NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry for the two topics which are extremely similar in theme, but this is a book which I have actually read and is analogous to 1984 insofar as my point about a totalitarian, brainwashing society. For me, Fahrenheit 451 depicts an utopia in which most people are extremely ignorant, yet they live in extremely good conditions and are happy with life. Does anyone have a problem with the society presented in the book?

Sorry for the two topics which are extremely similar in theme, but this is a book which I have actually led and is analogous to 1984 insofar as my point about a totalitarian, brainwashing society. For me, Fahrenheit 451 depicts an utopia in which most people are extremely ignorant, yet they live in extremely good conditions and are happy with life. Does anyone have a problem with the society presented in the book?

Trolling. Do enjoy the time off from the forums the Mods should be bestowing on you soon.

Sorry for the two topics which are extremely similar in theme, but this is a book which I have actually led and is analogous to 1984 insofar as my point about a totalitarian, brainwashing society. For me, Fahrenheit 451 depicts an utopia in which most people are extremely ignorant, yet they live in extremely good conditions and are happy with life. Does anyone have a problem with the society presented in the book?

Go home.
You're not well.

Trolling. Do enjoy the time off from the forums the Mods should be bestowing on you soon.
I cannot see how he will get nailed for trolling.

Trolling. Do enjoy the time off from the forums the Mods should be bestowing on you soon.

That would be a bit hasrh I think. I agree the guy may be trying to get people's goats, but it's not like he came in and said, "all you douchebags are a bunch of cunts!" He posted a topic that could at least lead to some fun debate.

I cannot see how he will get nailed for trolling.

No? Dang, maybe I don't understand the process. How many exclamation points do you have to use? ;)

Umm, the city got nuked? Radiation and dying =/= fun.

You've soured a good joke. Now I hate NS General again.

Umm, the city got nuked? Radiation and dying =/= fun.

True, but that does not reflect on the society and more than the fact that various Native American tribes got wiped out by Europeans reflects on their society. I am simply talking about their way of life.

No? Dang, maybe I don't understand the process. How many exclamation points do you have to use? ;)
Flamebaiting is a possibility here, but we can leave it to the mods to decide.

Fahrenheit 451 depicts an utopia in which most people are extremely ignorant, yet they live in extremely good conditions and are happy with life. Does anyone have a problem with the society presented in the book?

the bliss of ignorance is fleeting (basically what I'm saying is the Ignorance tends to damn you to a stagnant economy due to no new ideas and such)

Once again you assume the role of government is to have happy people which it surely is not

True, but that does not reflect on the society and more than the fact that various Native American tribes got wiped out by Europeans reflects on their society. I am simply talking about their way of life.

Well, their way of life kind of had something to do with it. Nobody knows what's going on, unaccountable politicians make a stupid decision, and those same people end up dying. A society where people are kept ignorant is not good, because you just end up getting screwed over or killed.

Alrighty. The people in F451 were shallow assholes who didn't care about anything but pop culture and daytime TV. The entire society was anti-intellectual. And, like 1984, anybody who was non-comformist (people who enjoyed sitting out on porches talking, people who liked to relax in nature, people who *gasp* read books) was abducted and "re-educated".

*yawns* my flamethrower is empty. sorry! :)

the bliss of ignorance is fleeting (basically what I'm saying is the Ignorance tends to damn you to a stagnant economy due to no new ideas and such)

Once again you assume the role of government is to have happy people which it surely is not

Yet the focus of the government in the novel was to make people content with their lives -- they had no reason to smear discord and malcontent amongst the citizenry. They kept the people lazy, stupid, and happy -- just the way they liked 'em. It was a win-win situation -- they got to stay in power, and the people were happy.

I don't know anything about Fahrenheit 451, and havn't seen his other threads today, but how is this trolling?

Wait .... how is this trolling or mod worthy?

You sure you people aren't confusing 451 with 911?

This isn't about the Moore film, you know. It's a Bradbury book.

Alrighty. The people in F451 were shallow assholes who didn't care about anything but pop culture and daytime TV. The entire society was anti-intellectual. And, like 1984, anybody who was non-comformist (people who enjoyed sitting out on porches talking, people who liked to relax in nature, people who *gasp* read books) was abducted and "re-educated" by Bill O'Rielly.

Edited for accuracy.:)

Alrighty, etc.

So? What's wrong with that? I think that making the most people in society happy should be our goal, whatever the cost. The society in the novel has accomplished that goal quite well, at an extremely minimal cost.

So? What's wrong with that? I think that making the most people in society happy should be our goal, whatever the cost. The society in the novel has accomplished that goal quite well, at an extremely minimal cost.
The only thing "achieved" was a stagnant, ignorant, shallowly hedonistic society who lacked capacity for any deep feeling. One woman's husband dies in war (a minor event in the novel) and hardly reacts to it. And the cost is quite significant: all art, all literature, all philosophy is sacrificed to keep this "utopia" stable. In other words, all the great endeavors that humans are capable of, all the great artistic works that have depth and meaning, are forbidden. The only things left are soap operas and car chases.

Yet the focus of the government in the novel was to make people content with their lives -- they had no reason to smear discord and malcontent amongst the citizenry. They kept the people lazy, stupid, and happy -- just the way they liked 'em. It was a win-win situation -- they got to stay in power, and the people were happy.

yes the government got to stay in power but everything just stagnated yes in the book the government was only interested in its own security but real governments thankfully have things like the well being of there children to think about and even the watching eyes of history to judge them

More stuff.

I don't get your point. What's wrong with all that? Isn't the point of books, art, intelligence, etc., to make us happy? Why should we have all those things if they cannot lead to bliss? Conversely, if we have attained bliss, why should we require all those things?

I don't get your point. What's wrong with all that? Isn't the point of books, art, intelligence, etc., to make us happy? Why should we have all those things if they cannot lead to bliss? Conversely, if we have attained bliss, why should we require all those things?

If you go by ignorance, you will never be able to acheive full happyness. You will just be on a pale medium where you feel neither high nor lows because without hardship, good things just seem boring and nothing special.

So? What's wrong with that? I think that making the most people in society happy should be our goal, whatever the cost. The society in the novel has accomplished that goal quite well, at an extremely minimal cost.

In a political sense that's a well-established point. Any government's goal is to keep its people happy so that they can remain in power; depending on the scruples of that government such power might be intended to enrich the leaders of the government or to keep the people preoccupied while important or difficult tasks are accomplished. "Panes et circenses" is a very common and very important concept in governance.

Now, mind you, there are a lot of risks with that. A "happy" society can often mean a stagnant society; when society stagnates, it will eventually decline and collapse. One might look at the Imperium in the Dune series for a society whose stagnation almost dooms it to failure and destruction.

True, but that does not reflect on the society and more than the fact that various Native American tribes got wiped out by Europeans reflects on their society. I am simply talking about their way of life.

Most of the people were complete airheads. They also more or less randomly executed people to end manhunts.

Alrighty. The people in F451 were shallow assholes who didn't care about anything but pop culture and daytime TV.

No, he was talking about a book called F451, not the so many Americans these days.

I don't get your point. What's wrong with all that? Isn't the point of books, art, intelligence, etc., to make us happy? Why should we have all those things if they cannot lead to bliss? Conversely, if we have attained bliss, why should we require all those things?
First of all, there's a difference between bliss and hedonism. There's a difference between true happiness and mindless distraction. The people of F451 are not happy. They are occupied. Self-indulgent. Stupid. Their souls are gone, and have been replaced by a gaudy charicature of humanity. Even religion has been turned into a commodity.

And maybe I didn't make it clear before, but this shallow hedonism is mandatory. Anybody who isn't satisfied with it is suppressed. People who try to learn and grow and seek truth and meaning and real fulfillment in their lives are ostracized and "disappeared". So, this world is paradise as long as you're an easily-satisfied dullard. Everyone else is eliminated.

Sorry for the two topics which are extremely similar in theme, but this is a book which I have actually read and is analogous to 1984 insofar as my point about a totalitarian, brainwashing society. For me, Fahrenheit 451 depicts an utopia in which most people are extremely ignorant, yet they live in extremely good conditions and are happy with life. Does anyone have a problem with the society presented in the book?

Are they really happy in life? There is a constant war going on. Mildred (Montag's wife) ODs on tranquilizers (it's the first time we see her in the book) and the two techs that pump her stomach are bored and insensitve because they say they have ten more cases just like her to take care of. Mrs. Bowles and Mrs. Phelps have kids who hate them and husbands whom they don't care about dying in the war or committing suicide. Clarisse (the reader) is sent to a psychiatrist as being "antisocial" for talking to everyone and wanting to learn things, and is later murdered by teens out joyriding, possibily the same teens and preteens who tried to murder Montag by running him down as he crossed the street. People are dragged from their homes, arrested, and sent to asylums for daring to read, and their homes are burned down for it. Not even for attempting to get others to read -- just for reading in the privacy of their own homes.

If the people in that society appear to be happy to you, I would say that you probably did not read closely enough.

You will just be on a pale medium where you feel neither high nor lows because without hardship, good things just seem boring and nothing special.

The characters in the book did feel highs -- although they may not be as great as those felt after success in the face of adversity, they are highs nonetheless. Montag's wife, for example, absolutely loves the Family. That joy does not rival some more intense feelings of happiness, but it is the only feeling of happiness which can be attained without feeling any pain. After all, wouldn't the pain suffered negate the joy experienced at ending the pain?

No, he was talking about a book called F451, not the so many Americans these days.

And people call me a troll. At least I confine my stereotyping to liberals and not to all Americans.

*Puts "RealAmerica" on his ignore list* :p Two troll threads in a row equals a person who is not worth listening too.

True, but that does not reflect on the society and more than the fact that various Native American tribes got wiped out by Europeans reflects on their society. I am simply talking about their way of life.

How does this have ANYTHING to do with the original post about the society in Fahrenheit 451????

Yet the focus of the government in the novel was to make people content with their lives -- they had no reason to smear discord and malcontent amongst the citizenry. They kept the people lazy, stupid, and happy -- just the way they liked 'em. It was a win-win situation -- they got to stay in power, and the people were happy.

Yes, people committing suicide, crying hysterically over a poem which admonished them to be loyal to one another because the world is a cruel place, and being burned alive with their homes seem very happy to me.

How does this have ANYTHING to do with the original post about the society in Fahrenheit 451????

Because he claimed that a society which had been nuked is not a good society in which to live. Although a true statement, that comment was nowhere near my point.

Okay, my real take. have you ever heard the saying, "without teh bitter the sweet ain't so sweet?" Human emotion only works in opposition to itself. In other words, it's hard to be happy if you have not known sadness. It's hard to be content if you have not known suffering. It's hard to feel empathy if you have not felt loss. It's hard to be excited if you have not nown boredom. It's hard to be passionate if you have not known apathy. Emotions are the pinnacle of human experience. Without them life is not rewarding. In order to have them you have to know their depths and those depths can only be attained through free will. You have to be free to make decisions and watch those decisions fail in order to appreciate the times that they do not.

I don't get your point. What's wrong with all that? Isn't the point of books, art, intelligence, etc., to make us happy? Why should we have all those things if they cannot lead to bliss? Conversely, if we have attained bliss, why should we require all those things?

there is more to life than fulfilling basic animal drives sure a multi-billionaire can sit at home all day like a cat licking his arse and constantly mating but at the end of the day no matter what the billionaire has he is not happy simply because humans aren’t meant to be happy it comes from our imagination the billionaire like all of us seeks the answers to the fundamental facts of life its our gift and you could say our curse

Because he claimed that a society which had been nuked is not a good society in which to live. Although a true statement, that comment was nowhere near my point.

I have no idea what your reference to the lives of Native Americans had to do with Fahrenheit 451. And he's right: the society tore itself to pieces and was nuked, so I would think that a dead society is not, as you claim, a happy and successful one.

Yes, people committing suicide, crying hysterically over a poem which admonished them to be loyal to one another because the world is a cruel place, and being burned alive with their homes seem very happy to me.

Prior to crying hysterically over that poem, that person was happy, however. It was the books, the poems, etc., which made her unhappy. If Montag had not existed, people would have been a lot happier. Only the people who went against society were unhappy -- everyone else was content with the way things were being run. Everybody in the book is happy until the learn of books.

Are they really happy in life? There is a constant war going on. Mildred (Montag's wife) ODs on tranquilizers (it's the first time we see her in the book) and the two techs that pump her stomach are bored and insensitve because they say they have ten more cases just like her to take care of. Mrs. Bowles and Mrs. Phelps have kids who hate them and husbands whom they don't care about dying in the war or committing suicide. Clarisse (the reader) is sent to a psychiatrist as being "antisocial" for talking to everyone and wanting to learn things, and is later murdered by teens out joyriding, possibily the same teens and preteens who tried to murder Montag by running him down as he crossed the street. People are dragged from their homes, arrested, and sent to asylums for daring to read, and their homes are burned down for it. Not even for attempting to get others to read -- just for reading in the privacy of their own homes.

If the people in that society appear to be happy to you, I would say that you probably did not read closely enough.
Look who has taught F451...;)
I don't get your point. What's wrong with all that? Isn't the point of books, art, intelligence, etc., to make us happy? Why should we have all those things if they cannot lead to bliss? Conversely, if we have attained bliss, why should we require all those things?

No, that's not the point of books, art, and intellegence. Your knot is tangled way deeper than this book, it's going to take a lot to unravel it.

I don't get your point. What's wrong with all that? Isn't the point of books, art, intelligence, etc., to make us happy? Why should we have all those things if they cannot lead to bliss? Conversely, if we have attained bliss, why should we require all those things?

You should read Brave New World. You'd love it.

No, that's not the point of books, art, and intellegence. Your knot is tangled way deeper than this book, it's going to take a lot to unravel it.

Why do we do anything? All our actions are calculated to maximize our joy, aren't they? We don't punch ourselves in the face -- obviously, it would cause us pain. We create art, books, etc., because we enjoy doing so. Similarly, we read books, look at painings, etc., because we enjoy doing so. If they cannot bring us happiness (or stop us from feeling pain), what benefit are they to society? If our happiness can only be maximized if we do not have books, art, etc., then why should we stubbornly stick to them?

Yet the focus of the government in the novel was to make people content with their lives -- they had no reason to smear discord and malcontent amongst the citizenry. They kept the people lazy, stupid, and happy -- just the way they liked 'em. It was a win-win situation -- they got to stay in power, and the people were happy.

No, there were quite a number who weren't happy. And I'd've been one of them.

Prior to crying hysterically over that poem, that person was happy, however. It was the books, the poems, etc., which made her unhappy. If Montag had not existed, people would have been a lot happier. Only the people who went against society were unhappy -- everyone else was content with the way things were being run. Everybody in the book is happy until the learn of books.

She was? Over her husband who was dead, and her kids who hated her and whom she herself hated?

You have a strange idea of happy. The book did not make her unhappy -- the realization of the emptiness of her life did.

No, there were quite a number who weren't happy. And I'd've been one of them.

You would have most likely been perfectly content if you didn't know what you were missing.

What's interesting is that the main way the government in F 451 controlled people was by banning books and by making life so frenetic that no one has time to read (assuming they even can at this point). In the movie, there are no written titles at the beginning. Everything that would have been in written titles as we know them is read over the opening shots.

And people call me a troll. At least I confine my stereotyping to liberals and not to all Americans.

I honestly don't think you're a troll.

The book did not make her unhappy -- the realization of the emptiness of her life did.

That's like saying that if I shoot somoene, I don't kill them -- the bullet does. Likewise, the book was the catalyst for her realization of the crappiness of her life. If there had been no book, she would have gone on living, blissfully ignorant of all that she didn't have. She would have spent long hours with her Family, relaxed and content. The book was the thing that burst her well-adjusted bubble, causing her to feel sadness, previously unfelt. Emptiness is not negative unless its effect can be felt.

Why do we do anything? All our actions are calculated to maximize our joy, aren't they? We don't punch ourselves in the face -- obviously, it would cause us pain. We create art, books, etc., because we enjoy doing so. Similarly, we read books, look at painings, etc., because we enjoy doing so. If they cannot bring us happiness (or stop us from feeling pain), what benefit are they to society? If our happiness can only be maximized if we do not have books, art, etc., then why should we stubbornly stick to them?

You're talking about coddling the lowest common denominator - the avowed consumerite. Why should their Slack take precedence over mine?

Look who has taught F451...;) More like, who is finishing up a unit on the book within the next week and a half. ;)


No, that's not the point of books, art, and intellegence. Your knot is tangled way deeper than this book, it's going to take a lot to unravel it.

Books, art, and the constructs that man makes are merely reflections of the inner self. A book is paper bound in cardboard: it cannot make anyone happy or unhappy. The inner self interprets the ideas contained therein as "happy " or "unhappy".

If the inner self cries at the idea of loyalty, it is not the fault of the concept of loyalty -- it is the inner self that knows it has none and no one is loyal to them.

I don't get your point. What's wrong with all that? Isn't the point of books, art, intelligence, etc., to make us happy? Why should we have all those things if they cannot lead to bliss? Conversely, if we have attained bliss, why should we require all those things?

No. They aren't. They are art, and their purpose ranges from the joy of escapism (fantasy), to philosophy (much of early sci fi), to information. Art and books are not about happiness, they are about creation and expression (they are art, not entertainment, no matter what fast-food, take and bake culture Americans seem to enjoy this world). Intelligence is it's own point, as it is a survival trait.

You would have most likely been perfectly content if you didn't know what you were missing.

Unlikely. I was not raised to be a blithe consumerite.

You would have most likely been perfectly content if you didn't know what you were missing.

As was Clarisse? and the Old Woman? Faber? Montag? Beatty? (you remember -- the fire chief who wanted to die and goaded Montag into killing him?)
Your entire premise is flawed.

Why do we do anything? All our actions are calculated to maximize our joy, aren't they? We don't punch ourselves in the face -- obviously, it would cause us pain. We create art, books, etc., because we enjoy doing so. Similarly, we read books, look at painings, etc., because we enjoy doing so. If they cannot bring us happiness (or stop us from feeling pain), what benefit are they to society? If our happiness can only be maximized if we do not have books, art, etc., then why should we stubbornly stick to them?
Life is about more than simply maximizing pleasure. Or at least human nature is.

We have a desire for sweet things and nutrients, but if we ate nothing but sugar-coated multivitamins we'd be no happier.

We have a need for sleep, but if we slept all the time we'd be slack-jawed and sluggish.

We have a need for sex, but if we did nothing but mate all the time we'd be no better than animals.

In fact, forget all that. We could be happy by simply pumping ourselves full of endorphins and other pleasure-inducing chemicals, but then we'd be mindless, drooling, stupefied morons.

You see, just because we want to be happy doesn't mean that endless happiness would make our lives better, especially not if "endless happiness" involves sacrificing everything that makes us human in the pursuit of empty hedonism. We require more than simple pleasure to feel truly happy and whole. We need meaning and fulfillment. We need challenges and risks. We need to seek truth in all its forms. Any society that denies these subtle but important needs in favor of sheer pleasure is not a utopia, by any means.

As was Clarisse? and the Old Woman? Faber? Montag? Beatty? (you remember -- the fire chief who wanted to die and goaded Montag into killing him?)
Your entire premise is flawed.

I HAVEN'T READ IT YET!! DAMN YOU FOR SPOILING WHAT I'M GONNA READ IN A FEW MONTHS!!

Unlikely. I was not raised to be a blithe consumerite.

Exactly. Had you not been raised in a way that rejected commodity fetishism, you probably would've grown up not knowing any more than the desire to accquire more. It's possible to find your way independently, but in many cases people are either forced to be ignorant or to tune out their other desires in favor of consumption.

As was Clarisse? and the Old Woman? Faber? Montag? Beatty? (you remember -- the fire chief who wanted to die and goaded Montag into killing him?)
Your entire premise is flawed.

All those people whom you listed were living in despair because they knew about books -- Beatty in particular was extremely literate.

Why do we do anything? All our actions are calculated to maximize our joy, aren't they?

what about love? (the caring about someone beyond the material gain)

We don't punch ourselves in the face -- obviously, it would cause us pain.

well some people like the buzz (though many don't go as far) the same can be said for books if I end up crying at the end feeling terrible sorrow it’s a damn good read because of the emotions involved and the trip itself to go further it stems from the fact that humans love the occasional horror in fact we crave it like a crack addict craves crack it just feels so good to cry and get that buzz

Real America, you seem to sincerely believe that ignorance is bliss, and that pure joy is the only reason anyone does anything.

That sorta begs the question; why haven't you bashed yourself in the head with a hammer and dropped five tabs of ecstacy yet?

Exactly. Had you not been raised in a way that rejected commodity fetishism, you probably would've grown up not knowing any more than the desire to accquire more. It's possible to find your way independently, but in many cases people are either forced to be ignorant or to tune out their other desires in favor of consumption.

I think it's entirely possible to find ones' way independently - but it is highly unlikely, given the overwhelming tendency toward regarding ignorance as a virtue.

We have a desire for sweet things and nutrients, but if we ate nothing but sugar-coated multivitamins we'd be no happier.

False. We eat things that we do not particularly like to maximize our happiness -- we wouldn't not be bouncing with joy if we had scurvy now, would we? Eating healthy foods leads to future joy while eating sweets maximized present joy. We don't eat food that both tastes bad and is unhealthy.

We have a need for sleep, but if we slept all the time we'd be slack-jawed and sluggish.

Exactly. We sleep because it will maximize our joy -- without sleep, we'd most likely die. I daresay that's not too fun.

We have a need for sex, but if we did nothing but mate all the time we'd be no better than animals.

Why should we be "better" than the animals? Do you think God made us special?

In fact, forget all that. We could be happy by simply pumping ourselves full of endorphins and other pleasure-inducing chemicals, but then we'd be mindless, drooling, stupefied morons.

As long as we could perpetuate our happiness, what's wrong with that?

That sorta begs the question; why haven't you bashed yourself in the head with a hammer and dropped five tabs of ecstacy yet?

Because I also want to maximize society's overall happiness? If I take ecstacy, I might be ecstatic, but society would suffer as a result. Since I would be unhappy to see society suffer as a direct consequence of my taking ecstacy, I don't. In effect, taking it would make me unhappy in the long term.

I think it's entirely possible to find ones' way independently - but it is highly unlikely, given the overwhelming tendency toward regarding ignorance as a virtue.

Yup, and that's why it is so easy for people to fall in to that trap of glorified consumption...we replace the things that bring us true happiness with things that create the illusion of it. Really, that consumerist attitude is nothing more than a big anti-depressant that tries to convince us we're happy when we really aren't.

what about love? (the caring about someone beyond the material gain)

I am not talking merely about material gain. I am also talking about psycholoigcal and emotional gain -- when you love someone, that's obviously emotional happiness, not material happiness.

Because I also want to maximize society's overall happiness? If I take ecstacy, I might be ecstatic, but society would suffer as a result.

Oh really? Just how? You know, I rather think society wouldn't give a rat's ass if you took ecstacy.

Since I would be unhappy to see society suffer as a direct consequence of my taking ecstacy, I don't. In effect, taking it would make me unhappy in the long term.

I notice you didn't answer the question about the hammer. Are you considering it? Ignorance is bliss, you know, and a hammer will get you bliss.

I HAVEN'T READ IT YET!! DAMN YOU FOR SPOILING WHAT I'M GONNA READ IN A FEW MONTHS!!

You're welcome.

Oh really? Just how? You know, I rather think society wouldn't give a rat's ass if you took ecstacy.

I would harm society because I would not accurately calculate my actions while under the influence of the drug. Society would also care if they had to may for my habit because it precluded me from working.

I notice you didn't answer the question about the hammer. Are you considering it? Ignorance is bliss, you know, and a hammer will get you bliss.

I doubt that hitting yourself in the head will bring you bliss -- maybe you get a high off pain, but I don't.

Because I also want to maximize society's overall happiness? If I take ecstacy, I might be ecstatic, but society would suffer as a result. Since I would be unhappy to see society suffer as a direct consequence of my taking ecstacy, I don't. In effect, taking it would make me unhappy in the long term.
If you really cared about the health of society, then you should be doubly against the world of F451. The society portrayed there was empty, soulless, corrupt, and decadent. It was collapsing in on itself. The people were suicidal with loneliness, which they attempted to gloss over with their various entertainments. It lacked the hallmarks of a great civilization -- it was stagnant. It could not improve itself. If it the book hadn't ended the way it did (I won't spoil it), the society would have eventually crumbled.

I am not talking merely about material gain. I am also talking about psycholoigcal and emotional gain -- when you love someone, that's obviously emotional happiness, not material happiness.
And what were the people in the book like? Ah, that's right -- emotionally numb and psychologically empty.

False. We eat things that we do not particularly like to maximize our happiness -- we wouldn't not be bouncing with joy if we had scurvy now, would we? Eating healthy foods leads to future joy while eating sweets maximized present joy. We don't eat food that both tastes bad and is unhealthy.

You're contradicting yourself. You say they did not read because reading made them unhappy (yet Mildred, who never reads, is a drug addict who needs to anesthetize herself with her ever present SeaShell radio (read: iPod) and her video family (as opposed to a real one).

Yet you say we eat foods we don't like to maximize our future happiness.

How is this example any different from reading? We read for all sorts of reasons -- to gaon knowledge about better health, for example.

I say again: your argument is flawed.

I am not talking merely about material gain. I am also talking about psycholoigcal and emotional gain -- when you love someone, that's obviously emotional happiness, not material happiness.

And yet the people of your perfect society were utterly incapable of love -- of themselves or others.

Mildred and Montag are not in love, and he can't ever remember having been, BEFORE he read books. The teens racing around all night don't care if they live or die.

I would harm society because I would not accurately calculate my actions while under the influence of the drug. Society would also care if they had to may for my habit because it precluded me from working.


Based on your arguments so far, I'd say you *already* can't accurately calculate your actions. Therefore taking a drug can't affect that.

Another thing, MDMA would hardly preclude you from working. Just fake piss tests. No problem. So stop making excuses, you want to maximize joy AND you laud the benefits of the 1984 society... you yourself are arguing for drug use on your part.


I doubt that hitting yourself in the head will bring you bliss -- maybe you get a high off pain, but I don't.

Oh no, you don't get off that easy. You want to maximize joy. Well, in the long term, brain damage would render you ignorant and therefore blissfull ALL the time, hence a small investment of SOME pain now would be well worth it.

Get your hammer.

I am not talking merely about material gain. I am also talking about psycholoigcal and emotional gain -- when you love someone, that's obviously emotional happiness, not material happiness.

*shakes head*

love =/= happiness

And good example is that I will worry furiously if I think a loved one is suffering and will do anything to stop it but lets go into more familiar grounds for your regular Joe NS’er you love your country so your willing to die for it now when dead how will you be happy?

RealAmerica, if you believe that ignorance is bliss, then why are you having philisophical discussions? Shouldnt you just forget everything you know and veg out playing video games and watching cartoons?

Stop reading books that make you 'think' (you are obviously way to impresisonable anyway) and shoot for a janitorial position where you can be happy cleaning toilets.

I hope you aren't voicing an opinion held by most right wingers. That faith in the system and unquestioning loyalty to our leaders is the path to happiness.