I think this passage can fit nicely into a lot of people's religious beliefs, system of religious beliefs, etc.

quote:

---

a quote from George Orwell's book "1984"

In Oldspeak it is called, quite frankly, "reality control." In Newspeak it is called doublethink, though doublethink comprises much else as well.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guild. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc [English Socialism], since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny existence of objective reality and all the while take account of the rality which one denies-all this is indispensably necessary.

---

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

I think this works for a lot more beliefs than just religious - in fact I think this is a very advantageous way of thinking.

even when, by definition, one is wrong? (or they both are) what is so good about accepting something that is false?

define something as true RAOVQ.
what is the good of only holding one view of the world if you can't even prove it - might as well hold a couple... then they can change as your mood changes. oh I don't think you should take this so serious. maybe I am wrong.?

the greatest thing about us is our ability to adapt (or I think it should be) - how can you adapt when you only have one set of eyes?

denile of absolute truth does not mean that anything is possible and should be belived. while nothing is set in concrete for all eternity, some things are stable enough to be taken for granted. these are the truths.

opposite veiwpoints held at the expense of reason and logic is not the same thing as an open mind. you can be perfectly reasonable and still only belive in one thing-the most reasonable thing.

Doublethink...is a vast system of mental cheating

- George Orwell

sorry I didn't have time for a proper answer earlier.

denile of absolute truth wasn't where I was heading with this

what if reason and logic are flawed? or faulty... I see the paradox in this... which is kind of my point. if I can logically show that logic is flawed than I have no choice but to believe in both and follow neither... I think this kind of like living with the absurd.
you said some things are stable enough to be taken for granted, but I don't think this is true - i don't know I think there are usually many ways of looking at things and your body chemistry has a lot to do with how you see it. also, saying what you said, you have basically taken away all absolute truth and replaced it with granted truth... sorry RAOVQ but that right there is doublethink.

[This message has been edited by govinda (edited 12-14-2002).]

[This message has been edited by govinda (edited 12-14-2002).]

When I was agnostic I would have agreed with you Govinda.

But, I think, in the context of 1984, that it wouldn't be something that you'd want to be praising.

in the context of 1984 I agree.

How can believing two contradictory and otherwise mutually exclusive ideas be beneficial?

Apart from mental and emotional cushioning.

It's an agnostic point of view, didn't you say you're agnostic?

I think I'm using agnosticism as an excuse while I search for some sort of 'truth', regarding a higher being, that I feel is right.

I would rather be agnostic than atheist or deist at this point in time because it's a relatively impartial philosophy.

My agnosticism has more of an unsure, seeking flavour, rather than of denial.

to tell you the 'truth' I think everybody everyday with nearly every decision employs this doublethink - people hold contradictory ideas at all times... it's called sanity I think. If you really break down your beliefs down to the core you come up with nothing. I can't show you this and really have little reason to... the only way this way of thinking (I believe) can become advantageous is when you realise how hypocritical you are - not to stop being hypocritical (thats suicide or when you lose control), just be aware of it - then you can transend it.

oh I don't know, I can only argue this point so far... it is something I can see in myself and I assume that everybody can do the same.!?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogey Man:
[QUOTE] a quote from George Orwell's book "1984"

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

---

Even though doublethink is described as above,what is described after that is actually singlethink. They were only believing ONE thing at a time and then were forgetting it when required to believe something else to suit the purposes.

As it says, they believed lies when they needed to and then resurrected the opposite facts when needed, but they were only believing one thing at a time.

So even though a good definition of doublethink was given, which is the best way to think, the description was of singlethink, which was not anything new, except in the details, effectiveness and deviousness.

It is Doublethink because you can switch in between thinking the ideas without even realizing you were just thinking the complete opposite, without denying either factuality.

I practice Doublethink often for the sake of argument, and also because I'm a complete and utter hypocrite. But I see being hypocritical different than doublethink, in some people's case, because I do it completely consciously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogey Man:
It is Doublethink because you can switch in between thinking the ideas without even realizing you were just thinking the complete opposite, without denying either factuality.

I practice Doublethink often for the sake of argument, and also because I'm a complete and utter hypocrite. But I see being hypocritical different than doublethink, in some people's case, because I do it completely consciously.

---

It seems like switching without realizing you were just thinking the opposite could also be described as rapidly alternating singlethink, but still does not fit the definition of having opposite points of view concurrently, since you aren't aware of both views, just one at a time. Doublespeak is defined as being simultaneous, having awareness.

You may not be hypocritical, sctually, or at least not in a negative sense.

bkc I think you have something there - singlethink while you are not aware of the contradictions you support and doublethink when you realise your hypocrisy.

I don't think the hypocrisy is a negative thing - it is negative to think you don't employ it.
I wish we could expand on this idea but I don't know where else to take it.

*quantized is agnositic*
*quantized is a hypocrite.
*quantized realizes that other people make good points.*
*quantized dissappears in poof of logic douglas adams style.

quote:

---

Originally posted by govinda:
bkc I think you have something there - singlethink while you are not aware of the contradictions you support and doublethink when you realise your hypocrisy.

I don't think the hypocrisy is a negative thing - it is negative to think you don't employ it.
I wish we could expand on this idea but I don't know where else to take it.

---

What we call contradictions would not be called that if we are able to look at them from a different point of view than we had the first time. From a different point of view something that we saw one way from the first point of view will look and be described entirely different when seen from the second point of view. There is always a different point of view to look at something from and so what a person calls a correct answer is only correct from a certain point of view. Correct answers are more illusions than they are truth. They are not absolute.But they are conditionally true. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Where a person can take this is to try to answer all their questions from different points of view and see what answers come up. Whenever you can only see one point of view you are likely to become mad, paranoid, cruel, fearful etc. if this mode of thinking persists.