Do you use doublethink?

[Orangey]

Damn you for keeping me up...lol

The first quote? I gained some meaning from it..possibly a different meaning than what you intended...
In short..I don't follow..elaborate.

I'll check in the morning.

It's a pithy remark meant to demonstrate the folly of rejecting the principle of non-contradiction. Doublethink is a patent rejection of that principle. Believing that these things -

1) For all things, there is more than one answer.
2) For all things, there is only one answer.
3) For all things, there is no answer.

- can all be true at the same time is a patent rejection of that principle (for whatever weird solipsistic reasons you gave in your response to my post.)

 

[Athenian200]

It's a pithy remark meant to demonstrate the folly of rejecting the principle of non-contradiction. Doublethink is a patent rejection of that principle. Believing that these things -



- can all be true at the same time is a patent rejection of that principle (for whatever weird solipsistic reasons you gave in your response to my post.)

So, you're saying that I CAN reject the principle of non-contradiction, you just think it's irrational? Okay, then... I never said that I was using reason in the first place, so that wouldn't be much of a leap.

I'm generally trying to AVOID the use of reason as you know it when I'm using doublethink. This is how my mind works when I'm REJECTING it for the sake of something other than reason.

I would have to say Mkenya expressed the idea pretty well with the nine statements he concluded would indicate doublethink. That's kind of funny... it took an INTP explain the logic behind my absence of logic.

Oh, and I wasn't so much offended earlier, so much as feeling like I couldn't explain my idea adequately, and was being pressured to give it up by certain lines of reasoning that I wasn't ready to accept. I've very susceptible to accepting the assumptions of whoever I'm arguing with, rather than realizing that I can reject them (though I do still try to reject their conclusions)... and because I was unconsciously accepting your assumptions earlier, there was no way to defend my idea, which frustrated me.

 

[Orangey]

So, you're saying that I CAN reject the principle of non-contradiction, you just think it's irrational? Okay, then... I never said that I was using reason in the first place, so that wouldn't be much of a leap.

Yes, and I'm saying that its irrationality makes it a useless and potentially dangerous way of thinking. With doublethink one can believe both, for instance, that racial segregation is wrong AND that Apartheid is right. Moreover, in 1984, the very book from which you've derived the term, doublethink was a dangerous tool used to preserve the power of The Party through thought control.

I'm generally trying to AVOID the use of reason as you know it when I'm using doublethink. This is how my mind works when I'm REJECTING it for the sake of something other than reason.

Yes, I know. The very definition of doublethink requires the abandonment of rationality, as has been stated many times earlier in the thread. The issue is why would it be desirable to abandon rationality? (Which I also asked earlier in the thread.)

I would have to say Mkenya expressed the idea pretty well with the nine statements he concluded would indicate doublethink. That's kind of funny... it took an INTP explain the logic behind my absence of logic.

But you just said there was no logic to it (and indeed there isn't.) Also, his wasn't an explanation; it was a list of mostly contradictory categorical statements followed by the assertion that his thought process and perception allowed him to find them all true at the same time.

Oh, and I wasn't so much offended earlier, so much as feeling like I couldn't explain my idea adequately, and was being pressured to give it up by certain lines of reasoning that I wasn't ready to accept. I've very susceptible to accepting the assumptions of whoever I'm arguing with, rather than realizing that I can reject them (though I do still try to reject their conclusions)... and because I was unconsciously accepting your assumptions earlier, there was no way to defend my idea, which frustrated me.

I don't mean to be rude, but none of this ever was (nor is) a subject of my concern.

 

[Craft]

You made a positive claim without proving it.
Why is it more logical to assume nothing?

Argument from Ignorance. Don't believe everything your mom tells you.

 

[Athenian200]

Yes, I know. The very definition of doublethink requires the abandonment of rationality, as has been stated many times earlier in the thread. The issue is why would it be desirable to abandon rationality? (Which I also asked earlier in the thread.)

Well, because rationality makes me uncomfortable? Also, it forces you to believe unpleasant things about yourself and others that often don't do you any good except to make you miserable and internally conflicted.

But you just said there was no logic to it (and indeed there isn't.) Also, his wasn't an explanation; it was a list of mostly contradictory categorical statements followed by the assertion that his thought process and perception allowed him to find them all true at the same time.

Well, there's a kind of logic behind it, but it's so alien to the kind of logic that's founded on the principle of non-contradiction, that it shouldn't even be called logic.

I don't mean to be rude, but none of this ever was (nor is) a subject of my concern.

This wasn't really directed at you (I know you wouldn't care if you had offended someone, LOL), but at the people who apologized to me earlier in the thread.

 

[Crescent Fresh]

I consider the power of doublethink opens the door for those who are eager to win an argument.

It is a necessary tool to weigh out all the pros and cons before entering to a heated debate, especially during cross-examination.

 

[Bamboo]

I'm disappointed that nobody played my "imagination game" above, especially because a clever person could easily refute it.

I'll do all the work for you. *Sigh.*

It's long, read it, I promise it makes sense.

Ok, if that's what you believe, then play along with me.

So lets say there are other people. They exist in your external reality. Let's say they really exist out there, play along if you don't think they do. They also exist in your internal reality, and you prefer to work with them in that sphere.

Ok. Now lets say these other people do things and go about their business. Well to do those things they can't just do whatever they want by thinking it, they have to navigate certain limitations and barriers. To navigate those limitations, they have to form a consistent understanding of what is "out there." If there understanding is incorrect or distorted, they won't be able to do things as well, or at all.

This is how a lot of people think, you say you don't think like this but pretend if you did. Let's get a little more involved in this imagination game.

So these people approach you and they want to navigate limitations. You tell them whatever is convenient to tell them at the moment - let's say it's something that you know isn't true but you doublethink into believing it is true. Does this ultimately help them?

Let's say you do the same thing for yourself: you tell yourself what most is convenient with doublethink. Does this ultimately help you?

* What you're supposed to say is:

"Based on these assumptions on the nature of reality, leading people down false paths, many times, doesn't help them (although sometimes doing so leads to productive learning, but I digress). It also hurts you, because you cannot effectively make choices. It may be uncomfortable to accept some types of truth, but learning to deal with that discomfort ultimately makes you a better decision maker. "

------------------------------------------------

* But then, if you want to show your viewpoint you say:

However, if you change the nature of reality, the use of doublethink is beneficial. Assume that only the mind exists. In that case, you'll likely see the world as an attempt to preserve your psyche. In that case, you use doublethink to avoid discomfort. Why go through discomfort when the external world isn't that important anyway?

--------------------------------------------------

* If you were truly clever, you'd turn my whole argument on it's head by reversing the imagination game. Refer back to the original to note the changes. Like this:

(placed in quote box for ease of use)
If you believe that the outside world exists, then play along with me.

So lets say that you are the mind. You only exist in your internal reality. Let's say those "other people" out there either also exist in their minds, or are just part of your mind, play along if you don't think that's true. They exist in your internal reality, and you prefer to work with them in that sphere.

Ok. Now lets say you experience things in your mind. Well you can't just experience whatever you want, you have to navigate certain mental limitations and barriers. If you can't effectively change the way you see things, then you'll frequently be experiencing discomfort.

Let's get a little more involved in this imagination game.

Some people approach you and they want to navigate limitations. You tell them whatever is convenient to tell them at the moment - let's say it's something that you know isn't true but you doublethink into believing it is true. Does this ultimately help YOU (they are just in your head, hence you)?

Let's say you do the same thing for yourself (redundant, in this case): you tell yourself what most is convenient with doublethink. Does this ultimately help you?

* What I'd say here would be:
"Based on these assumptions on the nature of reality, leading people down false paths, as long as it eliminates discomfort, helps you, because the path is irrelevant. It also helps you more directly. It may be uncomfortable to accept some types of truth, but learning to deal with that discomfort by making it disappear ultimately makes you more comfortable."


---------------------------------------------

* The most clever person would find a way to eliminate this dichotomy entirely.

Tl, dr:
What it comes down to is this: by questioning the assumptions in play, both philosophies are easily picked apart.

 

[Athenian200]

Tl, dr:
What it comes down to is this: by questioning the assumptions in play, both philosophies are easily picked apart.

+1

That's probably why we're having so much trouble coming to an agreement or understand on this. We all make different assumptions that are incompatible, and in order to debate, we have to work with the others assumptions, and if their assumptions negate our argument completely... then there's little to be done.

 

[Xenon]

I think at times, we all hold contradictory ideas in our minds without being aware of it, but people respond differently to gaining awareness of a contradiction. I usually feel the need to work through it somehow, to revise and refine ideas, to reject some outright if I have good reason to, until everything makes sense together. Or, if I don't have enough information to decide, I leave it undecided. I don't deliberately use 'doublethink'. That doesn't get anyone closer to the truth.

Yes, and I'm saying that its irrationality makes it a useless and potentially dangerous way of thinking. With doublethink one can believe both, for instance, that racial segregation is wrong AND that Apartheid is right. Moreover, in 1984, the very book from which you've derived the term, doublethink was a dangerous tool used to preserve the power of The Party through thought control.

Exactly. I was surprised this didn't come up earlier. I was starting to question my memory of that book, because I was thinking...uhhh...doublethink was used for social control; it was one of the things that helped preserve the screwed-up status quo. Why would anyone recommend thinking that way?

Well, because rationality makes me uncomfortable? Also, it forces you to believe unpleasant things about yourself and others that often don't do you any good except to make you miserable and internally conflicted.

No one likes discomfort, but sometimes it's necessary. Being willing to feel uncomfortable at times is part of growth and change, and that includes intellectual growth and change. Sometimes people need to face truths that hurt, or let go of ideas they're attached to. The people in 1984 would have been horrified and sickened if they really became aware of how they were being manipulated. But the fact that few ever did allowed the Party to stay in power.

And, I agree with those who pointed out a lot of people aren't really getting what 'doublethink' means. Being aware of pros and cons of each side of an ethical decision, or 'feeling out' certain positions so you can understand people who hold them, are good things to do, and are not true doublethink.

 

[CrystalViolet]

I consider the power of doublethink opens the door for those who are eager to win an argument.

It is a necessary tool to weigh out all the pros and cons before entering to a heated debate, especially during cross-examination.

So is staying quiet and listening.

This wasn't really directed at you (I know you wouldn't care if you had offended someone, LOL), but at the people who apologized to me earlier in the thread.

If you must know my assumptions/judgement weren't directed at you, personally, Athenian, but rather the concept as I see it. The purpose of double think (in terms of 1984) I think is to make sure there are no concrete facts to grasp a hold of, a form of sensation deprivadation (it's the best allusion I can come up at this point.) If there are no certainties, you can mould people at will.
It's also a way with regards to the novel of keeping people powerless and on a slippery slope....if the landscape keeps changing, how can you build foundations?

Your version seems to about creating your own personal reality. More a rearrangement of reality into a more pleasing configuration. Willful obilivion maybe?

 

[Bamboo]

+1

That's probably why we're having so much trouble coming to an agreement or understand on this. We all make different assumptions that are incompatible, and in order to debate, we have to work with the others assumptions, and if their assumptions negate our argument completely... then there's little to be done.

The thing is, I still believe in my version. It's my belief that this is real. From my perspective: you have to rely on the physical world and your senses. Your refusal to accept this is because you don't know how to effectively cope with the discomfort the world brings you so you have chosen a polarized belief system.

Since I'm in a particularly evangelical and orwellian mood, let me describe:
There are more of us than you. We're more capable than you are. If you join us, that'd be nice. We'd love to have you as long as you are already one of us. If you are difficult, then we'll discredit you. Some of my esteemed brethren have already started that process. If you resist, we will have to get rid of you. We'll isolate you somewhere else. Considering there are limited resources, we don't want you using ours. Our resources are ALL resources. We don't want you in a position of power - we want to be in the position of power. But power is open for all people - the people are the power. You are not a person. If you use our resources, that's stealing, and all people are entitled to having a piece of the pie. If you steal from us, we'll have to punish you. All persons are entitled to a fair trial judged by their peers. Since you keep using our resources (our resources are ALL resources), you keep stealing from us. That was your trial and it was fair - you are not a person but you were judged by your peers - I am your peer. I am Big Brother - you are my enemy, but I am your friend, your peer. We're going to have to eliminate you unless you confess. It's your fault.


Maybe you're starting to see why doublethink is a problem?

 

[MacGuffin]

Doublethink is basically a voluntary mental illness.

The characters in 1984 used it as a survival tool to avoid worse fates.

 

[Athenian200]

If you must know my assumptions/judgement weren't directed at you, personally, Athenian, but rather the concept as I see it. The purpose of double think (in terms of 1984) I think is to make sure there are no concrete facts to grasp a hold of, a form of sensation deprivadation (it's the best allusion I can come up at this point.) If there are no certainties, you can mould people at will.

It's also a way with regards to the novel of keeping people powerless and on a slippery slope....if the landscape keeps changing, how can you build foundations?

Your version seems to about creating your own personal reality. More a rearrangement of reality into a more pleasing configuration. Willful obilivion maybe?

Yeah, I guess my problem is that I don't feel that concrete facts are such a desirable thing. I tend to be extremely unhappy with the world of the senses, so I prefer to create my own and live primarily in that one, while still participating in other people's worlds and assumptions as a guest.

I actually consider the book ironic... because it's about people who rely on their senses, being oppressed by people who trust their own perspectives and assumptions. In real life, I feel that it's people who rely on their senses and insist that there is an objective reality, who oppress me.

 

[xisnotx]

In real life, I feel that it's people who rely on their senses and insist that there is an objective reality, who oppress me.

Yup, me too. I rather live in a world where there is no reality and you have at least some freedom to make your reality than having reality dictated to you by outside forces. This isn't logical..but I would argue that the alternative isn't logical either. Given that there is no "logical" way of being..then it comes down to personal preferences. I choose to make my own reality as much as possible.

Doublethink is basically a voluntary mental illness.

I rather be labeled "mentally ill" and have a sense of control over reality than be "mentally sane" and have the world dictate what the truth is..particularly when I don't trust that people know what they are talking about. And really..what does it matter if people think I'm mentally ill...as long as I like the way I'm existing (which includes functionally living in society, making money, having a loving family) I really couldn't care less how mentally ill I actually am..(of course I'd like to be sane...but I choose illness if you force me too..)

The world is not a logical place. Logic only gets you so far...

Believing that these things -

can all be true at the same time is a patent rejection of that principle (for whatever weird solipsistic reasons you gave in your response to my post.)

You misunderstand me..I don't assert that they are in actuality true. I assert that they are (or can be) consistent with how I perceive the world in various contexts. That's the only thing I assert.

Argument from Ignorance. Don't believe everything your mom tells you.

It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)

Just because (theoretically) you have been able to prove my argument as flawed..you have no basis to believe your argument as any "less flawed". If you don't believe me..take a look at the very fallacy you just presented me..(and keep in mind I do not assert that my position is any less/more flawed than yours..just differently flawed.)

Your refusal to accept this is because you don't know how to effectively cope with the discomfort the world brings you so you have chosen a polarized belief system.

But I am effectively coping with the world. Life is good..how...contradictory??

Maybe you're starting to see why doublethink is a problem?

A hitler reference?

 

[Craft]

Just because (theoretically) you have been able to prove my argument as flawed..you have no basis to believe your argument as any "less flawed". If you don't believe me..take a look at the very fallacy you just presented me..(and keep in mind I do not assert that my position is any less/more flawed than yours..just differently flawed.)

Well...the thing is...I have no argument. Burden of Proof.

 

[xisnotx]

^lol neither do I.

 

[Litvyak]

Great thread idea.

Doublethink -- The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

Yes, I'm using it constantly. I force myself to disregard or alter "facts" to shape my reality. It's hard for me to imagine a successful yet honest life without implementing doublethink.

P.S. doublethink is willful ignorance.

Wrong.

 

[Orangey]

You misunderstand me..I don't assert that they are in actuality true. I assert that they are (or can be) consistent with how I perceive the world in various contexts. That's the only thing I assert.

If you don't at any point think they're true, then it's not doublethink. If you think they're true in different contexts, then it can be doublethink (though not necessarily.) If two days ago I thought that "for all things, there are no answers," and today I think "for all things, there are multiple answers," then (1) I'm either not thinking very hard about it (to the point that I can change my mind so radically at a whim), (2) thinking very hard about it and decided that I was wrong two days ago, or (3) using doublethink to temporarily forget what I believed two days ago in order to believe something entirely contradictory today (while still not relinquishing what I thought two days ago.) Option (3), which is the only one that counts as doublethink, makes me a deluded idiot.

 

[Orangey]

Yes, I'm using it constantly. I force myself to disregard or alter "facts" to shape my reality.

P.S. doublethink is willful ignorance. I can't recommend it.

Wrong.

If you force yourself to disregard or "alter" facts, how is that not being willfully ignorant? If I believe, for instance, that all black people are stupid, and I choose to disregard the fact that I know many non-stupid black people, how am I not being willfully ignorant?

It's hard for me to imagine a successful yet honest life without implementing doublethink.

Arguably successful (in the way that doublethink allowed members of the Inner Party to be successful), but certainly not honest.

 

[Litvyak]

If you force yourself to disregard or "alter" facts, how is that not being willfully ignorant? If I believe, for instance, that all black people are stupid, and I choose to disregard the fact that I know many non-stupid black people, how am I not being willfully ignorant?

Facts are only "facts", you can alter them as you wish. As I see it, this is my world and my facts, so if it serves me well, I can alter the facts and thus alter the world. I can reshape my world whenever I wish.
If there's only one world in which gravity exists, and I force myself to believe otherwise, that's delusional. But there are worlds, in my opinion, in which it does not exist. It depends solely on my choices. I do not change my mind, I change the ground I'm standing on.

Arguably successful (in the way that doublethink allowed members of the Inner Party to be successful), but certainly not honest.

What is honest and what is not depends on what rules I implement.