The Tragedy of Winston
I don’t often try to write about philosophy because things that sound great in my mind usually come out wrong when I write them down. I’m going to try to do my best with this entry because I feel that it’s an important thing to say, if it hasn’t already been said or thought before. I’m going to first assume that you’ve read the book 1984. If you haven’t, this won’t make any sense until read it.
I’ve been reading Descartes’ meditations for a class I’m taking and while reading his second meditation, “Of Nature of the Human Mind; and it is more Easily Known than the Body”, I had a short connection to Winston. Descartes’ says that nothing that is determinable by our senses is provable because our sensory systems (touch, smell, taste, hearing, sight) are inaccurate. Therefore, how can you prove that you actually exist if the only things that are tying you to acknowledging your existence are your senses? Descartes’ says that the ability to be doubtful of your existence is proof that you exist. Why? Because as long as you accept that you are being deceived by your senses and are doubtful of their truth, you exist. You’ve all heard the phrase “Cogito ergo sum” (”Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum”). I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.
Winston, when he is being held in Room 101 is told by O’Brien (his interrogator whom he thought was his friend) that he can be written out of existence. With the stroke of a pen, no one will ever know that he existed because of the implementation of doublethink. Winston believes this and he submits to the torture that leads to his assimilation into the acceptable behaviour of Oceanians. This is what is most tragic. Every person who reads 1984 wants Winston to stand up and fight against this totalitarian regime. We want him to succeed and it’s through his tragedy that we are forced to look within rather than be satisfied by a happy ending.
We think about how Winston would have triumphed if he knew that proof of his existence lies in Descartes. He made the mistake of being so reliant on his senses that he was unable to truly realise that there was no way to write someone out of existence. 1984 tells us that if we don’t doubt. if we don’t think, we will end up like Winston. We will be the ones who exercise doublethink, we will be the ones unable to doubt because the solid wall of falsities has clouded our brains. It goes beyond the simple assertion that we shouldn’t be “sheeps” because Winston was never a sheep. He fought, and his greatest tragedy was that he valued his senses over his mind.
Tags: Miscellaneous |
August 27th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
I agree. People are given brains so they could THINK and not just store information and instructions. No matter where we live or what we do, we are all being pushed and influenced by media, churches, teachers, employers, relatives, you name it… They all want us to BELIEVE in what THEY need, and it is not necessarily truce or even good for us. People SHOULD think and question information they are given. Otherwise they can only believe and be led.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Excellently written MQ…but I disagree with you.
See even the mind is inherently inaccurate because the mind cannot conceive all that is. In fact we aren’t even sure if the mind can keep up with the world around it.
I think there is another way of looking at Winston. In fact as I’m thinking about this post…it seems to me his “torture” is really a chess match between himself and O’Brien. I don’t know if it is so much that Winston values his senses, although I’m sure he does. The “torture” can be anything you fear. That can be even none sensual, as in some one that has a phobia or a mental disorder. Maybe you don’t like tight places, that isn’t really a spacial fear, it is all in your head. I think this shows my point that the mind is actually limited and therefore as easily controlled, destroyed, and manipulated as any sense. The mind does, however, have one advantage over all the other pieces. It controls all the senses and is also easily over writable. I mean this in the sense that you can overcome phobias in your mind (I used to be very afraid of heights for example, but because I loved to Rock Climb I have largely overcome that fear). This it is possible to develop an anti-phobia (I’m sure there is some phsychologist rolling in his grave some where, but oh well). Basically, a phobia is an irrational fear or an a fear that is excessively perpetuated. So let us say you actually made a phobia, or created a way of irrationally ignoring fear. Much like a masochist loves the feeling of pain. Thus it is possible to actually trick the mind into a state of irrational say love of fear. The only bad thing about this is your probably develop some mental disorder that will cause you to go crazy. It is, however, possible to develop an ambivalence that protects you against your senses. Aka you no longer recognize fear, pain, or the like as such. You become in essence totally apathetic. Still you lose though. Even though the society cannot control you, you are still not threat to them as you are likely also apathetic to their torture techniques and thus will not likely threaten their power.
Personally, I think what Orwell’s book blatantly misses is the existence or perceived existence of God. We have all heard stories of people throwing there lives away for a religious belief, or we have heard of miracles that come from God. The idea of God here really throws a wrench in Orwell’s philosophy.
The paradox is that if God does exist than the state is truly not the highest authority and it is likely that God will have some bearing on their decisions, victories, losses, and methods. If God doesn’t exist than there is still the idea of the strength of the believers conviction. In the Christian faith for example it is taught that you should fear the Lord. Basically what this boils down to is the person’s greatest fear is not a concrete object. How do you torture someone who’s greatest fear isn’t concrete? Basically, the state has to imitate God, which doesn’t always work. Remember for Winston the Rats were real, if you can’t actually be God than it makes it difficult to sell and it is likely the person (or some people of the same conviction) will see though the charade and will continue to resist assimilation. Thus the only choice is extermination, and the state loses absolute power, because if the conviction/belief spreads they cannot assimilate those individuals they must exterminate them, and the state garners its power from controlling a population, if the population decreases they lose power.
Anyway, that is my thought on the book. I find the end result hollow…with out even the mention of God. Basically, the state becomes God. It is omnipotent, and omniscient and the last thing is for the individual to fear that entity. The state achieves this by controlling people through controlling their ultimate fear thus allowing the state to become the face of that ultimate fear. Or at least that is how I interpret it.
Well, thought out essay though MQ.
Oh and I’ve been meaning to answer your Mein Kempf response, but I haven’t had the time (moving back to college and RA training are consuming most of that). I’ll get around to it though.
August 30th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Wow, Christopher, I really really liked what you wrote. It made me think about it from a completely different angle. I think I can answer your bit about God though. I think Orwell was intending for Oceania to be a direct nod to the workings of the Soviet Union. If that’s true (which I’m sure it is), things like religion were banned and atheism was heavily promoted. Now, in the Soviet Union there were still people who believe in God but they were heavily oppressed. I don’t know how long Oceania had rid religion of its citizens, but it almost seems that everyone had replaced their idea of God with that of Big Brother– a “person” who only represented the culture of the party, not salvation, penitence, etc.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Okay, that would make sense. I can see where Orwell gets his philosophy and I can see why he leaves out religion. Still, it is valid to point out that the idea of religion is virtually impossible to stamp out. Often times it actually thrives under oppression as it represents hope for the return of freedom to those people. Just my thoughts on it though.