Society over time changes its meaning of identity, child parent dynamics, and social interaction among its members. The brave new world examines how changes in our understanding of what it means to be a parent, child, friend and partner come from different things like a shift in culture, mob mentality, social dynamics, and values. What you are as a person is shaped on what society teaches, what you see others doing with that level of identity(peer pressure) and your distinct view. In other words you will repel or accept society’s definition of you. If the society you grew up through will then teach you a standard to judge others by how similar their definition of society is in relation to the one you were first exposed to or how they react to the conditioning they were in. Every community has a way to provide and maintain morality within its community. Based on this it is fair to say there is a community of people who unite to have sex and consume drugs but there is no any social associations and thus this community by definition has no societies in it. These complex relations between morality and society can be applied to Aldous Huxley’s dystopic the brave new world.
Aldous Huxley tries to show the reader that there is little to no chance of being a parent without knowing what it means to be a parent by taking Linina from the utopian society to the indian reservation and making her a mother. Some might argue that the maternal instincts exist despite there being no lessons and examples on how to be a mother how ever it is safe to assume that the genetic engineering that goes on in the brave new world could be used to remove instincts like the maternal instinct since the people in charge want to stop the formation of an ingroup and outgroup dynamics.
Aldous Huxley could be trying to show the average reader that life is made up of repeating cycles where human beings do the things that others did do to them and stopping the cycle once could mean losing your humanity. Aldous Huxley wanted to show us how society acts after taking away some procedures and stages of life. By making no parenting exist he puts Lenina on a role that she has no idea about and show us that she was unwilling to do anything because she was not conditioned to accept challenges in life but she instead chooses to use addiction as a way of escaping reality. learning positive parenting by showing the reader how bad a parent who does not know what it means to be a parent can be. Lenina as a character shows the reader many things including a dysfunctional family due to failed parenting. Lenina’s failed parenting is a direct result of denial as a defense mechanism. Since it is a shame to have a child in that society Lenina feels a sense of guilt whenever she see`s John, and this sense of guilt makes her wish that she couldn’t have him getting involved in her life since his existence is a reminder that she is immoral according to that society. On the other hand she has no experience with parenting and thus she does not know what it means to be a parent. Perhaps she might even not know that she is a parent since she feels more comfortable with being ignorant. She is is conditioned to ignorant be from her childhood since she was in a society that believes that ignorance is bliss . The durring her death tells us that she called John “Pop” which shows us that she has gone from denial to repression or forgetting that he had even existed . By the end the reader question whether one can teach what he or she did not learn and gets the obvious answer that experience is a key educator. John lived in the indian reservation where he learnt about the child parent dynamics from seeing how members of that community treated each member of their family rather than from his mother who does not care about his feelings. John is ready to be a child unlike Lenina who is not ready to be a parent since she comes from an environment that does not help her learn about that.
Community, Identity, Stability is the motto of the brave new world. That explains the world’s dominant goals at that point of time . Community is partly an outcome of identity and stability. It is also achieved through a religion that derides Christianity, and encourages people to reach fraternity through sexual wild party. This is achieved through a well arranged life in order for a person to almost never be alone. Identity is primarily a result of genetic engineering in this world. This Society is categorized into five hereditary social groups. In the lower three groups, people are cloned in order to manufacture up to ninety six identical “twins.” Identity is also got as a result of teaching each and everyone to conform, so that someone who has or feels more than a minimum of individuality is isolated, and made feel as if he or she is almost an outcast. Stability is the third of the three objectives, but it is the one that characters mention a lot of times as the reason for organizing and making society this way. The wish for stability, for example, brings about the production of wide numbers of genetically indistinguishable “individuals,” because people who are alike are less likely to get in a conflict. Stability means minimizing dispute, hazard, and change. This world has clearly failed to achieve all the above goals and thus has gone from a utopia to a dystopia. This community’s interest might have forced the majority to confirm to the lifestyle but it eventually did not manage to stop Bernard Marx from being born or even stop John from being born. It is a brave new world yet not brave enough to celebrate individuality. The brave new world sounds very great when you first hear of it but at the end it is a bad world that is just as dirty as the real world. Aldous Huxley is showing the reader the beautiful part of the brave new world and then later showing the reader the dirty part of it in order to make the reader learn to not judge a book by its cover or a place by its motto.
At the Brave New World unions, companionships, and love are not conventional concepts. No one understands what all this things mean excluding John who learns love from reading shakespeare’s work but still fails to express it because of the trauma he faced from watching people mistreating his mother and failing to find a world that would accept him . In the Brave New World everyone is conditioned to have sex and to reduce their emotional attachments or commitments to anyone that they meet because it isn’t acceptable. In our world today premarital sex is not that much accepted in most of our societies but in the brave new world marriage is the one thing that society does not accept. It is Believed in our world that one should wait till they are married but in Brave New World, it is perfectly normal to have sex with whoever and whenever you want. Because John is from the Indian Reservation, where there is marriage companionship and love. When Lenina tries to have sex with him to express to him how much she admires him he thinks she is an “impudent strumpet” (196) and a “Damned whore” (194) because he comes the indian reservation where they believe in staying pure until marriage.
No one in this dystopian world really understands the concept of family excluding john who had experience with from seeing how people in the indian reservation treated those of their kind and what shakespeare says about families. When John is bothered during the time when he finds out his mother is in the hospital, no one can understand why he is so upset and they were shocked to know that he actually had a mother because no one else had a family because that wasn’t expected in the new world. The concept of Family in our world is completely normal and in fact even essential in our society. Today, when you hear that someone has grown up without a family it is almost shocking to think of the things that person might have gone through. In the brave new world is perfect to be sterile but in this world for many centuries having children had been a sign of blessing, wealth and dignity. By making john produced from members of this community Aldous Huxley is trying to tell the reader that human breading can not be stopped even while using the resources they had, and humanity is partly what we learn but also partly something we can not control.
This novel portrays a dystopia where an all-powerful federation controls the conduct and actions of its community in order to conserve its own security, safety and power. The government’s power in the Brave New World is maintained through technological interventions that start before birth and last until death, and that actually change what people want and how they react to their needs. The authorities of Brave New World retain control by making the citizens so cheerful and seemingly contended that they neglect their “individuality” and personal freedom. In Brave New World the result of an authoritarian government that controls are a loss of self-worth , moral codes, ethics, and controllable feelings. In the brave new world soma has replaced the role of christianity it actually calls soma “christianity without tears”. When we apply osho law of religion this becomes the only thing that is not counter to human nature since the amount of soma you use depends on your desire and need to take it rather than a commandment from a higher authority. This becomes a flip to our world because in osho’s philosophy religion should not be a social phenomenon since religion is love and love is an individual’s choice rather than organized group hysteria. This imaginary world has love as social phenomenon and religion (soma) as an individual choice unlike our world which has religion as a social phenomenon and love as an individual choice. Aldous Huxley is trying to comment on secularism and the impact of geography in religious choices you make, because people in this world have only soma as an option while people in the Indian reservation have plenty of choices. In short the book is about those born to a world they don’t belong to but still have to face society and try to push those below them to get acceptance. A book is usually a reaction and reflection of society’s actions since writers consider their experiences while writing their books. In short Aldous Huxley`s book was a reaction and reflection to societies their way of operating and conducting morals and how human nature makes us react to different things.
Let me begin by acknowledging that the regressive left has abandoned liberal values and that we need a strong cultural war to be fought in order to restore those values and ideals. I would also love to thank each and everyone who is taking part in this cultural war from the great authors to the individuals supporting them and making the battle of ideas last long and helping each and everyone of us learn through thoughtful work and discussions with the aim of making us learn from the mistakes we might have done or the informations we were not aware of. I would like to encourage you to read the other bloggers blog before reading this in order to understand this In order to understand my take more accurately and also get the bloggers point of view correctly. Here is the link to the original blog. The original blog
The blogger begins by saying that the Alt left needs a coherent economic theory which I totally agree with but I am of the belief that the economic plan should be made after having an in group battle but even then they should be open to the idea of modifying their economic plans based on the outcome and current state of affairs in the world. I am for what I call economic consciousness and agnosticism which would be that you will stance for an economic system is based on current events, possible outcomes and consequences. I would like to see the alt left being a group that understands the importance of context and given situations when talking about economics. For example free market capitalism will not save many people when artificial intelligences begin taking most human jobs and the lower to middle class of our society will not have any function during this time the state will have to choose between getting rid of the lower and middle class or redistributing wealth since in a free market they will be no function for the lower and middle class during this situations. However each of the decisions will have a consequence for example when getting rid of them the lower and middle class will not sit and watch you they will do everything in their power to resist being extinct and it could lead to chaos and violence. On the other hand redistribution of wealth will lead to a rise in population and make the dating market much more competitive since all the men will have the same amount of wealth.
The author goes on to give a detailed explanation of his economic plan.
1 His economic plan involves raise wages on the bases of effort and time, and increasing employment rate to its highest potential. While I am okay with raising wages on the bases of effort the question I have would be how much effort should be reward and at what cost.
2 I totally agree that “Alt Left should reject the myth that taxes are required to finance government spending.”
3 My criticism of the idea that government should create meaningless jobs would be to what degree and how much should the government pay this employees and who can employe them through the state. My questions and perhaps fear with the state creating random jobs to make its citizens happy would be that the state would make itself an exception to the minimum wage policy and perhaps work with corporations the privilege to get people working for a lower wage through using the state’s employment system .
4 I do believe in protectionism but the difference is that I advocate for individuals and collectives to make use their buying power to stop corporations that don’t work for their national interest because the state is too corrupt to protect our interest.
- “Governments should reject privatisation of social services and infrastructure.” I agree to some degree for example I believe in the idea that the government should make internet service a human right because I believe for democracy to work the public has to be well informed and what better way to be informed and in touch with the world than having access to free high speed internet. But they should be competition in education and other infrastructures that the state could use to misinform the public. In terms of higher education I believe that everybody is entitled to a certain amount of money that would cover more than half that cost of their education but should also have the option to serve the public nationally or in a community and get free education from the government funded school that they can qualify to get in.
- I am against stopping foreign ownership of public assets, infrastructure, key industries and large-scale foreign ownership of real estate but I am for limiting and regulating them.
- I am against a nationalised economy at the current day and age when the average person does not question authority because absolute power corrupts and since there is little to no backlash for the failures of the state and its corruptions.
- I some what agree with having a progressive tax.
On social issues.
- Though I agree with making the blogger in that the alt left should stand for women’s rights and lgbt rights without believing in the sjw garbage being spewed in the regressive camps I also want to point out that we should try to abstain from identity politics and focus on an ideas driven politics thus our stance for lgbt rights and women’s rights should be based on our idea of individual liberty and nothing less or more.
- I agree that the alt left should stand for freedom of speech and expression.
- I also do agree with supporting a secular state and in fact I even go further and say we should support the idea of spreading secularism using technology and other means.
- I totally disagree on the alt left continuing the “anti imperialist” culture of the left. No we should support our empire if the corporations are collaborative enough to share what they get why shouldn’t we be collaborative enough to support them in their means of getting what they want.
- I agree w that the alt left should create a culture that is intolerant of intolerance and that will push back against regressive islamic and other fundamentalist ideas. I also believe in creating an assimilation process by having an american culture class that is part of the green card requirement.
6.The Alt Left needs a sane and pragmatic policy on immigration. I agree with that in fact one of my ideas was to make the government get the money for immigration from those who want it to exist and the immigration services becoming a private service rather than a government service and also making adapting to the culture with in seven years part of the requirement for citizenship and making them pay more taxes such that if they don’t pass citizenship requirement they can be deported without wasting taxpayers money and if they qualify for citizenship after seven years of living here and making sure that they have passed the cultural adaption test then we can give them normal taxation but still if they commit a crime they will be enough money to deport them from the extra taxes that they pay.
- I also strongly agree in acknowledging and perhaps making the nuclear family stronger and educating people on its advantages.
I would like to end this blog by encouraging everyone to read the groups within the alt left and the objectives of each group. I am still skeptical about being an alt left but I will keep enjoying their work, philosophy and discussion.
The right to die with dignity
Changes in the world ideologies lead to change in values which affect the morals and ethics of a given society. The changes that cause these can not mostly be predicted, and at the time when these issues begin to rise at a low degree people begin wondering why or how they got there. It was never known that Hitler’s rise in power would lead to the holocaust.It was never believed in 1950 that one day people would have the right to love whoever they wanted even if they were the same sex, yet as of today, marriage with the like gender is now legal nationally . Choices have transformed the society that we live in even though they seemed absurd upon their first mention. The choice people made has impacted history for example people voted for Hitler in Germany which lead to the holocaust. Giving citizens faced with terminal diseases the right to die through the act of euthanasia is an ethical progressive decision that will furthermore improve society. This will be achieved through the decrease patient suffering and the allowance of people to die with respect based upon their own choices and decisions rather than having others decide for them.
The decision to allow citizens access to this life ending measure is influenced broadly by the controversy surrounding it from the perspectives of different individuals and groups. The factor most directly affected by the argument is people’s religious affiliations. All faiths attempt to provide answers for the important idea of death and dying accordingly most religions strongly disapprove of euthanasia and subsequently forbid the practice of it. Religious beliefs pose the strongest declaration on why euthanasia should not be practiced by medical professionals including the fundamental conception that God has forbidden it through ‘thou shalt not kill’, the position that human life is sacred or special, and the sanctity of life. The general moral concerns of the method are in regard to the continuous growth of its popularity could directly lead to a result in abuse including: malpractice by doctors, use of the life-ending steps in cases in which it is not needed, and extensive spread conflict on when it should be considered an option for a person living a life of disease. As an outcome of their pursuit in understanding death, religions are the most well built oppositions against euthanasia alongside the fight to develop moral standards in and throughout the circumstance. Society loves fighting smooth battles because they are other larger factors that involve killing people in much larger rate then the way giving the right to death to those in need of it will ever do. From studies around the world only 1.7% of deaths would involve euthanasia. This without considering the fact that these people are really close to their death and thus all euthanasia does is make it more smooth.
Giving a response to the protestations on euthanasia by religion is the most large, and commanding debate on the authorization of the medical application, quality of life. All mortal beings living in this world today are going to die finally, yet everyone is terror-stricken with the idea because of fear of the unknown and more importantly, the way in which they will die. In reality eighty six percent of the euthanasia cases are used to shorten the painful life of the victim by a week at maximum according to different studies that were done regarding this issue. On the other side the objective that is most frequent in people choosing legal euthanasia is to avoid any form of suffering or pain that will take place in the future because of the terminal disease they were diagnosed with. By allowing the choice to discontinue any heartbreak and discomfort, those going through the austerity are able to live what they have left of their life free and have the ability to take every moment as the precious amount of time that it is. This will correspondingly stimulate those around the individual going through this including family, friends, and even physicians; to respect life more throughout the time in which they are given. Along with the new view of life, loved ones and caretakers will have to encounter a reduced amount of misery from not having to watch the person unhurriedly pass away and live in a state of trauma and pain. Out of the legalization of assisted suicide in the impending century, the standard of living for the person choosing to die and the people around them will be enhanced and all persons will have a considerable recognition with regard to life.
When considering the topic of euthanasia a phrase that is commonly touched upon and can be used indistinguishably to chronicle the topic is the ‘‘right to die with dignity’’. Dignity in this manifestation is referring to the meaning of possessing self-respect and managing oneself in a controlled manner. This phrase is in proposing to exhibit the potential for one living and dying of a terminal disease to have ultimate authority over the way and time in which they end their pain and life. The moral presumption held by many is that a person should have the right to decide to take their own lives in order to end prolonged suffering from a terminal disease diagnosed to them. Moral is constituted by an individual’s beliefs and behaviors in a combination of different situations and often can be swayed by other groups of people that view the world in a thoroughly different perspective. Based on true perception, is there a point where a human can only make a terminating decision on suffer until the end and only delay inevitable or make the last controllable option to leave the world with self-respect from yourself and others around you? A dominant portion of this is also guiding towards ethics. The main question on this issue is, does an individual who has no hope of recuperation have the right to chose when and how to end their life and pain?
The existence of slightly differing perspectives and perceptions on euthanasia are astonishing, many of which give suggestion on why, and how to lay out acceptance of the medical application so that in return it can upgrade society in the upcoming centuries. While it could be necessary for euthanasia and the right to die to get legalized, it is of the uttermost importance that is gently introduced to the public to avoid obstacles including wrongdoing , over usage, and citizens being too frightened to even imagine of resorting to the end of life measure. The most influential collision on the authorization of the right to die is overall universality. Almost every person is scared since they have a limited knowledge on what death is. Almost everyone wants a peaceful death for themselves so the logical action should be giving it to those in need, rather than forcing them to wait?
Euthanasia is not a subject matter to be discussed by the timorous because of the practicality of it. Limitation of life-ending procedures for those in pain through the trauma of a terminal disease are lengthening lives that as a result will not be lived to their maximum potential. As an outcome of this it is only causing negative imagery while in death by many because they are not provided a peaceful demise surrounded by their loved ones. Why should one be denied the right to a peaceful death, since the oppositions don’t want him or to? By enabling people the medical application of euthanasia to end their lives when looking towards death by their terminal diseases, people will not be as horrified by dying and will in turn only appreciate life to the fullest. The real inquiry here is not when a person will be allowed to pass away with dignity, but why they have not formerly been given the right to die. In 2015 it was never expected that a terminally indisposed people would be able to choose to end their lives using the act of euthanasia, but the future cannot be determined at this point of time. Only we as a community can determine what the future should be. We can either go with what the scientific studies are showing or make one’s life be guided by the choice that others made without considering the pain of the he or she is going through.
I am doing this in response to those who claim that the Atheist community does not view feminism with nuance.
1. Feminism is too broad and made up of ideas that are self contradictory. This is toxic because it has made feminism a label that anyone can adapt and use it as a tool for his or her own agenda.
2. Feminism’s being broad makes it very easy to dismiss any criticism as a generalization about the cause. Which makes the cause less likely to good ideas and evolve. In feminist circles since there is no free market of ideas the popular ideas are accepted and nuanced but un popular ideas are thrown away.
3. It is a cult that promotes guilt by dissociation. When you choose to refuse to identify with the label feminist they will associate you with those that are their philosophical enemies rather than judging you as an individual with individual criticism of the idea of feminism. Feminism also does a good job at making any criticism of the idea a criticism of women as a group.
4. Most of its members are not open to a discussion of ideas without mentioning of identity and name calling to dismiss any legitimate criticism.
5In the context of the west it applies cultural Marxism to look for equal outcomes.
6. The biggest problem I have with it in the context of the west is that it is not open to peer review its works. It views peer review as a form of censorship yet Ironically wants to censor opposing theories like the theory of evolutionary psychology.
When broken down by the feminist theory types and my take of each type of well known feminist theories.
1. I am open and respectful of the idea of Liberal Feminism because it keeps key western values like individual liberty and personal responsibility (which is the minority of feminists in the west). On the side note this very closely related to egalitarianism.
2. Radical Feminism is a combination of all the contradicting feminist ideas with a radical look at the world. It is often times anti western culture and capitalism. I would say I dislike this element of feminism because it is openly bigoted. (which is the loud minority in colleges and on tumbler)
3. Marxist and Socialist Feminism I dislike this category of feminism because it treats men and womyn as a class rather than as individuals with individual choices. Besides that it is intellectually dishonest to say that womyn are oppressed in the west because the data’s say otherwise. (It grows quicker when the economy is bad)
4. Cultural Feminism I can say I hate this because it has been used to justify inhumane practices like FGM, rape cultures in non western countries and oppression of women who come from Muslim communities.
5. Eco-Feminism for this it is a form of religion and sorry I am an atheist who loves eating meat.