Orwell: There is a difference between “sanity” and “truth”, and Winston would have not been able to survive in the 1984 society because he was so different from everyone else. We, as a society, give the meaning of words. If everyone believes in something that is what makes them sane. If a large number of people believe in something that must make it true, truth is what we make it. If you don’t believe what everyone else believes that is what makes you insane. Truth and reality is whatever our brain interprets it, but, it is only true if everyone believes it. It is just like the fact that it is only Tuesday if we all agree it is Tuesday. If people wanted and everyone agreed, we could change Tuesday’s name to the tree.
Foucault: Exactly, …show more content…
We all have this common idea or object, let’s say for example the sun, and each language has a different word for the sun. It is only a sun because a certain group of people decided to call it a sun. It is interesting to think that different languages formed because people decided to call objects a different name. It is interesting, Foucault that you bring the class system into the discussion. Where a person stands in the class system defiantly effects the quality and freedom in their life.
Andreas: That is why I believe in writing my books and history from the perspective of those at the bottom. I think our history books tend to reflect the perspective of power and the upper class. In history books they don’t want to represent the past as bad, they want to give citizens a reason to believe in and trust the government. That is why the “bottom up” perspective is better, it is more realistic and shows the ideals and values of normal, middle and lower class citizens.
Foucault: Yes exactly, as George Orwell writes “circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really well trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip”. We have all become well trained dogs. People seem incapable to think for themselves, we have all been trained to well for how we are supposed to act.
Anderson: Foucault, why do you think we have become like well-trained …show more content…
A productive society produces a surplus of wealth. The only logical way to get rid of that wealth is through war. You cannot give the surplus to the masses because there will always be some people that don’t benefit from spending the surplus that way. If people feel the surplus is not being spend equally they will become upset. If the masses had more money they might feel the need for more leisure time and to become more educated. The masses cannot become more educated because that will mess with the entire class system and the lower classes will begin to question the need for class system. Continuous war spending is the only way to destroy the surplus that is acceptable to the masses. The war also will provide jobs for the lower class which will keep them from having more leisure time. It is acceptable to them because they feel it is still benefiting them by providing a sense of
Foucault: Exactly, …show more content…
We all have this common idea or object, let’s say for example the sun, and each language has a different word for the sun. It is only a sun because a certain group of people decided to call it a sun. It is interesting to think that different languages formed because people decided to call objects a different name. It is interesting, Foucault that you bring the class system into the discussion. Where a person stands in the class system defiantly effects the quality and freedom in their life.
Andreas: That is why I believe in writing my books and history from the perspective of those at the bottom. I think our history books tend to reflect the perspective of power and the upper class. In history books they don’t want to represent the past as bad, they want to give citizens a reason to believe in and trust the government. That is why the “bottom up” perspective is better, it is more realistic and shows the ideals and values of normal, middle and lower class citizens.
Foucault: Yes exactly, as George Orwell writes “circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks his whip, but the really well trained dog is the one that turns his somersault when there is no whip”. We have all become well trained dogs. People seem incapable to think for themselves, we have all been trained to well for how we are supposed to act.
Anderson: Foucault, why do you think we have become like well-trained …show more content…
A productive society produces a surplus of wealth. The only logical way to get rid of that wealth is through war. You cannot give the surplus to the masses because there will always be some people that don’t benefit from spending the surplus that way. If people feel the surplus is not being spend equally they will become upset. If the masses had more money they might feel the need for more leisure time and to become more educated. The masses cannot become more educated because that will mess with the entire class system and the lower classes will begin to question the need for class system. Continuous war spending is the only way to destroy the surplus that is acceptable to the masses. The war also will provide jobs for the lower class which will keep them from having more leisure time. It is acceptable to them because they feel it is still benefiting them by providing a sense of