event in a way that everyone could agree upon? Do you see the problem?
      - wolfgke 11y ago
        > As a thought experiment, take the issue of abortion. GP is telling me that certainly either "Abortions should be allowed because of the mother's rights" or "Abortions should not be allowed because of the unborn child's rights" is WRONG. Tell me how anyone could possibly create an "experiment" which would result in a meaningful answer. How would you measure the morality and goodness of the event in a way that everyone could agree upon? Do you see the problem? The problem here is that biological and neurological research has a long way to go to resolve the question after what week of pregnancy what level of consciousness or intellectual capacity is there. So at the moment there is no way to answer this question in an acceptable way.
        thyrsus 11y ago
        This is a fruitful example: the vast majority of those opposed to abortion will concede that a zygote has no conciousness or intellectual capacity, yet most of them will nonetheless insist on the zygote's personhood and right to life.
RobertoG 11y ago
I think we use different definitions of "opposed ideas". To keep two opposed ideas in mind should be done with the aim of solving contradictions. If you can distill a better abstraction you are solving the contradiction and you finish with only one idea.
- jacobr1 11y ago
  It is more than that. There needn't even be a contradiction, many of the most contentious issues of the day have different base axioms supporting their arguments and different levels of credibility assigned to empirical evidence. Further part of the objective is developing empathy for those holding alternate positions. Resolving conflict often requires taking into considering irrational or wrong beliefs (from one's own perspective) but is nevertheless still necessary. In fact, a big part of the current disagreements is holding oneself oblivious to the different paradigms held by those with opposing views. If you presume they are working from the same assumptions, then of course the only motivation for their views must be malice or some other vice. But that is rarely the case.

ikurei 11y ago

Could awareness of the tension between the two be the difference between doublethink and intelligence, as defined by GP? I love the irony in following the first quote by holding both quotes in my mind, and considering that there is some wisdom to both.

RobertoG 11y ago
I think you are right. I think both quotes speak about the same. The GP is talking about the ability to think and find the truth, Orwell is talking about using the same skill to lie (to oneself and the others).

mistermann 11y ago

Boy, this describes some people I've worked with to a T.

thanatropism 11y ago

Doublethink was a satire/parody of communist "dialectical materialism" - in turn a development of Hegelian dialectics and finally of Heraclitus. Orwell is embarassingly simpleminded in accounting for this, and it's a crying shame he wasn't acquainted with Whitehead and Bergson and other thinkers that were fully aware that reality is process rather than essence. Bonus: Heraclitus on Wikiquote: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heraclitus https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heraclitus

scott_s 11y ago

In this context, "hold" likely does not mean "accepting". I read it to mean closer to "consider", which means that one is able to consider two opposing arguments, and understand them to the point that one could articulate the negatives and benefits of each side. That is very much not doublethink.

dragonwriter 11y ago

The difference between Fitzgerald's intelligence and Orwell's doublethink, as I see it, is that Orwell's doublethink is when the conflicting ideas are understood as binary absolutes, held to exactly represent reality, while Fitzgerald's intelligence is when the conflicting ideas are understood as fuzzy approximations held to convey something important about the world without exactly representing it. And, going further, I think the root of the danger found in Orwell's doublethink lies even lower -- the danger starts with holding even one idea as a binary absolute that perfectly reflects the real world. Ideas, particularly ideas which can be reduced to language, are more like Platonic forms, which elements of the natural world might fuzzily reflect but will never perfectly embody.