Do you use doublethink?

[Orangey]

Perhaps most voted before they realized they were voting for insanity.

Maybe, but that wouldn't explain the recent spike in the poll (if we assumed new people voting read the thread.)

Or maybe they disagree that it's insanity and delusion. Just because the two of you are so convinced, doesn't mean everyone else is.

delusion de·lu·sion (dĭ-l&oomacr;'zhən)
n.
A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

If you can trick yourself using doublethink to assent to the truth of two contradictory beliefs by conveniently forgetting or rearranging facts, then you are by definition being delusional.

If anyone declares his or her belief, then they must be either fooling themselves or they simply misunderstand the entire thing. And because of how some people talk about contradictions not being contradictions after all, I suspect it's the latter.

Yes .

I've always thought that Orwell meant doublethink to be a byword or synonymn for hypocrisy or ideologically motivated lying?

So when he demonstrates that two contradictory ideas are held and doublethink is the means it is supposed to simply mean that there is political lying and intellectual concepts are invented to get people to believe those lies.

Yes.

 

[Athenian200]

delusion de·lu·sion (dĭ-l&oomacr;'zhən)
n.
A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

If you can trick yourself using doublethink to assent to the truth of two contradictory beliefs by conveniently forgetting or rearranging facts, then you are by definition being delusional.

That is merely logic. People are not moved by logic.

Just because you feel the need to Ti this to death by defining terms and and applying them to people, doesn't mean there's anything seriously wrong with everyone who disagrees with you. You're just rationalizing your discomfort with doublethink, hypocrisy, and other things that are not logically consistent.

 

[Orangey]

That is merely logic. People are not moved by logic.

This is a meaningless statement.

Just because you feel the need to Ti this to death by defining terms and and applying them to people, doesn't mean there's anything seriously wrong with everyone who disagrees with you.

Don't make this personal. It has nothing to do with my reactions to people who disagree with me.

You're just rationalizing your discomfort with doublethink, hypocrisy, and other things that are not logically consistent.

Well, father forgive me.

 

[Athenian200]

Don't make this personal. It has nothing to do with my reactions to people who disagree with me.

Well, people don't like being called delusional, you know? I guess you were just using it in a clinical sense and unaware of this, so... what ever.

Well, father forgive me.

You're being sarcastic... aren't you?

Sigh, I'm already bored with this thread... this wasn't as interesting a topic as I thought it would be.

 

[Serendipity]

delusion de·lu·sion (dĭ-l&oomacr;'zhən)
n.
A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

If you can trick yourself using doublethink to assent to the truth of two contradictory beliefs by conveniently forgetting or rearranging facts, then you are by definition being delusional.

Was Plato being delusional? He must have been.
I'm not here to try to argue either side, both sides have very much valid points and I agree with both of you.
When I was a child, I thought insanity was the only possible reunion with truth as we would understand it. Logic is insanity. It goes beyond the tangible. Yet we practice paradox as a way of understanding life.
I might be delusional, for I believe that I am the dead living amongst the dead, and the dead around me living amongst the dead. My path not going towards myself but towards you. That of which I am most afraid.

Shroedingers cat should be a perfect example of double thinking.

Little does it mean if I am right or wrong. Can you be all?

 

[Serendipity]

Sigh, I'm already bored with this thread... this wasn't as interesting a topic as I thought it would be.

Seems to me you didn't get the answers you were hoping for and when attacked you decided to withdraw but I am unsure whether or not you were actually attacked rather than questioned quite harshly but I am not you and cannot discern either.

There is two people (or sth) that stand to oppose you with logic, reason. If then stated that logic does not apply, why do they answer with logic nonetheless? Can you make what you said logical? I think you can if you go to the part of what the external really is, according to empirical physics. I'm getting myself into trouble but I can only grow wiser.

I wonder, what do you seek with this topic? I read all of the thread but I couldn't see your intention behind it. Was it affirmation? A thought of being to share?




EDIT: Why are we playing chess? Actually, I might be the one that took the peasant only to loose my queen. Whether we are playing chess or not. I prefer loosing my king, so please move to check mate if you wish.

 

[Orangey]

Was Plato being delusional? He must have been.

Delusional or not, he wasn't a doublethinker.

Shroedingers cat should be a perfect example of double thinking.

How can a thought experiment be an example of doublethink? Again, I don't think people are understanding what is doublethink. Here's the Wikipedia article.

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of 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 so 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 — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

Well, people don't like being called delusional, you know? I guess you were just using it in a clinical sense and unaware of this, so... what ever.

I didn't say that you are delusional (or anyone else for that matter), simply that doublethink is a practice of delusion and that, to the extent that you use it, you are engaging in delusional behavior.

You're being sarcastic... aren't you?

You're a quick study.

Sigh, I'm already bored with this thread... this wasn't as interesting a topic as I thought it would be.

What were you expecting from it? (Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic this time.)

 

[Serendipity]

What would you say about a great actor that forgets his own life when he is on stage?

 

[Orangey]

What would you say about a great actor that forgets his own life when he is on stage?

He's acting.

 

[PH.]

If we agree on:
- Doublethink is believing two contradictory statements are both true
- Infinity as a fact

The world has two sides: object and subject. The "true" world being object and our interpretation: subject. We live in object, interact with it, see it, feel it, experience it, but everything is subjected to our view. But both are true. Some things don't leave much room for our own interpretation, such as the colour red. Yes, some see a more orange-y colour, some experience a more vivid red and some see it as a tone of grey, but we all agree that it is the same colour. So we know red is two things: it is what it is (the colour an sich) and it is an interpretation. You can't discard the interpretation, because then you'll have to be a non-thinking, non-experiencing thing. But those statements are quite contradictory, right? How can something be objective and subjective at the same time? Relativity.

To extrapolate it more; everything is everything, and nothing at the same time. If you believe in infinity, everything is possible, even two contraditory things can be harmonious.

Something completely different:
I'm halfway through the book now. No need to say it is pure genius, but that was not the point. How the whole society works made me thing of one person's mind. Especially the rewriting history-part. We constantly rewrite our own history. Every memory we have is subjected to our newest experiences and can become untrue. We do this unconsciously all the time. Don't question it at the least. We accept everything as it is, but there is also something in us that desires to uncover the truth (Winston) and does question everything and tries to escape from the way we try to obsessively fit everything in a point of view we understand.
So far that thought.

 

[Athenian200]

If we agree on:
- Doublethink is believing two contradictory statements are both true
- Infinity as a fact

The world has two sides: object and subject. The "true" world being object and our interpretation: subject. We live in object, interact with it, see it, feel it, experience it, but everything is subjected to our view. But both are true. Some things don't leave much room for our own interpretation, such as the colour red. Yes, some see a more orange-y colour, some experience a more vivid red and some see it as a tone of grey, but we all agree that it is the same colour. So we know red is two things: it is what it is (the colour an sich) and it is an interpretation. You can't discard the interpretation, because then you'll have to be a non-thinking, non-experiencing thing. But those statements are quite contradictory, right? How can something be objective and subjective at the same time? Relativity.

To extrapolate it more; everything is everything, and nothing at the same time. If you believe in infinity, everything is possible, even two contraditory things can be harmonious.

Something completely different:
I'm halfway through the book now. No need to say it is pure genius, but that was not the point. How the whole society works made me thing of one person's mind. Especially the rewriting history-part. We constantly rewrite our own history. Every memory we have is subjected to our newest experiences and can become untrue. We do this unconsciously all the time. Don't question it at the least. We accept everything as it is, but there is also something in us that desires to uncover the truth (Winston) and does question everything and tries to escape from the way we try to obsessively fit everything in a point of view we understand.
So far that thought.

I love this... very profound and insightful.

It makes SO much sense to me, actually.

 

[Orangey]

The world has two sides: object and subject. The "true" world being object and our interpretation: subject. We live in object, interact with it, see it, feel it, experience it, but everything is subjected to our view. But both are true. Some things don't leave much room for our own interpretation, such as the colour red. Yes, some see a more orange-y colour, some experience a more vivid red and some see it as a tone of grey, but we all agree that it is the same colour. So we know red is two things: it is what it is (the colour an sich) and it is an interpretation. You can't discard the interpretation, because then you'll have to be a non-thinking, non-experiencing thing. But those statements are quite contradictory, right? How can something be objective and subjective at the same time? Relativity.

Wrong. They're not contradictory.

To extrapolate it more; everything is everything, and nothing at the same time. If you believe in infinity, everything is possible, even two contraditory things can be harmonious.

If you've found some way to get past what appeared to be contradictory before, then the contradiction is gone. Doublethink is not getting past contradiction or rationalizing it; it's "to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies." It's miring oneself in contradiction without taking any measures to get out.

It's basically getting rid of cognitive dissonance by not thinking too hard about anything in particular.

 

[PH.]

Wrong. They're not contradictory.

In this example they aren't crystal clear, but they are contradictory.

If you've found some way to get past what appeared to be contradictory before, then the contradiction is gone. Doublethink is not getting past contradiction or rationalizing it; it's "to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies." It's miring oneself in contradiction without taking any measures to get out.

I know doublethink is not getting past contradictories. What I said was an extreme extrapolation of an abstract way of doublethink. Not doublethink in someones mind, but the doublethinkedness of everything.

Take quantum mechanics. The theory consists of possibilities, in stead of the hard rules of physics. Subatomatic particles behave in two ways, like waves or packages. The strange thing is, a particle which behaves like a wave can't behave like a package, and vice versa. But they do behave both ways. If you shoot an electron at a wall with two holes in it, it goes through either one of them. This is package-behaviour. You can imagine that if you repeated this experiment you would expect piles of electrons directly behind both of the holes where they are caught up by another wall. Some went through the upper, some went through the lower.

But this is not the case. If you repeat this experiment you'll find an interference pattern on the wall behind the holes. This is wave-like behaviour. Every single electron acts as if it is part of the wave, of the interference pattern. So if you conduct the experiment and shoot electrons one after the other at the wall, they individually act as if they are part of a wave pattern. As the experiment continous, you'll see the interference pattern emerging by adding up all the different spots where the electrons landed. One electron behaves as if it goes through both holes, or a little more through the upper and a little less through the lower, or the other way around.

So what happens if you block off one hole? Then you'll have a pile of electrons directly behind it. It is as if the electron knows if there is one option or two options. Let's call the options "truths". If there is one truth, the electron accepts it and follows it perfectly. If there are two truths, the electron behaves like both of them are true at the same time.

 

[Randomnity]

Quantum mechanics is not doublethink. They're similar in some superficial ways, but not the same.

It would be closer to doublethink if you said "the electron is a wave. It is not a wave", although doublethink usually refers to things that are 100% objectively true, whereas much of quantum mechanics is still theoretical. It's only doublethink if the things are objectively contradictory, and a wave-particle is not inherently contradictory, although it is difficult to understand.

 

[xisnotx]

The theory of relativity...
the assertion that an object can do two different thing depending on where you are in relation to that object.

How can one object do two different things?
Is it not the same object?
Is it not doing two different things?

It's a paradox. Which is true? Can both be true? Does it matter? Why?

Put another way...
I can define x as whatever I want to. It doesn't matter what x actually is...as long as I define x as something...then in my mind..that x is that something. Correct?
If I can..
then I chose to make x....not x.
How can I do that...logically? Do I not have the ability to define x however I wish? Or do I? If I do...I just proved a paradox. If I don't then am I crazy? How can I make a paradox? How can I believe a paradox?

Double think asserts that as far as an individual can tell...for all intents and purposes...both are true..and neither is. Which is in itself is a paradox. What is the only explanation? That there is no explanation. Which is a paradox..and around and around we go.

The world is a paradox...because it isn't.

Take such a mindset to religion/love/life/girls/hate...and see what happens. Nothing will happen to the world...but everything will happen to you.

People ask themselves the same question..over and over..

Do I love or do I hate.
Is this true or is this false.
Am I man or am I woman.
Am I living or am I dead. (ok..maybe that one was just me...)
The red pill or the blue pill.
God or no god.

The question is always X or Y..defining x or y however they define it. and the truth is...both are correct..neither are correct..and whatever you chose to be correct is correct.

What they fail to ask themselves though is...Why am I asking all these questions? Why does it matter to me so much? Which is the only question that really matters.

The ultimate answer to everything.."What is the ultimate question?"

Do you not see? who has the ability to ask those questions?

Do you?
Do I?
what am I looking for?
what are we all looking for?
did we just find it?
where?

If you think you know the answer...then you don't know. If you know you know the answer..then you don't care if in fact you don't know the answer...because you know the answer.

Which leaves only one question? Which is...what is that question?
If you think you know the question...then you don't know. If you know you know the question...then you don't care if that is in fact the question..because you know the question.

Do you see? You do? Then get to work. You don't? Then get to work. It's really that simple.

 

[Bamboo]

I'm not sure. I guess everyone gets to answer that question for themselves.

Well, that is true, people do answer that question themselves in their own ways.

What interests me most about this thread is the way people answer understanding their capacities and abilities when it comes to dealing with other people. I think if you look at doublethink in a vacuum, just a person by themselves, then it doesn't really matter what they do or think, it just effects them. But what if this person is surrounded by other people, and they have some measure of accountability to those other people?

This is the idea I'm trying to show: doublethink is ultimately incompatible with any situation where persons are held accountable for their (actual) actions to others. This includes leadership, but really any agreement made between parties.

If you are going to believe that those other people aren't just in your mind (solipsism) but actually exist, than I believe one should abandon doublethink - it can only lead to false agreements which will ultimately be used to cover up problems or abuse positions of power.

 

[Craft]

Hm...more misunderstandings. I think we can put the blame on the misleading name: doublethink.

^lol neither do I.

Yes, you do have an argument. By disagreeing with "no assumption", you argue for "with assumption." This is logic. Everything is connected.

 

[xisnotx]

Hm...more misunderstandings. I think we can put the blame on the misleading name: doublethink.

Yes, you do have an argument. By disagreeing with "no assumption", you argue for "with assumption." This is logic. Everything is connected.

Exactly. That's my argument. Do you see now?

You think we are arguing. I don't. Who is right? I am right. You are right. Neither of us are right. And both of us are right.

I am right because I don't think I'm arguing. I'm just telling you something that I think is true. I'm not trying to convince you to believe it. If you don't want to believe it...then don't. It's not a problem. It's not my problem.

You are right... because..I'm not sure...but you obviously think you are right.

Neither of us is right..because for me to be right..you would have to believe I'm not arguing. For you to be right..you would have to think that I think that we are arguing. You can choose to believe that..but I'm not arguing. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

And both of us are right because each of us thinks we are right...regardless of what the other one thinks.

How is this possible?

Doublethink.
Relativity.
Call it what you want. It's the same concept over and over..

The world is a fucking lie. Beautifully so.

Do you see now?

 

[BlueGray]

People having flawed thoughts doesn't make anything contradictory.

 

[Qre:us]

That is merely logic. People are not moved by logic.

Just because you feel the need to Ti this to death by defining terms and and applying them to people, doesn't mean there's anything seriously wrong with everyone who disagrees with you. You're just rationalizing your discomfort with doublethink, hypocrisy, and other things that are not logically consistent.

LOL, imagine that!

Btw, with this "use of doublethink", aren't you rationalizing your discomfort with cognitive dissonance? That doesn't mean your cognitive dissnoance goes away; it's there, every time it drives you to willfully force yourself to pretend that your discomfort is suddenly a "comfort zone"=double-think....it's there, that is what is speaking....your cognitive dissonance.

The bigger question is, why do you want to escape from this world so badly, even while you desperately want to belong?