Part of the book 1984 was the complacence of the lower class. I am not targeting any class here but pointing out that a culture of complacency by division was a large warning in that book that is often overlooked.
It's really unfortunate that most people read 1984 as teenagers (I did). I went back to it as an adult, somewhat expecting it to be a let down. What I found was quite the opposite, there's a lot more nuance in that book than would really be absorbed by high school students being forced to read it.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?"
Do not stereotype teenagers. I am merely fifteen years old, and if you take a look through my comment thread you may find more insight than you expected.
Yes, most in my generation are shallow and passive; but that doesn't mean all are. There are some intellectuals on the fringes.
I agree that we should be careful not to stereotype based on age, but your comment made me think of this funny (yet poignant) bit by Louis C.K.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXcWeFn-YYM
"Older people are smarter, and if you get into an argument with someone who's older, you should listen. It doesn't mean they're always right; but even if they're wrong, their wrongness is rooted in more experience."
That's what I thought when I was 15. It's probably what most academically gifted 15 year olds think.
Go back and read some of your stuff in another 5 years, and then another 5. And tally the face palms. It's a good exercise in humility, something that is often hard to appreciate as a 15 year old
I went back recently and read some of the stuff that I wrote when I was 19 or 20. I came to the sad conclusion that I am getting thicker and more ignorant with age.
"Go back and read some of your stuff in another 5 years, and then another 5. And tally the face palms."
If you could run the experiment the other direction, I wonder how different the results would look. That is, what proportion is "growth" and what is simply "difference".
For context, I'm 34, and like many around here a bright teenager. One thing that I really missed was story coherency, the careful assembly of motivations, events, themes, and characters into a cohesive whole. I don't even know how to describe my standards for a good story as a youth, but they're wildly different than they are now, and in particular many of the things I enjoyed then I now consider incoherent nonsensical trash. Things like Star Trek Voyager, which I always found weak, but now I can explain that weakness, or Final Fantasy X, which merely slightly bothered me at the time, which I now realize is because it was so bad it managed to penetrate the thick fog of blissful ignorance I was living in, but only a little. On the other hand, many of the original Star Trek episodes actually make a great deal more sense to me now than they used to. (It's fun to read the Blish novelizations of them; without the campy 60s videography and terrible effects, the true quality of the underlying stories comes out more clearly.)
I woke up to this around 25 or so. It was actually Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the TV series, of course, not the forgettable movie) that tripped this for me; I realized I cared far more about the characters than any campy horror show had any right to make me care, and I began to wonder why, and poke into the mechanics of how that was done. That turned out to be a longish and interesting journey.
(I know I've mentioned several media that aren't "reading" here, but it trivially applies there as well.)
1. People are really bad judges of their own insight.
2. It's quite common that what seems to be brilliant insight at the age of 15 is perceived as obvious at best and really stupid at worst when the person is 35.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.
I hated most literature when I was 18, then magically fell in love with the same novels I hated when I was 24. Still, there is more nuance I can pick up now at 30 with more study of history. If you haven't read the Iliad and a majority of the Bible, then you simply can't understand most of Western literature and those things take time.
It's interesting to see that this is a universal experience. School gave me literature before I was able to appreciate it, and it nearly turned me off to the taste.
The “Knowledge Maps” used by sites like Kahn Academy [1] strike me as immensely helpful in deciding what to teach someone next, given what they've already learned.
I think it would be cool to replace the one-size-fits-all required reading assignments with something more tailored. Some way of answering the question, “what books(s) is this person likely to get the most insight from at this point in their education?”
Forgive me, because I'm sure you are as thoughtful as you say you are - but, as someone now a number of years past their teenage years (and who tried hard to be similarly thoughtful) I would argue that you will be even more so in a decade or two.
I don't dispute how you are now, but I promise you'll be all that and more. And that was the point of the previous poster, I believe.
I'm 16. I agree with the second statement, but I'd like to point out this: if you're in the public school system and you aren't "shallow and passive", chances are good you'll be given hell if you show it. (Or maybe it's just me. I don't know.)
I'm new to the public school system this year. I live in an area that has no shortage of gun ownership and advocacy, and, the weekend after Sandy Hook, I went to the guidance office to express worry that perhaps some connections would be made that aren't really there. (Not about me individually, but about some poor soul that would slip up and get caught in something)
I was called back to the guidance office later that day, only to be told that I was effectively suspended until I could be, and I quote, "Mentally evaluated". It was handled as a "School Crisis", and I was a "Threat to the school".
Lucky for me, my parents acted quickly enough so that the school system's psychologist could be contacted.
It turned out to be nothing.
(This is the third of four encounters like this. I'm fairly certain I have the high score for most school crises caused in a single year.)
That sucks, I'm sorry to hear that, but I'll make an observation and you can take it or leave it: You didn't properly evaluate their position and what is expected of them. They are held to a certain standard they may personally disagree with but their careers are on the line. Students have a hard time realizing this.
Apropos is Holmes's psychatrist over in Aurora, Co.
School faculty have to worry about their own little mini-9/11's every day that a kid walks in worried about a problem, because how would they ever be able to show their faces to the parents again if that worried kid ended being the 1/10,000 kid that would end up bring violence to their school, and the school had done nothing?
Stereotypes exist for a reason, they are convenient (and sometimes, highly accurate) generalizations. You are a prime example of another type of stereotype.
In my experience (and I am somewhat older than you claim to be) people who declare themselves insightful, aren't. People who declare themselves intellectuals are usually full of it ("most in my generation are shallow and passive").
You may think you're bright but for now, you are just another type of stereotypical teenager with very limited life experience pretending to know things you simply do not comprehend.
My god, when you are older, you will look back and wish that you pursued the "shallow" things in high school. Some of those experiences are not going to be available at any other time in your life. Being an intellectual is overrated; don't be so quick to judge your peers, many of them are wise in ways that you cannot see.
As someone approaching 30, but with very clear memory of their mdi-to-late teens, I will disagree. I did not pursue any of the "shallow" things in high school and I do not at all regret that.
I had only a few high school friends, I neither attended prom nor anther school-related party, never joined a sport-team[1]. Fast forward 11-15 years I have great friends (only a handful of whom were my classmates), am engaged to a wonderful woman, and have no dearth of hobbies.
What do I think was most important? Learning, pursuing things that were interesting to me and cultivating a passion for them (note how so many people are in a quixotic search for pre-existing passions, i.e., in a quarter-life crisis?), interacting with older individuals (they took me seriously, did not make fun of the way I dressed, did not mock my accent or my lastname, did not beat and otherwise bully me, etc...), taking AP classes as well as classes at near-by colleges (the last two activities opened my eyes to new subjects, taught me to learn, and convinced me to pursue a higher education), etc...
I regret not paying enough attention to academic subjects that I _thought_ did not interest me (in college, it turned out that they interested me a great deal), assuming that I had no chance of getting into certain colleges or paying for them, not cultivating an interest in topics like philosophy or history early enough (sticking to just computing, etc...), not participating in "nerdy" clubs (like robotics, programming competitions, etc...)
Yet on the "social" front I've zero regrets: it is much easier to make friends when you've got more in common with people then a school district boundary; dating is much easier when you're independent (not living with your parents, not reliant on a group of friends for all of your social outings), well read, educated (whether formally or self-taught), and otherwise interesting. I don't feel I've missed anything by foregoing that part of life.
[1] Caveat: if you do enjoy a sport, by all means join a sport team or play intramurally. Just don't play a sport for the sake of playing a sport or for a college resume (universities want well rounded student bodies, but they don't necessarily require that every student be "well rounded").
That's awesome, really. If you feel like you've got no regrets about skipping the typical teenager stuff, then great. I genuinely hope that if kunai continues on the same path that his experience later in life is like yours.
You seem to extrapolate something from his words and then make a judgement. Can you give an example of one "shallow" thing that shouldn't be replaced by "being intellectual" and makes peers "wise in ways"?
I just mean whatever he happens to find shallow. I can't read his mind, I can only speculate. It might be joining the football team. It might be doing donuts in the parking lot. It might be getting drunk at a party and having his first sexual experience. It might be shopping for cool clothing. It might be riding a skateboard. It might be skipping class, getting high, and failing the 10-point math quiz after recess. It might be joining student council. There are hundreds of things to do as a teenager that really have not much at all to do with intellectual activity, but that nevertheless require subtlety and nuance.
Yes, I'm projecting my regrets; it's a useful mechanism for making predictions. I was like that, and I certainly have regrets about high school experiences that I missed out on because I was too busy being intelligent. But mostly, high school got a lot better once I realized that intellectual superiority was overrated and I made an effort to fit in socially. The things I value most from that time are the "shallow" experiences, that I also looked down upon for a number of years.
It's only an anecdote, but when I was fifteen I was very confident in my insights - and two decades later, I have completely different insights. It turns out my fifteen-year-old self was a comical little prat after all.
You might be relatively consistent in your beliefs over time, or you might be like me. Just be aware that right now you can't be certain of either.
Homunculiheaded was not criticizing or belittling teenagers. Notice you yourself acknowledge most teenagers today are "shallow"- consider that Homunculiheaded is not concerned with the exceptional individuals, but rather the larger group. To attempt to illustrate, a question: "At what age ought citizens read 1984, that more of them will see the deeper meanings?"
I looked through a bit of your comment history. You are a freak of nature. You easily rank somewhere in the top 1/10,000th of teenagers, probably in the top 1/10,000th of all people of any age. Your abilities are not generalizable.
I think your subtlety missing the point - it wasn't a comment on current teenagers or even past teen generation, but a comment about how ones perception change with time. A different story emerges on reading it years later. It is more subtle and deeper than I initially appreciated. This happened to me also, and it completely changed my perception of the book re-reading it 15 or so years later. I may also have missed the point, but that's how I interpreted the comment.
You will get more insight reading it in another 5, 10, 50 years, true, everyone does, so imagine how much more you will comprehend in the future given your starting point today.
When I was 15, I let 'mature' people stop me from believing I knew anything, and then I was introduced to 'the more you know the more you know you don't know' - its good advice for anyone who thinks they know everything. But don't ever let it stop you from doing anything, believing anything or especially exploring anything.
If you are gifted, and if you believe you are gifted, look at the future for how much more awesome you will be, but don't forget how awesome you are now.
>Yes, most in my generation are shallow and passive
You seem very smart - maybe a genius. I've noticed that the smarter people are the more likely they are to denigrate their peers who don't hold the same values. And they're less likely to enjoy other parts of life due to the belief that these things are beneath them. It's not a cool attitude and it will not help you be a happy person.
Just like very strong people aren't usually aggressive, really smart people aren't socially aggressive. Once you get past the point of "I can bash your head in and you know it", there's no use for overt aggressiveness.
Really smart people are helpful, appreciative and generally nice. The almost smart are the dangerous ones.
I completely disagree with you. You're arguing purely off anecdotal evidence and my experience does not match up with your - for physical strength or intelligence.
Just because someone is smarter or stronger than those around him, does not mean he is confident enough to not rub it in their faces. I've known plenty of intelligent people who are quite aggressive. In fact, it's a bit of a stereotype.
Right, there is something no one here it telling you.
Older people are bare faced liars.
Why? They operate primarily out of fear. They are scared for their job, business, mortgage, possessions, status, kids (you!!), their investments, health care, etc, etc. But more than anything, they are scared for them selves.
Why? The more you have to lose, the more fear and paranoia you acquire.
The older you get the LESS wise you get. In fact, you become more bigoted, judgemental and finger pointy.
The problems in this world are NOT created by the young. Note how the world's problems get worse as average life span increases.
Only a few actually manage to avoid this. Note how they are repeatedly referenced here and other places.
The young are free to think freely because they have less to lose.
Im 40. My life is over. I see a world that is a total mess. I want you and your your generation to fix it. Not for me, my useless generation and the useless generations before me. Forget us. Do it for your selves. You see the disaster, correct? Get your generation together and create the world you need and want. Your generation , like no other generation, has the tools to do it. So, to quote bloody Nike, JUST DO IT.
When I was younger, nobody did as much for me as Noam Chomsky (information) and George Carlin (not going insane over said information) when it comes to these things, and both were way older than you are now.
I agree that there is a lot of potential and purity in youth, even in its follies. But I would like to point out that some people are kinda dead in spirit even when they're young, and some old people are rather lively up to the very point where they fall over and die... and urge you to not give up on yourself that easily. The very fact that you're this frustrated and outspoken means you ought not to. How alive you are is not JUST a function of your age. So stay alive, become more alive, pass it on and thanks.
Oh please, your comment is just as cringe inducing as the one you are responding to. 40 isn't even that old and you are talking like you are on your death bed, it's embarrassing. The world has, is and will be shaped by people of all ages, your ages are not your primary limiting factors here.
You're not disagreeing with the parent. He's making a generalization about teenagers, not claiming a universal truth. I think you got needlessly defensive.
For what it's worth, I've been quite impressed with your post history to-date (and today is not the first time I've taken notice).
The complacence of the proles in 1984 was carefully engineered - they were fed mindless entertainments (songs, novels, porn) and ruthlessly culled of anyone who appeared to show political awareness.
Indeed all states derive their power from the consent of the governed, do they not? What would have happened if even a third of Iraq decided to ignore their government under Saddam? The government couldn't have responded. Governments work because we agree to do what they say. Now things like drones centralize some of the power in ways that could not be done before but only to a point and the complexity overhead counterbalances that.
Complacency is how tyranny works everywhere and in all ages.
>Complacency is how tyranny works everywhere and in all ages.
I think your point specifically about Iraq is largely likely to be correct, but I have never been able to swallow this argument, which comes up just about every discussion of tyranny I see/hear.
A fundamental component of true tyranny is violence or an immediate threat of violence (as opposed to the somewhat more abstract monopoly on force that democratic governments have). At the risk of sounding trite: it's easy to call people complacent in the face of a tyrannical government when it isn't your family that will be the target of that violence. Resisting a strong and deeply rooted tyrannical government is not for the feint of heart or those with precious things to lose. To say those that don't give up the tenuous stability they have to attempt to foil the will of the government are complacent is dangerously close to shifting the blame on the victims of abuse.
I suppose it would be fair to say that in any tyrannical state that many are, in a way, resigned to their fate. For most people in that situation anything besides begrudging acceptance of the way things are is not far from suicide. In the case of the US I would wholeheartedly agree that apathy is a huge driving force behind our government taking power it should not. Implying that's how it works everywhere and every time seems very unfair.
It's not just that though. Tyranny usually works by doing three things:
1. Threatening violence against those who oppose them.
2. Propaganda purporting to show the exceptional nature of the dictator. North Korea for example portrayed Kim Jung Il as a genius mathematician, philosopher, writer, and much more.
3. Socially isolate resistance and ensure they cannot talk to eachother. This takes many forms, but in Iraq for example, a lot of effort was spent fomenting conflict between various small groups in Iraqi society.
The goal is an environment where nobody can effectively oppose not just because they are afraid, but because the images of the grand dictator are so prevalent and everyone is so preoccupied that organized opposition is just not possible. The result is that as soon as folks stop being complacent because organization becomes feasible, the dictatorship falls.
