(random) 1984 quotes =-)

I'm reading 1984 right now, and I found a few quotes that I thought quite piquant, so I thought I'd share them. =-)


"But if there was hope, it was with the proles. You had to cling to that. When you put it in words it sounded reasonable; it was when you looked at the human beings passing you on the pavement that it became an act of faith."


(This is at the end of a chapter in which Winston and Julia managed to, well, create their own private bubble.) "Winston did not get up for a few minutes more. The room was darkening. He turned over toward the light and lay gazing into the glass paperweight. The inexhaustibly interesting thing was not the fragment of coral but the interior of the glass itself. There was such a depth of it, and yet it was almost as transparent as air. It was as though the surface of the glass had been the arch of the sky, enclosing a tiny world with its atmosphere complete. He had the feeling that he could get inside it, and that in fact he was inside it, along with the mahogany bed and the gateleg table and the clock and the steel engraving and the paperweight itself. The paperweight was the room he was in, and the coral was Julia's life and his own, fixed in a sort of eternity at the heart of the crystal."


"Talking to [Julia], [Winston] realized how easy it was to present an appearance of orthodoxy while having no grasp whatever of what orthodoxy meant. In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird."

(E&A) More results of humanity's 'progress'....

I don't know who said it originally, and I don't know where I heard it, but there's a saying that goes something like: Progress creates poverty.


Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?
"They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well.

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up."

Concerns raised on China's Global Health Disclosures
"The international and Hong Kong authorities said Monday that they had received little information from mainland Chinese officials about a mysterious ailment killing pigs in southeastern China or about Chinese wheat gluten contaminated with plastic scrap, raising questions again about whether Beijing is willing to share data on global health issues."


Sometimes I wish there was a God, a boss that would come and smack us for being poor excuses for managers. (In a real business, we'da been fired a _long_ time ago...) I know that external authority does not make people good -- you can force someone to do a good act, but the act itself is not truly good. I know that. (Besides that, I'm certain that we'd immediately quibble over why we got smacked, and the shit would just continue with a newfound ferver.)

Virtue - Individual or Societal (continued)

(In an effort to keep this discussion relatively reasonable, I shall start a new post...)

Here's an example (taken from Matt's final exam for logic): "I think we can safely conclude that our late neighbor Fred was a really good guy. He was kind to his neighbors, co-workers, and family, he volunteered at the local soup kitchen, nobody ever said anything bad about him, and he even went out of his way to rescue turtles on the highway"

Socially, Fred is considered a good person. Socially, he is considered (at least to some degree) virtuous. This tells us *nothing* about his home life, work life, or inner life. Virtue cannot be determined solely by society...

There's a difference between doing things so that other people think you're good, and doing something because you know it's right -- regardless of what the consequences are, or what others think.

If Virtue is completely socially determined, then my intentions (doing an action *because* it is the right thing to do, or doing an action because others will note that it was a good action and my reputation will increase) have little to no say in the determination of my virtue... Surely if I am doing good actions with a selfish purpose (even if I have the biggest grin plastered on my face and allow nothing but kind words to slip through my lips), my action is not _truly_ good...

Society cannot see my intention, and so I may easily be (falsely) deemed a virtuous person, even hailed in the history books as a hero. So we cannot leave Virtue to be determined solely by society...

Is Virtue a social or an individual thing?

If I decided to be consistent about my (forming) beliefs about the mis-use of animals, then I must change my habits immediately, if not 5 minutes ago. For example, my shoes are made of leather, and so, to be consisten, I must get rid of them and never ever again wear leather shoes, or anything made from animal products.

However... I was raised in "the depression" mentality -- or, in other words, I'm a pack rat. To throw these shoes away is to be wasteful because they are still relatively intact, and are probably good for another season. Besides that, I did not buy these leather shoes, but snagged them before they were trashed. I did not give my dollar-vote to Nike (nor would I EVER), or any middle people involved. I am not financially contributing to the problem.

But, my wearing leather shoes is a tacit admittance to the evils of society. And financial contribution is only half the problem, maybe even less when considered socially. Appearances determine virtue in our current society. I never understood nor agreed with that philosophy, until just this moment. If I am to *appear* virtuous, that means my appearance MUST match my principles. If I am for animal rights and humanity's obligation, then I cannot appear to hold any view that might be perceived as contrary. Therefore, if I'm wearing leather shoes but actively working towards animal rights, _by appearances_, _by social perception_, I am not embodying that which I am preaching.

Of course, Virtue is not an appearance thing -- my clothes do not determine my worth. However, my composure and actions and reactions DO determine my moral worth, and these are included in my overall appearance. (Methinks the problem lies in an ambiguity of the word 'appearance'... if not by dictionary definition, then by social definition/connotation.)


If Virtue is determined by society, then I cannot save my shoes, or my leather (for making bags and such), or anything that might be against my stated principles. And yet, if society deems my action (X) wrong, but it _is_ morally correct, am I culpable? (Are societal consequences factored in to "Don't confuse the consequences of doing a right action with the right action"? Or is societal might right?)

If Virtue is determined by myself, then I can save my shoes and everything, and not be entirely ethically/morally inconsistent. But, how can an act be truly Good if I myself, and alone, determine it as such?

If Virtue is determined by both others and myself... where's the middle ground?

(more thinking, a few hours later)

What to do if the society in which one dwells speaks the word 'Virtue', but does unvirtuous actions? (Say one thing, do another) Would individual virtue be recognized for what it is?

(E&A) Cows Starved Due to Delay in Subsidies

Found this in my web meanderings, thought I'd bring it to the table, so to speak.

(Source)

"A GWENT farmer was jailed for four months after he allowed 21 cows to starve to death on a mountainside. [...]
In court, Weeks, from Ty Gwyn Farm, Ty Gwyn Road, Gilwern, and who represented himself, said he was "ashamed" of what had happened but said he was unable to buy food for the cows because of delays in subsidy payments. He said he had no other way of getting money."

While admitting that there were other possible options for this man, how often does this 'delay in subsidies' happen? If this happens more widely, then the price of meat'll go up.

Bad way to go about commencing a vegetarian movement, though...