This describes how the Party controlled the Proles and those of lower status in the Party. They made them a single entity with no real power, and then used methods such as doublethink to trick them into thinking they had some semblance of significance. The whole time, the Party remains in control as both interpreter and speaker.

And this is exactly what the Party does in 1984. They take folks and completely make them reliant on the state, and then continuously force feed them BS to keep them in line in all manner of ways.

The acknowledgment of the power of ideas is good. It's these things that set the basis for new (good or bad) forms of being. A government that sits in a different historical context is going to carry with it particular habits that allow for its rise to power and eventual perpetuation.

I enjoy that he understands that different contexts always create new monsters. In this case, the monster being totalitarian governments.

He sounds much like Freud when he speaks of the impacts a government can have on people.

It can be reached. It's called equity.

I like his reference to the id. Society fails when it ceases to move forward. Breaking down justice and injustice as the mechanisms behind change is smart, and it makes sense, but I believe it is much deeper than that. I'll see how he talks about it moving forward.

Ah, he made up for it.

My boy just described ethics/morality and called it justice. Very different. Justice is about balance, which fluctuates like the scales that represent it. Ethics and morality are about progress - how groups want to move through the world. The ideas of many aren't always better than the ideas of a few. History has shown that to be the case.

I'm sorry, anyone else catch a whiff of white privilege when you read this? From the beginning, this paper has been cursed by the myth of modernity, but it's really speaking here.

Just reading these together makes it seem like unhappiness is an inevitable cycle of these goals. Utility is deeply interwoven with the idea of control, which facilitates a big aspect of our sorrow. The emphasis of pleasure also makes us more aware of its absence.

I completely disagree with him. Humans are naturally ordered creatures. We are creatures of habit. Habits are established patterns, and order is an established pattern of society. I think Freud missed an opportunity to hit a potential reason for the unhappiness he speaks of. That reason: we impose cultural ideals of order (when he mentions work) rather than accepting the natural order of human beings.

Order is a tricky subject. It is just the established pattern. In nature, established patterns are free of morality, of the idea of "practical value," of happiness. But when it comes to man, order is influenced by all the parts - good and bad - of human subjectivity.

It's interesting he says this. This statement shows how far psychology has come since this was written. I've seen many arguments that we value things of "no practical value" and call them beautiful before. Some psychologists would argue that this idea of beauty (really, creativity) is necessary for us to invent. If something is of no practical value, then we are free to invent the purpose of it. But a deeper point that lies in Freud's statement is the relativity of "practical value." One man's tool is another man's pleasure.

From reading the last few sections, it's easy to come to a conclusion that happiness is - at least in part - related to the idea of control. To be a god is to be in control. It brings much more merit to philosophies like Buddhism, which speaks about the importance of letting go to attain "nirvana."

From a PURELY scientific perspective, he's spitting nothing but facts.

And this is where things can get a little interesting. I like how he says "the economics of our happiness." It's clear to see that technology has made things easier, not quite happier. That assists us in a hedonic sense; i.e. we can get pleasure sooner yet in a more short lived manner. But technology has yet to bring about a sense of eudaimonic happiness (which is longer, more of a process to happiness).

Well...yeah. When your cultural ideals are built upon competition, amassing wealth, and other concepts that actually have little to do with human needs, one can go crazy. I didn't watch the video, so I'm excited to where this'll go.

This is interesting. I've seen other thinkers suppose that the cultural shift brought about by Christianity resulted in newer ways of viewing humans and the value of life. Specifically, it brought a more hierarchical understanding of existence, one that contributes to the cultural ideals that make folks feel shitty.