Doublethink

Black Swan

What is doublethink? Does it exist today, or is it just an Orwellian fiction? If it does exist, can you cite examples and make sense or nonsense of them? See the below 1984 quote for clarification (or confusion):

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 (George Orwell, 1984).

I wonder to what extent America under Donald Trump has moved towards Orwell's 1984? For example:

"Truth isn't truth" (Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump's lawyer, August 2018). :pac: :eek:

Can we add "alternative facts" to our list of doublethink (Kellyanne Conway, Special Advisor to Trump on Meet the Press January 2017)?

Can you think of other examples of doublethink that may have occurred at home, or the rest of the EU, or across the pond, or elsewhere? Or do you have a counter argument that may suggest that there is no doublethink in existence today, or the examples given above or below may have different explanations besides an Orwellian one?

Comments? Examples? Ideas?

unfortunately

The UK government and the Border comes to mind. The UK government says they don't want a hard border but also say that they are leaving the customs union which will result in a hard border. I genuinely believe they don't want a hard border - nobody does, but they are carrying out actions and have stated beliefs that will actually result in what they say they don't want

Fathom

“The more I know, the more I realize I know nothing” (Socrates). May or may not be doublethink?

Fathom

Can oxymorons exhibit doublethink? Examples: act naturally; deafening silence; found missing; seriously funny.

Fox_In_Socks

To get up every day and eat food which has been produced by intensive agriculture. Agriculture which over the last 10000 years has led to extinctions and loss of biodiversity and in the last 100 has led to eutrophication and pollution not to mention the cruel conditions in which millions of animals exist-and be against cruelty to animals.

Drive in your car, spewing out noxious gases, contributing to climate change and yet, be against climate change deniers.

Be against cruelty to children and wear clothes that may have been made anywhere. Who knows who made them and how...sweatshops etc.

We engage in double think every day, every moment of the day. Eating that chocolate bar and trying to stay healthy. Making an excuse for someone you know is wrong but doing it anyway. It’s human nature. Apes pretending to be rational but anything but😂

Fathom

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

We engage in double think every day, every moment of the day. Eating that chocolate bar and trying to stay healthy. Making an excuse for someone you know is wrong but doing it anyway. It’s human nature. Apes pretending to be rational but anything but��

Differences between actions and words?

Black Swan

To what extent are there differences between public self and private self? Do contradictions exist, and do such contradictions fall into doublethink?

Fathom

Doublethink. Definitions change too?

Black Swan

Fathom wrote: »

Doublethink. Definitions change too?

Do you have to doublethink to define doublethink?

Fathom

Black Swan wrote: »

Do you have to doublethink to define doublethink?

Teleology?

Black Swan

Doublethink circular arguments, or arguments in two different universes (e.g., facts and alternative facts)?

Turtle001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2057911330/doublethink

I was thinking about 1984 earlier today when listening to a podcast on Artificial Intelligence and would suggest Doublethink is stronger than ever. For example if we look at how social media platforms use AI algorithms to decide what displayed to people every day.

The person's view of the world is being shaped by these streams but the streams are not always reflective of what happens in the world or at least biased towards random things - piano playing cat anyone?

Like the idea of removing words from the dictionary in 1984, these algorithms have the power to remove ideas/views by not promoting them next to other topics/ideas in an unsupervised way.

The book continues to be a masterpiece. More gin anyone?

auspicious

Perhaps the "thesis " and "antithesis " as postulated by Kingsnorth below. The war of devision currently raging in soceity papers over the cracks of an obviously rudderless western culture.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N_uAwsVn10Y

Joe1919

Just some thoughts from my classical philosophical days and links that might be relevant to 'Doublethink'. In classical philosophy, Socrates (Plato) and his followers (academy) engaged in 'Dialectics' or the dialectical method, which was an attempt to see things from different points of view, and to reach some sort of synthesis, which was often unsuccessful, resulting in the growth of scepticism. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

They were critical of the 'sophists', who they saw as using 'Dialectics' as a sort of 'Doublethink' for there own professional self interest rather than to pursue genuine wisdom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist

In Chinese philosophy, Chuang Tzu is the master of contradictions. He sees wisdom in terms of standing at the 'pivot' between the balances of opposite ideas. (Ying/Yang). https://allspirit.co.uk/the-pivot-by-chuang-tzu/

To a very large extent, both our legal and political systems are based on 'dialectic' or opposing points of view (e.g. prosecuting/defence & Government/opposition), which is suppose to lead to a genuine resolution, but I suppose can end up in a sort of 'Doublethink' when things go wrong (e.g self interest).

Black Swan

Georg Hegel was an idealist who suggested that for every thesis an antithesis would emerge in conflict. From this conflict a synthesis may occur as a resolution to the conflict. This synthesis would become the new thesis, which in turn would be opposed by a new antithesis in a continuous cycle of change.

To what extent would the antithesis exhibit doublethink in contrast to the thesis?

Black Swan

Machiavelli in the Prince suggested a metaphor between lions and foxes. Lions were ferocious, divisive, and warlike. Foxes were smart, secretive, collaborative, and conflict avoiding. Machiavelli suggested there was a time for both, but inappropriate timing or domination of one was a weakness. Rather, the ideal prince would exhibit each when appropriate.

Would the secretive fox use doublethink or the divisive lion, or both, given the time?

Across the pond the use of fake news and alternative facts seem to exhibit doublethink.

Joe1919

'Nature loves diversity', so we really have no reason to expect that society or people or even the individual within himself will always be of one mind about things. But many overestimate human rationality and think that if we know the full facts, everything can be resolved to one coherent answer. Science can answer all questions.

But many controversial issues cannot be resolved because they break down to be about 'values' and not about 'facts'. There is a moral theory called 'Emotivism' which builds on this and which I find appealing. I find, for example, that some recent controversies (e.g abortion or covid lockdowns etc.) revolve around what 'value' we as individuals place on our own personal 'freedom' versus 'life' or risk to life. So we start out with an initial emotive position based on our desires/values and we use 'fact' and rationality to justify our position. Often we are not worried about the truth or accuracy of these facts, as our mind is already made up. Furthermore, our 'values' are like taste, they have nothing to do with reason and are subject to our moods and fancy. To quote David Hume, “Tis not unreasonable for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” (Reason is a slave of the passions)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotivism

Black Swan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118288220#Comment_118288220

Max Weber suggested that no one is value free. We struggle to achieve objective, empirical evidence through the scientific method, then admit our assumptions and limitations that may be value laden. Caution should always be the watchword in science, as with theories and philosophies. Such cautions only allows us to suggest and not prove in science.

Consequently, to say that numerous scientific studies have proven anything is an example of doublethink today, or perhaps marketing of a product or service on the Telly. Not science.

Fathom

Freedom fighters or terrorists?