What do you think?
Rate this book
Brave New World #2
Возвращение в дивный новый мир
Книга Олдоса Хаксли "Возвращение в дивный новый мир" была впервые опубликована в далеком 1958 году, – и тем интереснее читается она в наши дни: ведь в этой работе великий английский писатель и философ, в своей полемичной манере, провел параллели между западной цивилизацией буржуазного "золотого века" 1950-х и антиутопическим тоталитарным "потребительским раем", описанным в его самом известном художественном произведении — романе "О дивный новый мир". Снова и снова Хаксли сравнивал вымышленный им много лет назад мир далекого будущего с миром вполне реальным, окружавшим его на момент написания "Возвращения" — и снова и снова находил приметы пугающего, опасного и все более явного сходства…
Где же он был прав, а в чем ошибался? Какие из его предсказаний не сбылись, а какие, увы, сбылись с печальной точностью? Ответы на эти вопросы, как ни странно, далеко не так уж и очевидны…
Где же он был прав, а в чем ошибался? Какие из его предсказаний не сбылись, а какие, увы, сбылись с печальной точностью? Ответы на эти вопросы, как ни странно, далеко не так уж и очевидны…
189 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1958
About the author
Aldous Huxley
991 books14.1k followersAldous Leonard Huxley was an English writer and philosopher. His bibliography spans nearly 50 books, including non-fiction works, as well as essays, narratives, and poems.
Born into the prominent Huxley family, he graduated from Balliol College, Oxford, with a degree in English literature. Early in his career, he published short stories and poetry and edited the literary magazine Oxford Poetry, before going on to publish travel writing, satire, and screenplays. He spent the latter part of his life in the United States, living in Los Angeles from 1937 until his death. By the end of his life, Huxley was widely acknowledged as one of the foremost intellectuals of his time. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature nine times, and was elected Companion of Literature by the Royal Society of Literature in 1962.
Huxley was a pacifist. He grew interested in philosophical mysticism, as well as universalism, addressing these subjects in his works such as The Perennial Philosophy (1945), which illustrates commonalities between Western and Eastern mysticism, and The Doors of Perception (1954), which interprets his own psychedelic experience with mescaline. In his most famous novel Brave New World (1932) and his final novel Island (1962), he presented his visions of dystopia and utopia, respectively.
Born into the prominent Huxley family, he graduated from Balliol College, Oxford, with a degree in English literature. Early in his career, he published short stories and poetry and edited the literary magazine Oxford Poetry, before going on to publish travel writing, satire, and screenplays. He spent the latter part of his life in the United States, living in Los Angeles from 1937 until his death. By the end of his life, Huxley was widely acknowledged as one of the foremost intellectuals of his time. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature nine times, and was elected Companion of Literature by the Royal Society of Literature in 1962.
Huxley was a pacifist. He grew interested in philosophical mysticism, as well as universalism, addressing these subjects in his works such as The Perennial Philosophy (1945), which illustrates commonalities between Western and Eastern mysticism, and The Doors of Perception (1954), which interprets his own psychedelic experience with mescaline. In his most famous novel Brave New World (1932) and his final novel Island (1962), he presented his visions of dystopia and utopia, respectively.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,779 reviews
October 5, 2020
This book is a small political essay that is just as relevant today as it was at the time of its writing (1958), some twenty-five years after the publication of Huxley’s masterpiece. What the author is trying to do here is to assess the validity of his novel’s predictions, about the socio-political situation of the 1950s and forward. Interestingly, Huxley also compares his predictions with that of Orwell’s 1984.
Huxley mainly focuses on two significant problems of our present time: overpopulation and over-organization or “Will to Order”, i.e. the control — and even despotism — of “Big Business” and “Big Government” over the whole of society, and the subsequent waning of individual freedom, creativity and happiness. But how these big controlling powers are expressed in Brave New World is almost the opposite of that of 1984: “In 1984 the lust for power is satisfied by inflicting pain, in Brave New World, by inflicting a hardly less humiliating pleasure.” (p. 34).
Essentially, Brave New World depicts a society where power is exerted in the most despotic way, by feeding the people an evolved version of the Romans’ panis et circenses (feelies and orgy-porgy). This is an entirely accurate description of our occidental civilisation, ruled under the vast mass communication networks (TV and the Internet), manipulated in many ways as instruments of conditioning and as social intoxicants. Huxley provides a few — sometimes humorous — insights into our present political situation, by analysing the use of propaganda technology under the Nazi regime, in part inspired by the indoctrination machinery of the Holy Office in earlier times, and in part inherited by the advertisement industry in later times.
Today’s populist politicians use the same tactics and have the same disdain for honesty and objectivity. In this regard, Huxley’s essay is invaluable to help understand a widespread, mostly non-violent, yet totalitarian, style of government. “A dictatorship, says Huxley, maintains itself by censoring or distorting the facts, and by appealing, not to reason, not to enlightened self-interest, but to passion and prejudice, to the powerful ‘hidden forces’, as Hitler called them, present in the unconscious depth of every human mind.” (p. 63).
Brave New World Revisited can probably be read alongside Wilhelm Reich’s Listen, Little Man!, Ortega y Gasset’s La Rebelión de las masas, and even Gilles Deleuze’s essays on the “société de contrôle”. An essential read, not only to put Brave New World in perspective but to understand the world we live in now.
Huxley mainly focuses on two significant problems of our present time: overpopulation and over-organization or “Will to Order”, i.e. the control — and even despotism — of “Big Business” and “Big Government” over the whole of society, and the subsequent waning of individual freedom, creativity and happiness. But how these big controlling powers are expressed in Brave New World is almost the opposite of that of 1984: “In 1984 the lust for power is satisfied by inflicting pain, in Brave New World, by inflicting a hardly less humiliating pleasure.” (p. 34).
Essentially, Brave New World depicts a society where power is exerted in the most despotic way, by feeding the people an evolved version of the Romans’ panis et circenses (feelies and orgy-porgy). This is an entirely accurate description of our occidental civilisation, ruled under the vast mass communication networks (TV and the Internet), manipulated in many ways as instruments of conditioning and as social intoxicants. Huxley provides a few — sometimes humorous — insights into our present political situation, by analysing the use of propaganda technology under the Nazi regime, in part inspired by the indoctrination machinery of the Holy Office in earlier times, and in part inherited by the advertisement industry in later times.
Today’s populist politicians use the same tactics and have the same disdain for honesty and objectivity. In this regard, Huxley’s essay is invaluable to help understand a widespread, mostly non-violent, yet totalitarian, style of government. “A dictatorship, says Huxley, maintains itself by censoring or distorting the facts, and by appealing, not to reason, not to enlightened self-interest, but to passion and prejudice, to the powerful ‘hidden forces’, as Hitler called them, present in the unconscious depth of every human mind.” (p. 63).
Brave New World Revisited can probably be read alongside Wilhelm Reich’s Listen, Little Man!, Ortega y Gasset’s La Rebelión de las masas, and even Gilles Deleuze’s essays on the “société de contrôle”. An essential read, not only to put Brave New World in perspective but to understand the world we live in now.
February 6, 2017
Authors such as George Orwell, Margaret Atwood and Aldous Huxley scare me. How can these authors who write dystopian fiction or social commentaries 30, 40, even 50 years ago be so accurate in what is going on in today's society? This book is no exception. Huxley is basically summarizing the first book in this collection: Brave New World of which was published over 15 years before this one. Some quotes that I've extracted from this book which ring true for today are:
"If over-population should drive the underdeveloped countries into totalitarianism, and if these new dictatorships should ally themselves with Russia, then the military position of the United States would become less secure and the preparations for defense and retaliation would have to be intensified."
"In spite of new wonder drugs and better treatment, the physical health of the general population will show no improvement, and may even deteriorate. And along with a decline of average healthiness there may well go a decline in average intelligence."
Huxley compares his work with George Orwell's 1984 and also goes into some scientific philosophy on mind-manipulation and hypnosis.
To me, this book should be in every high school curriculum across the nation. It would give our future generations a foundation to correct what is wrong with our society.
"If over-population should drive the underdeveloped countries into totalitarianism, and if these new dictatorships should ally themselves with Russia, then the military position of the United States would become less secure and the preparations for defense and retaliation would have to be intensified."
"In spite of new wonder drugs and better treatment, the physical health of the general population will show no improvement, and may even deteriorate. And along with a decline of average healthiness there may well go a decline in average intelligence."
Huxley compares his work with George Orwell's 1984 and also goes into some scientific philosophy on mind-manipulation and hypnosis.
To me, this book should be in every high school curriculum across the nation. It would give our future generations a foundation to correct what is wrong with our society.
June 24, 2026
Just as later, in a very different genre, "The Name of the Rose" would include a postscript. "Brave New World" would eventually have its "return" too—twenty-five years on.
Building on this idea, it is important to note that the aim of this short text was not to provide a sequel to Aldous Huxley's most famous novel, but to extend it.
To establish this extension, consider that in "Brave New World," Aldous Huxley described a possible evolution of human organization. It began with a utopia and ultimately culminated in a dictatorship. Following Huxley's trajectory, this short essay attempts to take stock of the evolution of human organization—a process that already seemed to be accelerating in 1958. In the meantime, we would have known Hitler and Stalin.
Reflecting on these developments brings us to a crucial question: one cannot help but imagine Huxley's reaction to a society "managed" by the precautionary principle. Here is a society that reassures, even infantilizes, the majority: the "motherland." Yet there is a warning to remain "within the rules": no smoking in public places, no driving your car in cities, routine breast, colon, blood pressure, and blood sugar checks—all for our own good. This book unsettles precisely because it so early reveals the evolution of our democracies toward a totalitarianism that dares not speak its name.
Building on this idea, it is important to note that the aim of this short text was not to provide a sequel to Aldous Huxley's most famous novel, but to extend it.
To establish this extension, consider that in "Brave New World," Aldous Huxley described a possible evolution of human organization. It began with a utopia and ultimately culminated in a dictatorship. Following Huxley's trajectory, this short essay attempts to take stock of the evolution of human organization—a process that already seemed to be accelerating in 1958. In the meantime, we would have known Hitler and Stalin.
Reflecting on these developments brings us to a crucial question: one cannot help but imagine Huxley's reaction to a society "managed" by the precautionary principle. Here is a society that reassures, even infantilizes, the majority: the "motherland." Yet there is a warning to remain "within the rules": no smoking in public places, no driving your car in cities, routine breast, colon, blood pressure, and blood sugar checks—all for our own good. This book unsettles precisely because it so early reveals the evolution of our democracies toward a totalitarianism that dares not speak its name.
June 15, 2022
The creator of one of the key dystopias (although with no less reason "Oh, brave new world" can be considered a utopia) Aldous Huxley returns to his novel. This time not as an author of fiction, but as an essayist, philosopher, futurist. He tries to predict the further development of society by analyzing the ways in which citizens can be deprived of their hard-won freedoms and rights.
Let me remind you that "Oh, Brave New World", written in 1932, stands alone among the cult dystopias of the twentieth century. The social structure described in it is good-natured and benevolent, in comparison with the totalitarian states of Orwell's "1984" or Zamyatin's "We". In it, the deprivation of freedom of citizens occurs not through the whip of repressive measures, but through the carrot of catfish-euphoria — a stimulant, the guaranteed reception of which grants chemical happiness to everyone. "Return to the Brave New World" is not a work of fiction. This philosophical essay was written 26 years after the novel, in it Huxley captures the changes in the world over the years, coming to disappointing conclusions, and predicts the deterioration of the situation in the future.
Today, the book is perceived somewhat old-school, mainly because the vector of public attention has shifted from problems that were more relevant two-thirds of a century ago to new ones. Because technological progress and the development of communications have changed the information space and communication methods. But in general, this is a wonderful quality insightful, intelligent and relevant essay, which now there is no need to read with your eyes, there is an audiobook performed by Igor Knyazev, as always impeccable. Huxley would have appreciated the opportunities given by "books aloud" - after he went blind in his youth in his right eye and the same infection severely damaged his left vision, he was forced to study Braille.
Истина проста - никогда не возвращайся в прежние места
Пропагандисты привязывают высокие идеалы к низшим страстям. Зверства совершаются во имя Господа, а самые циничные взгляды рассматриваются как вопросы религиозных принципов или патриотического долга.
Создатель одной из ключевых антиутопий (хотя с неменьшим основанием "О, дивный новый мир" можно считать утопией) Олдос Хаксли возвращается к своему роману. На сей раз не как автор художественной прозы, но как эссеист, философ, футуролог. Пытается предсказать дальнейшие пути развития общества, анализируя способы, которыми граждан можно лишить с таким трудом завоеванных ими свобод и прав.
Напомню, написанный в 1932 "О, дивный новый мир" стоит особняком в ряду культовых антиутопий ХХ века. Описанное в нем общественное устройство добродушно и благостно, в сравнении с тоталитарными государствами "1984" Оруэлла или замятинским "Мы". В нем лишение граждан свободы происходит посредством не кнута репрессивных мер, но пряника сома-эйфории — стимулятора гарантированный прием которого дарует химическое счастье всем. "Возвращение в Дивный новый мир" - не художественное произведение. Это философское эссе написано через 26 лет после романа, в нем Хаксли фиксирует изменения в мире за прошедшие годы, приходя к неутешительным выводам, и прогнозирует ухудшение ситуации в дальнейшем.
Сегодня книга воспринимается несколько олдскульно, главным образом потому, что вектор общественного внимания сместился от проблем, которые были более актуальными две трети века назад к новым. Потому что технический прогресс и развитие коммуникаций изменили информационное пространство и способы связи. Но в целом это замечательного качества прозорливая, умная и актуальная эссеистика, которую теперь даже нет необходимости читать глазами, есть аудиокнига в исполнении Игоря Князева, как всегда безупречном. Хаксли оценил бы даруемые "книгами вслух" возможности - после того, как ослеп в юности на правый глаз и та же инфекция сильно повредила зрение левого, он вынужден был изучить азбуку Брайля.
Структурно работа поделена на двенадцать глав, каждая из которых рассматривает отдельный аспект действительности, как с позиций постановки проблемы: угроза перенаселенности, ресурсный коллапс, опасность тоталитаризма, так и с точки зрения способов манипулирования: методы и средства пропаганды в разных общественных формациях, скрытая и явная реклама как способ внушения, промывка мозгов, использование препаратов, влияющих на состояние сознания.
В большинстве это удивительно современные и своевременные вещи, хотя встречаются явные анахронизмы, так например гипнопедия не оправдала возлагаемых на нее в шестидесятые надежд ни как прорывной способ обучения, ни - что в данной ситуации обнадеживает - в качестве способа изменения базовых параметров личности. В той же степени несостоятельным в качестве инструмента манипулирования оказалось подсознательное внушение, которого страшно боялись в девяностые, правда тогда это называлось НЛП.
Значительную роль как в творчестве. так и в личной жизни Хаксли играли вещества, изменяющие состояние сознания. Напомню, ключевую роль в реальности "Дивного нового мира", наряду с генными модификациями, играют препараты, посредством которых корректируется возможное недовольство, внушаются уверенность, радость, спокойствие. Он был адептом лизергиновой кислоты, много экспериментировал с ней - мир тогда не знал о разрушительных для психики последствиях приема этого препарата. Да ведь и умирая от мучительной болезни, он попросил врачей ввести внутримышечно 100 мг ЛСД, те отказались, это сделала жена Олдоса Мария и он умер без мучительных судорог. Потому неудивительна его ода этому препарату, хотя сегодня нельзя слушать ее без скепсиса.
Интересный, актуальный, умный и замечательно простой для восприятия нонфикшн от классика ХХ века.
Let me remind you that "Oh, Brave New World", written in 1932, stands alone among the cult dystopias of the twentieth century. The social structure described in it is good-natured and benevolent, in comparison with the totalitarian states of Orwell's "1984" or Zamyatin's "We". In it, the deprivation of freedom of citizens occurs not through the whip of repressive measures, but through the carrot of catfish-euphoria — a stimulant, the guaranteed reception of which grants chemical happiness to everyone. "Return to the Brave New World" is not a work of fiction. This philosophical essay was written 26 years after the novel, in it Huxley captures the changes in the world over the years, coming to disappointing conclusions, and predicts the deterioration of the situation in the future.
Today, the book is perceived somewhat old-school, mainly because the vector of public attention has shifted from problems that were more relevant two-thirds of a century ago to new ones. Because technological progress and the development of communications have changed the information space and communication methods. But in general, this is a wonderful quality insightful, intelligent and relevant essay, which now there is no need to read with your eyes, there is an audiobook performed by Igor Knyazev, as always impeccable. Huxley would have appreciated the opportunities given by "books aloud" - after he went blind in his youth in his right eye and the same infection severely damaged his left vision, he was forced to study Braille.
Истина проста - никогда не возвращайся в прежние места
Пропагандисты привязывают высокие идеалы к низшим страстям. Зверства совершаются во имя Господа, а самые циничные взгляды рассматриваются как вопросы религиозных принципов или патриотического долга.
Создатель одной из ключевых антиутопий (хотя с неменьшим основанием "О, дивный новый мир" можно считать утопией) Олдос Хаксли возвращается к своему роману. На сей раз не как автор художественной прозы, но как эссеист, философ, футуролог. Пытается предсказать дальнейшие пути развития общества, анализируя способы, которыми граждан можно лишить с таким трудом завоеванных ими свобод и прав.
Напомню, написанный в 1932 "О, дивный новый мир" стоит особняком в ряду культовых антиутопий ХХ века. Описанное в нем общественное устройство добродушно и благостно, в сравнении с тоталитарными государствами "1984" Оруэлла или замятинским "Мы". В нем лишение граждан свободы происходит посредством не кнута репрессивных мер, но пряника сома-эйфории — стимулятора гарантированный прием которого дарует химическое счастье всем. "Возвращение в Дивный новый мир" - не художественное произведение. Это философское эссе написано через 26 лет после романа, в нем Хаксли фиксирует изменения в мире за прошедшие годы, приходя к неутешительным выводам, и прогнозирует ухудшение ситуации в дальнейшем.
Сегодня книга воспринимается несколько олдскульно, главным образом потому, что вектор общественного внимания сместился от проблем, которые были более актуальными две трети века назад к новым. Потому что технический прогресс и развитие коммуникаций изменили информационное пространство и способы связи. Но в целом это замечательного качества прозорливая, умная и актуальная эссеистика, которую теперь даже нет необходимости читать глазами, есть аудиокнига в исполнении Игоря Князева, как всегда безупречном. Хаксли оценил бы даруемые "книгами вслух" возможности - после того, как ослеп в юности на правый глаз и та же инфекция сильно повредила зрение левого, он вынужден был изучить азбуку Брайля.
Структурно работа поделена на двенадцать глав, каждая из которых рассматривает отдельный аспект действительности, как с позиций постановки проблемы: угроза перенаселенности, ресурсный коллапс, опасность тоталитаризма, так и с точки зрения способов манипулирования: методы и средства пропаганды в разных общественных формациях, скрытая и явная реклама как способ внушения, промывка мозгов, использование препаратов, влияющих на состояние сознания.
В большинстве это удивительно современные и своевременные вещи, хотя встречаются явные анахронизмы, так например гипнопедия не оправдала возлагаемых на нее в шестидесятые надежд ни как прорывной способ обучения, ни - что в данной ситуации обнадеживает - в качестве способа изменения базовых параметров личности. В той же степени несостоятельным в качестве инструмента манипулирования оказалось подсознательное внушение, которого страшно боялись в девяностые, правда тогда это называлось НЛП.
Значительную роль как в творчестве. так и в личной жизни Хаксли играли вещества, изменяющие состояние сознания. Напомню, ключевую роль в реальности "Дивного нового мира", наряду с генными модификациями, играют препараты, посредством которых корректируется возможное недовольство, внушаются уверенность, радость, спокойствие. Он был адептом лизергиновой кислоты, много экспериментировал с ней - мир тогда не знал о разрушительных для психики последствиях приема этого препарата. Да ведь и умирая от мучительной болезни, он попросил врачей ввести внутримышечно 100 мг ЛСД, те отказались, это сделала жена Олдоса Мария и он умер без мучительных судорог. Потому неудивительна его ода этому препарату, хотя сегодня нельзя слушать ее без скепсиса.
Интересный, актуальный, умный и замечательно простой для восприятия нонфикшн от классика ХХ века.
May 30, 2020
Quando comprei este livro, em Abril de 1984, estava convencida de que seria uma sequela do Admirável Mundo Novo. Talvez por entretanto me ter apercebido de que não era o caso, ficou na estante durante todos estes anos (ainda com as páginas por cortar!) até que agora, depois de reler o AMN, decidi que desta vez não escapava.
E ainda bem que o fiz! Apesar de ter sido escrito em 1959 (quase 30 anos depois de AMN), esta colecção de ensaios revelou-se muito interessante, incluindo reflexões sobre diversos aspectos da sociedade, quase sempre com ligação ao AMN, e que continuam muito actuais.
O autor faz também algumas comparações entre AMN e 1984 (publicado em 1949), sobretudo nos primeiros ensaios, considerando que é mais provável que se venha a verificar a sua versão do futuro.
Faz referência a diversos estudos científicos relacionados com a biologia e o comportamento humanos, discutindo como as características intrínsecas do ser humano o podem tornar mais ou menos vulnerável a ser dominado por ditadores ou por pequenos grupos de poder.
Aliás, a política acaba por dominar - subliminarmente ou talvez não - grande parte do texto.
Os ensaios têm os seguintes títulos:
1 - Superpopulação
2 - Quantidade, Qualidade, Moralidade
3 - Super-organização
4 - A Propaganda numa Sociedade Democrática
5 - A Propaganda sob uma Ditadura
6 - A arte de vender
7 - Lavagem de cérebro
8 - Persuasão química
9 - Persuasão subconsciente
10 - Hipnopédia
11 - Educação para a liberdade
12 - Que podemos fazer?
Recomendo (naturalmente, depois de Admirável Mundo Novo).
E ainda bem que o fiz! Apesar de ter sido escrito em 1959 (quase 30 anos depois de AMN), esta colecção de ensaios revelou-se muito interessante, incluindo reflexões sobre diversos aspectos da sociedade, quase sempre com ligação ao AMN, e que continuam muito actuais.
O autor faz também algumas comparações entre AMN e 1984 (publicado em 1949), sobretudo nos primeiros ensaios, considerando que é mais provável que se venha a verificar a sua versão do futuro.
Faz referência a diversos estudos científicos relacionados com a biologia e o comportamento humanos, discutindo como as características intrínsecas do ser humano o podem tornar mais ou menos vulnerável a ser dominado por ditadores ou por pequenos grupos de poder.
Aliás, a política acaba por dominar - subliminarmente ou talvez não - grande parte do texto.
Os ensaios têm os seguintes títulos:
1 - Superpopulação
2 - Quantidade, Qualidade, Moralidade
3 - Super-organização
4 - A Propaganda numa Sociedade Democrática
5 - A Propaganda sob uma Ditadura
6 - A arte de vender
7 - Lavagem de cérebro
8 - Persuasão química
9 - Persuasão subconsciente
10 - Hipnopédia
11 - Educação para a liberdade
12 - Que podemos fazer?
Recomendo (naturalmente, depois de Admirável Mundo Novo).
March 16, 2019
A leitura de Admirável Mundo Novo foi fabulosa, mas arrisco a dizer que a leitura do Regresso ao Admirável Mundo Novo foi ainda mais! O ADM já é um livro que nos faz pensar, se gostaríamos de viver ou se nos adaptaríamos à vida naquele mundo controlado de uma forma que parece eficiente. O RAMN faz-nos pensar e reflectir ainda mais, sobre a inspiração, o que levou à escrita da história e à situação em ambas as épocas dos livros e o que se passa nos dias de hoje. Esta distância temporal é intrigante, genial e assustadora ao mesmo tempo e faz-me pensar em qual seria a opinião do AH se vivesse até aos dias de hoje? Será que estamos longe ou perto, como sociedade, de nos tornarmos algo parecido ao mundo do AMN? Ou será que temos a capacidade de mudar de estratégia e evitar a desgraça? Sem resposta obviamente! Só o futuro o dirá, tal como AH também o pensou. É um bom motivo de reflexão, se nos deixamos controlar ou se teremos a capacidade de pensar e decidir por nós próprios... este livro não tem uma história, é uma colecção de ensaios, reflexões que fizeram e ainda fazem todo o sentido nos dias de hoje!
March 19, 2017
If you can get past the first couple of chapters, where Huxley's remarks about Africans, Asiatics and the illiterate masses leaves me thinking he was a pretty big jerk, you'll proceed through some fascinating (and fairly spot on) commentary about totalitarianism and propaganda and democracy, to a final paragraph that bemoans kids these days and their lack of dedication to freedom.
So, it's overall a useful and interesting read, while being the product of its time.
So, it's overall a useful and interesting read, while being the product of its time.
August 15, 2025
O carte care aduce un mare plus dacă ați citit "Minunata lume nouă". Recomand să o citiți imediat după distopie, pentru că în acest volum de non-ficțiune autorul aduce explicații suplimentare, compară anii '30, atunci când a apărut "Minunata lume nouă", cu anii '50, atunci când publică "Reîntoarcerea". Huxley prezintă și cea mai mare temere a sa, aceea a suprapopulării, care va duce inevitabil la epuizarea resurselor, dar și realitatea politică și socială a vremurilor.
Limbajul este un pic greoi și aici, la fel ca în "Minunata lume nouă".
Limbajul este un pic greoi și aici, la fel ca în "Minunata lume nouă".
April 17, 2020
= New World Revisited
In this essay, Huxley updates some of the themes explored in his dystopia Brave New World and considers some other possible developments and embranchements in the future.
The contents :
1) Over-Population / 2) Quantity, Quality, Morality / 3) Over-Organization / 4) Propaganda in a Democratic Society / 5) Propaganda Under a Dictatorship / 6) The Art of Selling / 7) Brainwashing / 8) Chemical Persuasion / 9) Subconscious Persuasion / 10) Hypnopaedia / 11) Education For Freedom / 12) What Can Be Done?
A link to the online text :
https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/
Soundtrack :
Fitter Happier - Radiohead
---------------------
Un complément utile aux mises en gardes déjà présentes dans Le meilleur des mondes.
Les thèmes :
1) Surpopulation / 2) Quantité, Qualité, Moralité / 3) Excès d'organisation / 4) La propagande dans une société démocratique / 5) La propagande dans une dictature / 6) Comment convaincre le client / 7) le lavage de cerveau / 8) Persuasion chimique / 9) Persuasion subconsciente / 10) Hypnopédie / 11) Être instruit pour être libre / 12) Que faire ?
Lien vers la version originale du texte en ligne :
https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/
Bande-son :
Fitter Happier - Radiohead
In this essay, Huxley updates some of the themes explored in his dystopia Brave New World and considers some other possible developments and embranchements in the future.
The contents :
1) Over-Population / 2) Quantity, Quality, Morality / 3) Over-Organization / 4) Propaganda in a Democratic Society / 5) Propaganda Under a Dictatorship / 6) The Art of Selling / 7) Brainwashing / 8) Chemical Persuasion / 9) Subconscious Persuasion / 10) Hypnopaedia / 11) Education For Freedom / 12) What Can Be Done?
A link to the online text :
https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/
Soundtrack :
Fitter Happier - Radiohead
---------------------
Un complément utile aux mises en gardes déjà présentes dans Le meilleur des mondes.
Les thèmes :
1) Surpopulation / 2) Quantité, Qualité, Moralité / 3) Excès d'organisation / 4) La propagande dans une société démocratique / 5) La propagande dans une dictature / 6) Comment convaincre le client / 7) le lavage de cerveau / 8) Persuasion chimique / 9) Persuasion subconsciente / 10) Hypnopédie / 11) Être instruit pour être libre / 12) Que faire ?
Lien vers la version originale du texte en ligne :
https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/
Bande-son :
Fitter Happier - Radiohead
June 24, 2023
Brave New World Revisited: Aldous Huxley - A rare collection of thoughts about his own work published previously which was groundbreaking
I bought BNWR (Brave New World Revisited) (1958) and BNW (Brave New World) (1932) by Aldous Huxley as a vintage publication from Sarasavi Bookshops Online and Sarasavi Bookshops Gampaha branch. Both books have a unique cover design which is pretty awesome.
The novel BNW published in 1932 is far ahead in terms of predicting a fictionalized future rather than his collection of essays BNWR (1958) published after thirty years which have several predictions gone wrong due to political changes in the global setting compared to the 1950s to 2022.
The first chapter "Overpopulation" suggests that due to this issue of the rising population there will be an obvious bias toward communism of nations' policies and due to this there will be a negative impact on the United States of America (USA). But with the fall of the Soviet Union, many of the communist nations changed their policies to capitalism leading to the end of the cold war. It reflects that many of Huxley's arguments are political rather than being world view. Many of the issues like overpopulation are now tackled by concepts like sustainable development in economics.
Chapters like "Quantity, Quality, Morality" and "Over-organization" discusses very valuable and insightful facts. Many concepts are highly connected to the modern world today.
Aldous Huxley's knowledge and intelligence are unparalleled as it is depicted in his collection of essays related to BNWR. It emphasizes the thought process of the 1950s to 1960s and also analyses many foundations of knowledge he used in BNW.
For a bird's eye view of the novel following list of chapters will be put down for easy reference.
(01) Introduction
(02) Foreword
(03) Overpopulation
(04) Quantity, Quality, Morality
(05) Over-organization
(06) Propaganda in a democratic society
(07) Propaganda under a dictatorship
(08) The arts of selling
(09) Brainwashing
(10) Chemical persuasion
(11) Subconscious persuasion
(12) Hypnopaedia
(13) Education for freedom
(14) What can be done?
I bought BNWR (Brave New World Revisited) (1958) and BNW (Brave New World) (1932) by Aldous Huxley as a vintage publication from Sarasavi Bookshops Online and Sarasavi Bookshops Gampaha branch. Both books have a unique cover design which is pretty awesome.
The novel BNW published in 1932 is far ahead in terms of predicting a fictionalized future rather than his collection of essays BNWR (1958) published after thirty years which have several predictions gone wrong due to political changes in the global setting compared to the 1950s to 2022.
The first chapter "Overpopulation" suggests that due to this issue of the rising population there will be an obvious bias toward communism of nations' policies and due to this there will be a negative impact on the United States of America (USA). But with the fall of the Soviet Union, many of the communist nations changed their policies to capitalism leading to the end of the cold war. It reflects that many of Huxley's arguments are political rather than being world view. Many of the issues like overpopulation are now tackled by concepts like sustainable development in economics.
Chapters like "Quantity, Quality, Morality" and "Over-organization" discusses very valuable and insightful facts. Many concepts are highly connected to the modern world today.
Aldous Huxley's knowledge and intelligence are unparalleled as it is depicted in his collection of essays related to BNWR. It emphasizes the thought process of the 1950s to 1960s and also analyses many foundations of knowledge he used in BNW.
For a bird's eye view of the novel following list of chapters will be put down for easy reference.
(01) Introduction
(02) Foreword
(03) Overpopulation
(04) Quantity, Quality, Morality
(05) Over-organization
(06) Propaganda in a democratic society
(07) Propaganda under a dictatorship
(08) The arts of selling
(09) Brainwashing
(10) Chemical persuasion
(11) Subconscious persuasion
(12) Hypnopaedia
(13) Education for freedom
(14) What can be done?
April 27, 2025
Pensaba, iluso de mi, que sería como una continuación de "un mundo feliz" y no!! es un ensayo de como podemos no estar tan lejos de dicho "Mundo feliz".
En ocasiones lectura interesante pero en otras algo tediosa.
Lo bueno es que no es muy largo.
Sinopsis: Un mundo feliz es posiblemente la novela más leída de Huxley, y su influencia es evidente tanto en buena parte de la novela de ciencia ficción de calidad como en las novelas filosóficas. Presenta un mundo en el que el Estado controla hasta el más mínimo detalle de la vida de los individuos, a los que mantiene en una ignorancia producto de un depurado "lavado de cerebro".
Nueva visita a un mundo feliz es la obra que años después escribió Huxley analizando Un mundo feliz y juzgando en qué se había equivocado y, sobre todo, en qué había acertado al detectar tendencias sociales y políticas que amenazaban a la cultura humanística y a la libertad del ser humano. Dos textos que se complementan y enriquecen mutuamente, además de una invitación a la reflexión sobre el destino de la humanidad.
Valoración:5.75/10
En ocasiones lectura interesante pero en otras algo tediosa.
Lo bueno es que no es muy largo.
Sinopsis: Un mundo feliz es posiblemente la novela más leída de Huxley, y su influencia es evidente tanto en buena parte de la novela de ciencia ficción de calidad como en las novelas filosóficas. Presenta un mundo en el que el Estado controla hasta el más mínimo detalle de la vida de los individuos, a los que mantiene en una ignorancia producto de un depurado "lavado de cerebro".
Nueva visita a un mundo feliz es la obra que años después escribió Huxley analizando Un mundo feliz y juzgando en qué se había equivocado y, sobre todo, en qué había acertado al detectar tendencias sociales y políticas que amenazaban a la cultura humanística y a la libertad del ser humano. Dos textos que se complementan y enriquecen mutuamente, además de una invitación a la reflexión sobre el destino de la humanidad.
Valoración:5.75/10
June 26, 2016
This book reminds me of the suggestion to not get to know one's heros. He isn't my hero, but his writings here are reminiscent of the kind of surprisingly reactionary viewpoints not expected of someone who seemed lucidly critical of dystopic possibilities. BNW seemed to imply a certain criticism of permissive dogma, had an opposition to eugenics, and analysis of insidious and subtle positive reinforcement in authoritarian societies. But in reading this, he focuses multiple times on scare-mongering McCarthyism eg. scapegoating communism as the Ultimate Threat to Freedoms. He also rants about the decline of society due to "allowing" disabled people to live, that society "allows" people with low IQs to breed, he talks of purity as if disabled population and sympathy for others is the problem, as if this way of thinking is not the very same dystopian conditions he wrote about and criticized in his book.
I would like to note that the IQ system was developed for the primary purposes of presenting people of colour as innately less intelligent than white people. Huxley is advocating for the eradication of all "impure" peoples who are not actively breeding a supreme race. This includes people of colour, disabled people, homosexuals, infertile people, transgender people, people with mental illness and/or neurodivergence, "illerates", political dissidents, and so on. Huxley doesn't seem to notice the shocking irony that he would advocate for the same dystopian system he portrayed satirically in brave new world. He seems to not notice the connection between how he thinks of abnormal people, and how nazis thought of abnormal people. He also has no problem trying to justify systems of oppression and propaganda as committed by the western world, on the basis that anything the western world does is for the purposes of improving the species and spreading democracy, and is therefore justified.
At times he has some compelling statements about societal and individual struggles for freedom, and analysis of various methods of propaganda and control, which suggest there was still at least nominal lucidity to critique societies, but it is often overshadowed by obvious hypocrisy and an authoritarian, genocidal advocacy. When his opinions are not shown, and instead he remains focused on analyzing propaganda, he makes compelling points that are far more legitimate and important to know than the opinionated points he tries to put forth as a Final Solution.
I would like to note that the IQ system was developed for the primary purposes of presenting people of colour as innately less intelligent than white people. Huxley is advocating for the eradication of all "impure" peoples who are not actively breeding a supreme race. This includes people of colour, disabled people, homosexuals, infertile people, transgender people, people with mental illness and/or neurodivergence, "illerates", political dissidents, and so on. Huxley doesn't seem to notice the shocking irony that he would advocate for the same dystopian system he portrayed satirically in brave new world. He seems to not notice the connection between how he thinks of abnormal people, and how nazis thought of abnormal people. He also has no problem trying to justify systems of oppression and propaganda as committed by the western world, on the basis that anything the western world does is for the purposes of improving the species and spreading democracy, and is therefore justified.
At times he has some compelling statements about societal and individual struggles for freedom, and analysis of various methods of propaganda and control, which suggest there was still at least nominal lucidity to critique societies, but it is often overshadowed by obvious hypocrisy and an authoritarian, genocidal advocacy. When his opinions are not shown, and instead he remains focused on analyzing propaganda, he makes compelling points that are far more legitimate and important to know than the opinionated points he tries to put forth as a Final Solution.
January 10, 2016
I picked up Huxley’s classic dystopian utopia Brave New World as part of my ongoing pursuit of the classics. His analytical non-fiction follow-up (some thirty years after the novel) was included in the back of the paperback version I was reading, and it immediately piqued my interest, in some ways even more than the novel. Although I ultimately disagree with much of Huxley’s worldview, this collection of essays–which analyzes the possibility and probability of the events in the novel–is fascinating, both as a glimpse into his writing process and from the hindsight viewpoint of a still further sixty years into his future.
August 7, 2026
Prognoses are difficult, especially if they concern the future.
Huxley wrote Brave New World Revisited in 1958, 26 years after Brave New World. In between, the Third Reich came to power, WW II took place, the terror of the communist regime in Russia under Stalin reached its climax - and Orwell wrote 1948. Enough to check the progress of his prophecies made in Brave New World.
He claims that his dystopia proved to be closer to reality than Orwell's. He argues, that science has proven his used principle of positive encouragement as more effective in the long-term than the punishment and negative incentives used by Orwell in 1984. He judges the constant external war of 1984 to keep society stable internally as less feasible than the concept of stability by soma, free sexual intercourse and restriction of dangerous science or religion to keep people happy. I beg to differ. When we look at the world today, I rather see Big Brother controlling individuals, demagogues preaching hate and wars to distract from internal problems than the Brave New World of Huxley.
Seen from another 68 years since writing, this book is mostly irrelevant nowadays. Huxley's estimations and judgments range from outdated via odd or laughable to questionable, with occasional nuggets of wisdom.
In his view, overpopulation will be one of the main reasons for a loss of freedom and he propagates the pill for contraception which in 1958 was new and not very reliable. Pro Lifers would flame him today but no issues here with that recommendation. And overpopulation is an issue. But not in the way Huxley saw it. At the time of writing, the world had 2.8 billion people. Now, we are past 8 billion. And the average wealth on Earth has increased since, not decreased as he predicted as the central reason for the loss of freedom.
His views become questionable in the chapter "Quantity, Quality, Morality". In this one, he argues that due to the improved life expectancy and the resulting lack of evolutionary selection, the average quality of the gene stock will worsen. Even for 1958, that must have been a dubious standpoint.
He is most spot on when he talks about propaganda, the way people can be controlled by demagogues, the way politicians are promoted to the voters and the importance of independent sources of information (newspapers at the time). He warns against the developments seen in the presidential election in the US in 1956.
Where this can lead to, Huxley explains at another point in the text:
A big part of the book is dedicated to outdated concepts like subliminal perception, sleep learning, brainwashing of the individual and advertising techniques of the fifties. Potentially relevant considerations back then, but today there is TikTok, Telegram and political blogs of all persuasions. No need for subtlety to get into the minds of the people.
Then, there is Huxley's personal favorite of drug usage and chemical control. I had a eureka moment when he mentioned Adrenochrome in this chapter. Wasn't there something with underground caves, extracting it from children. Huxley, Huxley! He hung out with Timothy Leary and became a luminary for the drug users in the 60's with his late work. Enough said.
In the end, he comes up with solutions to preserve freedom that could come from modern day conspiracy theorists. Communities governing themselves, legislation forbidding electoral candidates from anti-rational propaganda and subliminal projections in public places, educating children to recognize mind-manipulation by official institutions. The aforementioned propagation of using the anti-baby pill is probably his most sane recommendation.
If you are looking for a historical curiosity, you might give this a try. As a serious look into the future or merely into the validity of the prophecies of Brave New World, it's a failure.
Huxley wrote Brave New World Revisited in 1958, 26 years after Brave New World. In between, the Third Reich came to power, WW II took place, the terror of the communist regime in Russia under Stalin reached its climax - and Orwell wrote 1948. Enough to check the progress of his prophecies made in Brave New World.
He claims that his dystopia proved to be closer to reality than Orwell's. He argues, that science has proven his used principle of positive encouragement as more effective in the long-term than the punishment and negative incentives used by Orwell in 1984. He judges the constant external war of 1984 to keep society stable internally as less feasible than the concept of stability by soma, free sexual intercourse and restriction of dangerous science or religion to keep people happy. I beg to differ. When we look at the world today, I rather see Big Brother controlling individuals, demagogues preaching hate and wars to distract from internal problems than the Brave New World of Huxley.
Seen from another 68 years since writing, this book is mostly irrelevant nowadays. Huxley's estimations and judgments range from outdated via odd or laughable to questionable, with occasional nuggets of wisdom.
In his view, overpopulation will be one of the main reasons for a loss of freedom and he propagates the pill for contraception which in 1958 was new and not very reliable. Pro Lifers would flame him today but no issues here with that recommendation. And overpopulation is an issue. But not in the way Huxley saw it. At the time of writing, the world had 2.8 billion people. Now, we are past 8 billion. And the average wealth on Earth has increased since, not decreased as he predicted as the central reason for the loss of freedom.
His views become questionable in the chapter "Quantity, Quality, Morality". In this one, he argues that due to the improved life expectancy and the resulting lack of evolutionary selection, the average quality of the gene stock will worsen. Even for 1958, that must have been a dubious standpoint.
He is most spot on when he talks about propaganda, the way people can be controlled by demagogues, the way politicians are promoted to the voters and the importance of independent sources of information (newspapers at the time). He warns against the developments seen in the presidential election in the US in 1956.
"But today, in the world's most powerful democracy, the politicians and their propagandists prefer to make nonsense of democratic proedures by appealing almost exclusively to the ignorance and irrationality of the electors. [...] The candidate must be glamorous. He must also be an entertainer who never bores his audience."Does that ring a bell?
Where this can lead to, Huxley explains at another point in the text:
"In Hitler's words, the propagandist should adopt 'a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be dealt with'. He must never admit that he might be wrong or that people with a different point of view might be even partially right. Opponents should not be argued with; they should be attacked, shouted down, or, if they become too much of a nuisance, liquidated."Did Trump read Hitler to prepare? His team certainly did.
A big part of the book is dedicated to outdated concepts like subliminal perception, sleep learning, brainwashing of the individual and advertising techniques of the fifties. Potentially relevant considerations back then, but today there is TikTok, Telegram and political blogs of all persuasions. No need for subtlety to get into the minds of the people.
Then, there is Huxley's personal favorite of drug usage and chemical control. I had a eureka moment when he mentioned Adrenochrome in this chapter. Wasn't there something with underground caves, extracting it from children. Huxley, Huxley! He hung out with Timothy Leary and became a luminary for the drug users in the 60's with his late work. Enough said.
In the end, he comes up with solutions to preserve freedom that could come from modern day conspiracy theorists. Communities governing themselves, legislation forbidding electoral candidates from anti-rational propaganda and subliminal projections in public places, educating children to recognize mind-manipulation by official institutions. The aforementioned propagation of using the anti-baby pill is probably his most sane recommendation.
If you are looking for a historical curiosity, you might give this a try. As a serious look into the future or merely into the validity of the prophecies of Brave New World, it's a failure.
February 24, 2013
I fucking hate politics.
It's only useful in a very small amount of cases and in the rest of the time it's just a big pile of bullshit that is fed to people in order to keep them at their lower level.
I don't like governments and people that run countries and I really really don't like them in countries like mine or in countries like USA. Somewhere in this world there must be a good president or a nice prime-minister but in my country, that doesn't happen and in the USA it's all just a big scam. Or, at least, that's my opinion.
Huxley decided, in the late fifties, to "revisit" his work and comment on it, in order for a better understanding. He did a really nice job in this .. essay, let's call it, on commenting his book. He explained some things about it and he made an apology for other things that he thought were not good enough, or should have been written better about. He was just too young to know.
This explanation of his was a good way for me of finding some new things about this world and starting to think about new ideas that didn't occur to me before. He did a lot of comparisons with Hitler's regime, but I think that's because Hitler had just gone out of our world for a bit more than 20 years and everything about that tragedy was still recent in the minds of the people living then. The wound was still open and, apparently, it didn't want to close up.
I liked a lot of things that he said about our world and I do find it strange (or, to say, kind of amazing) that what he wrote in 1932 was available in 1958 and is available now, and what he wrote in 1958 is also true for nowadays. The same thing Orwell did in 1948, when he spoke of this idea - the ability of the rulers of our known little world called Earth to kill freedom before it is born. Now I'm not sure which of them did it better, because even though they are based on the same principles and mainly the same big idea, the details are very different and it doesn't come at all as a surprise that I can't pick my favorite.
Though I do have something to say against Huxley's work, when compared to Orwell's. 1984 is deeper, I think. It's much more of a philosophical dilemma than Brave New World is.
The thing that Huxley did and I didn't like throughout this work is comparing his book with Orwell's from 20 to 20 pages. They're just not the same, so you could be able to compare them! The message they speak about is the same, not the style, not the development! Yes, you can compare them on a personal level, like I did before, and say which of them you liked better, but you cannot speak of them with the same easiness in terms of technical specifications. Plus they are two different authors with two different views on our world, and that's to be seen in their books. One speaks of cruelty, the other of eeriness. One tells a story about fear and the other tells a story about not knowing what fear was. One is oppression, the other is the inability to know what oppression is.
Anyhow, this was a great book explaining Brave New World and I do think that it was a good idea of Huxley's to write this!
It's only useful in a very small amount of cases and in the rest of the time it's just a big pile of bullshit that is fed to people in order to keep them at their lower level.
I don't like governments and people that run countries and I really really don't like them in countries like mine or in countries like USA. Somewhere in this world there must be a good president or a nice prime-minister but in my country, that doesn't happen and in the USA it's all just a big scam. Or, at least, that's my opinion.
Huxley decided, in the late fifties, to "revisit" his work and comment on it, in order for a better understanding. He did a really nice job in this .. essay, let's call it, on commenting his book. He explained some things about it and he made an apology for other things that he thought were not good enough, or should have been written better about. He was just too young to know.
This explanation of his was a good way for me of finding some new things about this world and starting to think about new ideas that didn't occur to me before. He did a lot of comparisons with Hitler's regime, but I think that's because Hitler had just gone out of our world for a bit more than 20 years and everything about that tragedy was still recent in the minds of the people living then. The wound was still open and, apparently, it didn't want to close up.
I liked a lot of things that he said about our world and I do find it strange (or, to say, kind of amazing) that what he wrote in 1932 was available in 1958 and is available now, and what he wrote in 1958 is also true for nowadays. The same thing Orwell did in 1948, when he spoke of this idea - the ability of the rulers of our known little world called Earth to kill freedom before it is born. Now I'm not sure which of them did it better, because even though they are based on the same principles and mainly the same big idea, the details are very different and it doesn't come at all as a surprise that I can't pick my favorite.
Though I do have something to say against Huxley's work, when compared to Orwell's. 1984 is deeper, I think. It's much more of a philosophical dilemma than Brave New World is.
The thing that Huxley did and I didn't like throughout this work is comparing his book with Orwell's from 20 to 20 pages. They're just not the same, so you could be able to compare them! The message they speak about is the same, not the style, not the development! Yes, you can compare them on a personal level, like I did before, and say which of them you liked better, but you cannot speak of them with the same easiness in terms of technical specifications. Plus they are two different authors with two different views on our world, and that's to be seen in their books. One speaks of cruelty, the other of eeriness. One tells a story about fear and the other tells a story about not knowing what fear was. One is oppression, the other is the inability to know what oppression is.
Anyhow, this was a great book explaining Brave New World and I do think that it was a good idea of Huxley's to write this!
February 9, 2020
Cesur Yeni Dünya'yı bu kadar insanın okuduğu, bildiği, takip ettiği bir ortamda bu kitabı bilmemek, okumamak, haberdar olmamak inanılmaz geliyor bana gerçekten. Bu sitede sayılı türkçe incelemelerden birini yazıyor olmam bile ülkece kurgu dışı kitaplara ne kadar mesafeli olduğumuzun çarpıcı bir örneği. Buna kendimi de dahil ediyorum aslında. Ben de daha çok kurgu edebiyatı okuyorum.
ama...
Cesur Yeni Dünya'yı ziyaret bir istisna olmalıdır. Benim gözümde, Huxley'in bu masalının evreleri var.
Kitap birinci evre..(Cesur Yeni Dünya 1931)
Kiitaba sonradan eklenmiş önsöz ikinci evre.. (1946)
Cesur Yeni Dünyayı Ziyaret üçüncü ve belki en önemli evre.(1958)
Bu kitapta sadece bir distopik toplumun 27 yılda ne derece realize olduğunun ispatlarını bulmayacaksınız. Aynı zamanda böylesi bir eseri yarattıktan sonra, adeta feleğin çemberinden geçmiş bir "gerçek dünya" da yaşayan yazarın görüş ve fikirlerindeki gelişmeyi/gerilemeyi de okuyacaksınız. Evet. Dünyamız 1931-1958 arasında çok önemli toplumsal olaylara ev sahipliği etti. Koca bir Dünya savaştı. Diktatörler yaşadı, toplumları manipüle etti, etkiledi ve sonunda devrildi. Dünya farklı bir yaşam tarzına evrildi. Bu kitabın cevabını aradığı soru şu; Dünya Orwell'in 1984'üne doğru mu yoksa Huxley'in Cesur Yeni Dünya'sına doğru mu gidiyor? Yoksa bu iki farklı sistemin arasında, ikisinden de izler taşıyan üçüncü bir sistem olabilir mi? Bu kitaplarda yaşananlar gerçek olabilir mi?
Orwell bu hikâyenin neresinde derseniz, kendisi Huxley'in öğrencisi ve Huxley bu kitabında iki önemli distopyayı kıyaslama ve analiz etme yoluna gidiyor.
İşte bu sebeplerle bu kitabı mutlaka okumalısınız. Bu kitapsız bir Cesur Yeni Dünya sadece hayalci bir kurgudan öteye geçememektedir. Yazarın aklındakilere ve daha fazlasına bu ilave kitapla tam nüfuz edebiliyoruz. Kurgunun dışına çıkarken farkedeceksiniz ki, aslında "birileri" tarafından gerçekte oluşturulan bir kurguda yaşıyoruz zaten.
Ütopya'dan-------distopyaya,distopyadan-------- Gerçek Dünya'ya hoşgeldiniz.
ama...
Cesur Yeni Dünya'yı ziyaret bir istisna olmalıdır. Benim gözümde, Huxley'in bu masalının evreleri var.
Kitap birinci evre..(Cesur Yeni Dünya 1931)
Kiitaba sonradan eklenmiş önsöz ikinci evre.. (1946)
Cesur Yeni Dünyayı Ziyaret üçüncü ve belki en önemli evre.(1958)
Bu kitapta sadece bir distopik toplumun 27 yılda ne derece realize olduğunun ispatlarını bulmayacaksınız. Aynı zamanda böylesi bir eseri yarattıktan sonra, adeta feleğin çemberinden geçmiş bir "gerçek dünya" da yaşayan yazarın görüş ve fikirlerindeki gelişmeyi/gerilemeyi de okuyacaksınız. Evet. Dünyamız 1931-1958 arasında çok önemli toplumsal olaylara ev sahipliği etti. Koca bir Dünya savaştı. Diktatörler yaşadı, toplumları manipüle etti, etkiledi ve sonunda devrildi. Dünya farklı bir yaşam tarzına evrildi. Bu kitabın cevabını aradığı soru şu; Dünya Orwell'in 1984'üne doğru mu yoksa Huxley'in Cesur Yeni Dünya'sına doğru mu gidiyor? Yoksa bu iki farklı sistemin arasında, ikisinden de izler taşıyan üçüncü bir sistem olabilir mi? Bu kitaplarda yaşananlar gerçek olabilir mi?
Orwell bu hikâyenin neresinde derseniz, kendisi Huxley'in öğrencisi ve Huxley bu kitabında iki önemli distopyayı kıyaslama ve analiz etme yoluna gidiyor.
İşte bu sebeplerle bu kitabı mutlaka okumalısınız. Bu kitapsız bir Cesur Yeni Dünya sadece hayalci bir kurgudan öteye geçememektedir. Yazarın aklındakilere ve daha fazlasına bu ilave kitapla tam nüfuz edebiliyoruz. Kurgunun dışına çıkarken farkedeceksiniz ki, aslında "birileri" tarafından gerçekte oluşturulan bir kurguda yaşıyoruz zaten.
Ütopya'dan-------distopyaya,distopyadan-------- Gerçek Dünya'ya hoşgeldiniz.
October 28, 2023
Huxley was in his mid-sixties when he wrote this. It has all the characteristics of a rant by an elderly public intellectual who still had a captive audience. It does not stand up well today if only because the science and technology he depends upon have very much moved on - as have our political concerns.
It is a classical liberal take on society with a nice and simple view of the risks of totalitarian social control and manipulation from a man wanting not only his cake of freedom but to eat it as a member of the Anglo-American intelligentsia with a rather prescriptive mentality.
It is largely of antiquarian interest now. His original 'Brave New World' was a suggestive pioneering work of science fiction but, like 1984 and like most literary views of future political realities, it expressed fears of something that might be with little true understanding of what is.
Concerns laid out in literary terms translated less well as non-fiction over a quarter of a century later. We have here an opinion piece as transient as contemporary journalism, feeding into Cold War fears and prejudices, with a dash perhaps of barely suppressed hysteria about the way the world is going.
It is not a stupid book but it has become an irrelevant and dull book. The concerns in it are still those of many well positioned public intellectuals fearful of the ability to sustain their rather cosy world and certainly understandable from that point of view but that is, frankly, no longer good enough.
October 3, 2012
No doubt about it, Brave New World is an important book. When I first read it in high school it was a revelation and a lot more accessible than 1984, which seemed kind of dark, dreary, and difficult at the time. Twenty years later, I find myself rereading 1984 almost annually because it does what great literature can do so well: get under one's skin in a way that is uncomfortable yet illuminating. The world Orwell creates in 1984 is somehow more consistent and believable, the characters more "real" and sympathetic, their motives and fears more palpable.
I picked up BNW for the first time since high school and found it unreadable after a certain point. The characters are caricatures, the situations absurd, and the stabs at humor stilted and unfunny in that way only a towering intellect can be. When I was younger I didn't understand Nabokov's horror of the "novel of ideas," but after trying BNW after so long I finally got it. BNW just doesn't hold up on aesthetic grounds.
Which is why I'm glad Huxley wrote Brave New World Revisited. In it he basically strips the novel of its fictional elements and compares his predictions (or, perhaps more accurately, observations and extrapolations) to the industrial world of the 1950s (and, again presciently, beyond).
In the end I suppose Huxley was a better social commentator than artist.
I picked up BNW for the first time since high school and found it unreadable after a certain point. The characters are caricatures, the situations absurd, and the stabs at humor stilted and unfunny in that way only a towering intellect can be. When I was younger I didn't understand Nabokov's horror of the "novel of ideas," but after trying BNW after so long I finally got it. BNW just doesn't hold up on aesthetic grounds.
Which is why I'm glad Huxley wrote Brave New World Revisited. In it he basically strips the novel of its fictional elements and compares his predictions (or, perhaps more accurately, observations and extrapolations) to the industrial world of the 1950s (and, again presciently, beyond).
In the end I suppose Huxley was a better social commentator than artist.
August 28, 2021
"Se prea poate și ca un om să nu fie deținut în închisoare și, totuși, să nu fie liber; să nu fie supus niciunei constrângeri fizice și, totuși, să fie captiv din punct de vedere psihologic... O victimă a manipulării mentale nu știe că este victimă. Pentru ea, zidurile închisorii sunt invizibile și ea se crede liberă."
Mă așteptam la o continuare ori la altfel de întoarcere în "minunata lume nouă", dar și aceste eseuri s-au dovedit a fi interesante, ca o mică incursiune in mintea autorului.
Mă așteptam la o continuare ori la altfel de întoarcere în "minunata lume nouă", dar și aceste eseuri s-au dovedit a fi interesante, ca o mică incursiune in mintea autorului.
July 19, 2026
Aldous Huxley - Regresso ao Admirável Mundo Novo
Inventei duas palavras – Grafocídio e Prognocídio. Estas são minhas, ninguém me as tira. O que são? Já explico!
Regresso ao Admirável Mundo Novo é um livro curioso. Curioso não por explicar o Admirável Mundo Novo, mas exatamente por isso! Porque ao fazê-lo prova algo que há muito tinha por errado – um romancista nem sempre resiste à tentação de explicar o próprio romance.
Esta tentação, quando consumada, necessitava de um rótulo. Para isso designei-a de “Grafocídio”, um “crime” que atribuo ao ato de um autor matar a liberdade da sua obra impondo-lhe, ou sugerindo-lhe uma interpretação. Um romance vive das leituras que permite, morre quando julga ser possível trazer consigo a chave e substituir cada um de nós, os leitores. Huxley aproxima-se desse crime.
Enferma desse crime, porém, o seu verdadeiro interesse não reside nas explicações que fornece, mas nas previsões que faz. Os homens gostam de prever o futuro. Talvez o façam porque o futuro nunca lhes responde. Aqui não seria bem o caso porque cronologicamente era possível ser contemporâneo com o texto e ter ainda algum vigor para assistir ao seu teste no tempo.
Se falhou em algumas previsões, nomeadamente nas que derivaram de uma leitura Malthusiana do futuro visto de então, outras permanecem extraordinariamente vivas. Não porque tenham descrito com precisão o século XXI, mas porque o anteviram quando compreenderam que a liberdade raramente desaparece de uma só vez. Normalmente dissolve-se.
Uma sociedade não precisa de ser governada pelo medo para perder a liberdade. Pode perdê-lo também e ser governada pelo e no conforto. Um cidadão entretido é sempre mais dócil do que um outro intimidado. Este nirvana de adormecimento pode ser atingido quando o consumo substitui o pensamento, a distração o debate e a satisfação imediata qualquer procura da verdade. Uma realidade tão clássica como o império romano onde o povo era distraído por pão e circo.
Huxley percebeu que o autoritarismo não chega sempre vestido de uniforme. Pode apresentar-se como eficiência, bem-estar, segurança ou felicidade. Quando os homens aceitam abdicar da liberdade em troca de tranquilidade, o poder já não precisa de impor obediência, basta administrar as dependências. Huxley previu estes perigos, também vislumbrados por outros como Stuart Mill e Alexis de Tocqueville, mas fá-lo em pleno século XX, uma sociedade de pós-guerra onde o bem-estar tantas vezes era uma limitação da liberdade ainda que agora revestida de uma nova roupagem.
A ideia da perda voluntária da liberdade criar uma vazio que tenderá sempre a ser ocupado por formas fluidas e dissimuladas mas igualmente de autoritarismo é uma das ideias mais perturbadoras deste livro que podemos acompanhar em particular nos seus dois últimos capítulos – vale a pena lê-lo só por isso!
As maiores ameaças à liberdade nem sempre são aquelas que nos proíbem de pensar. Podem ser as que tornam o pensamento desnecessário. Esta é uma das ideias mais perturbadoras deste livro, e em particular no mundo das redes sociais e dos “influencers”.
Uma sociedade que deixa de fazer perguntas torna-se fácil de governar. É aqui que Huxley permanece atual. Não porque tenha previsto tecnologias ou acontecimentos concretos, mas porque identificou uma tentação permanente da política – trocar autonomia por conforto, responsabilidade por tutela, liberdade pela promessa de uma vida sem inquietações.
Já para outras previsões envelheceram mal. O tempo recusou-lhes obediência. Para estas proponho o termo de “prognocídio”.
Não é o erro de prever, o problema decorre é do grau de certeza que lhes conferimos. É por isso que a zombaria é quase sempre destino inevitável de previsões feitas com excesso de certeza. Habitualmente o futuro assassina-as.
Por regra, toda a previsão demasiado confiante contém já em si o germe do seu próprio prognocídio.
A este propósito recordo-me de duas frases célebres. A primeira é atribuída a Niels Bohr – "É muito difícil fazer previsões, especialmente sobre o futuro." A segunda, foi por João Pinto – "Prognósticos só no fim do jogo." Ambas dizem exatamente a mesma coisa – o tempo não gosta de profetas.
Contudo, e apesar dos riscos, raramente há quem resista a fazer-lhe vaticínios. Talvez seja por isso exista quem faça fortuna vendendo certezas sobre o amanhã. O amanhã ainda não pode apresentar recurso. Quando finalmente chega, poucos se lembram de conferir a fatura.
Essa foi a maior lição que retirei deste livro. Não a de desconfiar de Huxley, mas a de desconfiar de todos os que se veem conhecedores do futuro, incluindo de nós próprios.
Porém, o verdadeiro legado de Huxley talvez não é o conjunto dos seus prognósticos. Muitos sofreram “prognocídio”, como inevitavelmente acontece aos que pretendem descrever o futuro com excessiva confiança. O seu principal legado é outro – é ter compreendido que a liberdade dificilmente morre de forma espetacular. Morre discretamente, quase sempre com o consentimento dos próprios homens.
Inventei duas palavras – Grafocídio e Prognocídio. Estas são minhas, ninguém me as tira. O que são? Já explico!
Regresso ao Admirável Mundo Novo é um livro curioso. Curioso não por explicar o Admirável Mundo Novo, mas exatamente por isso! Porque ao fazê-lo prova algo que há muito tinha por errado – um romancista nem sempre resiste à tentação de explicar o próprio romance.
Esta tentação, quando consumada, necessitava de um rótulo. Para isso designei-a de “Grafocídio”, um “crime” que atribuo ao ato de um autor matar a liberdade da sua obra impondo-lhe, ou sugerindo-lhe uma interpretação. Um romance vive das leituras que permite, morre quando julga ser possível trazer consigo a chave e substituir cada um de nós, os leitores. Huxley aproxima-se desse crime.
Enferma desse crime, porém, o seu verdadeiro interesse não reside nas explicações que fornece, mas nas previsões que faz. Os homens gostam de prever o futuro. Talvez o façam porque o futuro nunca lhes responde. Aqui não seria bem o caso porque cronologicamente era possível ser contemporâneo com o texto e ter ainda algum vigor para assistir ao seu teste no tempo.
Se falhou em algumas previsões, nomeadamente nas que derivaram de uma leitura Malthusiana do futuro visto de então, outras permanecem extraordinariamente vivas. Não porque tenham descrito com precisão o século XXI, mas porque o anteviram quando compreenderam que a liberdade raramente desaparece de uma só vez. Normalmente dissolve-se.
Uma sociedade não precisa de ser governada pelo medo para perder a liberdade. Pode perdê-lo também e ser governada pelo e no conforto. Um cidadão entretido é sempre mais dócil do que um outro intimidado. Este nirvana de adormecimento pode ser atingido quando o consumo substitui o pensamento, a distração o debate e a satisfação imediata qualquer procura da verdade. Uma realidade tão clássica como o império romano onde o povo era distraído por pão e circo.
Huxley percebeu que o autoritarismo não chega sempre vestido de uniforme. Pode apresentar-se como eficiência, bem-estar, segurança ou felicidade. Quando os homens aceitam abdicar da liberdade em troca de tranquilidade, o poder já não precisa de impor obediência, basta administrar as dependências. Huxley previu estes perigos, também vislumbrados por outros como Stuart Mill e Alexis de Tocqueville, mas fá-lo em pleno século XX, uma sociedade de pós-guerra onde o bem-estar tantas vezes era uma limitação da liberdade ainda que agora revestida de uma nova roupagem.
A ideia da perda voluntária da liberdade criar uma vazio que tenderá sempre a ser ocupado por formas fluidas e dissimuladas mas igualmente de autoritarismo é uma das ideias mais perturbadoras deste livro que podemos acompanhar em particular nos seus dois últimos capítulos – vale a pena lê-lo só por isso!
As maiores ameaças à liberdade nem sempre são aquelas que nos proíbem de pensar. Podem ser as que tornam o pensamento desnecessário. Esta é uma das ideias mais perturbadoras deste livro, e em particular no mundo das redes sociais e dos “influencers”.
Uma sociedade que deixa de fazer perguntas torna-se fácil de governar. É aqui que Huxley permanece atual. Não porque tenha previsto tecnologias ou acontecimentos concretos, mas porque identificou uma tentação permanente da política – trocar autonomia por conforto, responsabilidade por tutela, liberdade pela promessa de uma vida sem inquietações.
Já para outras previsões envelheceram mal. O tempo recusou-lhes obediência. Para estas proponho o termo de “prognocídio”.
Não é o erro de prever, o problema decorre é do grau de certeza que lhes conferimos. É por isso que a zombaria é quase sempre destino inevitável de previsões feitas com excesso de certeza. Habitualmente o futuro assassina-as.
Por regra, toda a previsão demasiado confiante contém já em si o germe do seu próprio prognocídio.
A este propósito recordo-me de duas frases célebres. A primeira é atribuída a Niels Bohr – "É muito difícil fazer previsões, especialmente sobre o futuro." A segunda, foi por João Pinto – "Prognósticos só no fim do jogo." Ambas dizem exatamente a mesma coisa – o tempo não gosta de profetas.
Contudo, e apesar dos riscos, raramente há quem resista a fazer-lhe vaticínios. Talvez seja por isso exista quem faça fortuna vendendo certezas sobre o amanhã. O amanhã ainda não pode apresentar recurso. Quando finalmente chega, poucos se lembram de conferir a fatura.
Essa foi a maior lição que retirei deste livro. Não a de desconfiar de Huxley, mas a de desconfiar de todos os que se veem conhecedores do futuro, incluindo de nós próprios.
Porém, o verdadeiro legado de Huxley talvez não é o conjunto dos seus prognósticos. Muitos sofreram “prognocídio”, como inevitavelmente acontece aos que pretendem descrever o futuro com excessiva confiança. O seu principal legado é outro – é ter compreendido que a liberdade dificilmente morre de forma espetacular. Morre discretamente, quase sempre com o consentimento dos próprios homens.
September 9, 2009
I am pleasantly surprised. This book was a series of essays about certain social institutions that are slowly making the world more closely align with the future Huxley predicts in Brave New World. I am not sure why Huxley is trying so hard to prove that his predictions are more likely to come true than George Orwell's 1984. Here are some of the main ideas that I thoroughly enjoyed:
"That so many of the well fed young television-watchers in the world's most powerful democracy should be so completely indifferent to the idea of self-government, so blankly uninterested in freedom of thought and the right to dissent, is distressing, but not too surprising"
"To be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest with the nation, want him to think, feel and act"
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and never dream of revolution".
"That so many of the well fed young television-watchers in the world's most powerful democracy should be so completely indifferent to the idea of self-government, so blankly uninterested in freedom of thought and the right to dissent, is distressing, but not too surprising"
"To be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest with the nation, want him to think, feel and act"
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and never dream of revolution".
August 23, 2021
A timeless and prophetic work by one of the most brilliant literary and sociological thinkers of the 21st century, who presaged the brave new world of malleable reality and mutable memory that we currently live in.
Where to begin? Over the course of a few hundred pages, this singular mind has summed up the socioeconomic underpinnings of the last century of history, while laying down a blueprint for the next century.
With its timeless insights into the nature of human frailty, democracy, tyranny, propaganda and the forces "historical, economic, demographic and technological" which impede our ability to exercise reason, claim rights "and act justly within a democratically organized society" (plus a whole lot more), Brave New World Revisited captures the articulations of a brilliant mind, fully developed, at the height of its powers, operating at full steam, and might as well have been written to address the Trumpist times we currently live in.
A follow-on essay published in 1957 to explore the themes first raised in his 1932 novel Brave New World, Brave New World Revisited stitches together all my observations of the past decade into a contiguous, beautifully-composed whole. A far-reaching essay on the implications of the science, politics and art interacting against a backdrop of population-resource pressure, cultural decay, technological change and social disruption, this essay should be made required reading for all students, innovators and politicians.
I originally started reading this when I was 23, gave up because it didn't feel relevant, and then returned to it almost a decade later. My oh my, what a difference the passage of time has made. One helluva read man! I feel like I went down a deep rabbit hole into the inner workings of human nature, with an omniscient voice in my ear patiently explaining the hidden intricacies and interconnections between various branches of human knowledge to me. This book is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree, and more. The start of universal education in its own right, the kind of renaissance-style of interdisciplinary analysis which might have once been more common on college campuses before the advent of industry-inspired specializations.
In just a few hundred pages, Huxley has manage to touch upon and summarize so many wide-ranging avenues of thought and research, weaving them into a contiguous whole to present a startling vision for humanity and society. For instance: the link between language and morality, biology and social freedom, economic organization and totalitarianism, media manipulation and caste systems, medieval tyranny and modern marketing, and that's just for starters.
Imagine stumbling upon an intensely intellectual conversation where great insights and even greater avenues of thought are hinted at in passing, leaving you thrilled and excited with their possibilities. If you can get through its tedious prose, it's brilliant, with the precision and soul of a great machine slowly stirring to life.
Where to begin? Over the course of a few hundred pages, this singular mind has summed up the socioeconomic underpinnings of the last century of history, while laying down a blueprint for the next century.
With its timeless insights into the nature of human frailty, democracy, tyranny, propaganda and the forces "historical, economic, demographic and technological" which impede our ability to exercise reason, claim rights "and act justly within a democratically organized society" (plus a whole lot more), Brave New World Revisited captures the articulations of a brilliant mind, fully developed, at the height of its powers, operating at full steam, and might as well have been written to address the Trumpist times we currently live in.
A follow-on essay published in 1957 to explore the themes first raised in his 1932 novel Brave New World, Brave New World Revisited stitches together all my observations of the past decade into a contiguous, beautifully-composed whole. A far-reaching essay on the implications of the science, politics and art interacting against a backdrop of population-resource pressure, cultural decay, technological change and social disruption, this essay should be made required reading for all students, innovators and politicians.
I originally started reading this when I was 23, gave up because it didn't feel relevant, and then returned to it almost a decade later. My oh my, what a difference the passage of time has made. One helluva read man! I feel like I went down a deep rabbit hole into the inner workings of human nature, with an omniscient voice in my ear patiently explaining the hidden intricacies and interconnections between various branches of human knowledge to me. This book is the equivalent of a bachelor's degree, and more. The start of universal education in its own right, the kind of renaissance-style of interdisciplinary analysis which might have once been more common on college campuses before the advent of industry-inspired specializations.
In just a few hundred pages, Huxley has manage to touch upon and summarize so many wide-ranging avenues of thought and research, weaving them into a contiguous whole to present a startling vision for humanity and society. For instance: the link between language and morality, biology and social freedom, economic organization and totalitarianism, media manipulation and caste systems, medieval tyranny and modern marketing, and that's just for starters.
Imagine stumbling upon an intensely intellectual conversation where great insights and even greater avenues of thought are hinted at in passing, leaving you thrilled and excited with their possibilities. If you can get through its tedious prose, it's brilliant, with the precision and soul of a great machine slowly stirring to life.
August 14, 2021
It's sad to see the author of what I think is a quite thought-provoking book in Brave New World relegated to a propagandist stooge of capital, making incoherent rambling arguments, siding with eugenicists, and promoting absurd red scare propaganda. I'm of the belief that Brave New World is a better book than Huxley knew, and this quite convincingly proves it. It would have helped his analysis greatly if he'd read more Marx than the 'opiate of the masses' line that he loves to quote (indeed without understanding even its full context). Alas, instead he is another George Orwell, blinded by chauvinism and self-interest, failing to see that his dystopia is already apparent in the capitalist world and that it's quite the opposite of the communist approach. Seeing population growth as one of the main drivers of 'authoritarianism' he develops this neo-Malthusian garbage in the logical direction, praising the western democracies (though fearing their downfall) in comparison to the backwards people who are incapable of grasping democratic principles. A shame he didn't read Marx's complete refutation of Malthus a century prior. Apart from that there's no real attempt at uncovering the underlying motion of the systems he supposedly has studied. In fact, he seems to consider attempts at this to disregard the complexity of the world (an absurd accusation constantly hurled at Marxists- complexity does not mean there aren't laws guiding the motion- just ask the physicists!). He's quite satisfied with the dull 'power corrupts' hand waving. The most unfortunate part of all perhaps is his view of 'the masses'. It appears he takes the same line as Orwell (who relegates them to the stupid work horse) and has a good deal of contempt for the masses. He brings up the fascist view in Hitler's words, and admits he agrees a good deal with it. Much like Orwell again, he ends up working towards the same things he portrays as a dystopia.
Poor worm, thou art infected.
This visitation shows it.
Poor worm, thou art infected.
This visitation shows it.
December 6, 2021
Eseurile au fost o delectare și mi-au plăcut mai mult decât romanul. Reîntoarcerea în minunata lume nouă ofertă un behind the scenes al originalului. Mi-au plăcut aspectele cu privire la psihologia maselor și a propagandei. Pe parcursul capitolelor Huxley abordează posibile metode și mecanisme pe care dictatura sau conducerea le-a folosit și le-ar putea folosi, astfel încât realitatea viitoare să ajungă foarte aproape de ceea ce imaginația autorului (sau mai degrabă psihedelismul indus) a produs. Pe de o parte s-a și întâmplat. Acum trăim o variantă a ceea ce Huxley prevedea, cu toate că "furtul" libertății noastre e realizat muuuult mai subtil. Ceea ce e chiar mai înspăimântător...
Dar încheierea are o notă de speranță.
"Între timp a măi rămas, totuși, un pic de libertate pe lumea asta. E adevărat, mulți tineri nu par să prețuiască libertatea. Dar unii dintre noi continuă să creadă că fără libertate ființele omenești nu pot deveni pe deplin umane și că, deci, libertatea este de neprețuit. Poate că forțele care amenință acum libertatea sunt prea puternice pentru a li se putea rezista multă vreme. Și totuși, este de datoria noastră să facem tot ce putem pentru a nu împotrivi lor"
Dar încheierea are o notă de speranță.
"Între timp a măi rămas, totuși, un pic de libertate pe lumea asta. E adevărat, mulți tineri nu par să prețuiască libertatea. Dar unii dintre noi continuă să creadă că fără libertate ființele omenești nu pot deveni pe deplin umane și că, deci, libertatea este de neprețuit. Poate că forțele care amenință acum libertatea sunt prea puternice pentru a li se putea rezista multă vreme. Și totuși, este de datoria noastră să facem tot ce putem pentru a nu împotrivi lor"
November 14, 2023
Manual para el control de masas que perfecciona su anterior libro de Un mundo feliz
April 8, 2026
Brave New World appeared in 1932.
Nearly thirty later, Huxley revisited his own book to see whether any of the ideas from the original had come close to reality.
I think each individual reader can come to their own conclusions on whether Brave New World was predictive in any way. To me, everyone should read this book, especially Chapters 5 and 6 - 'Propaganda under a Dictatorship' and 'The Arts of Selling' - to discover Huxley's thoughts of how dictatorships control the thoughts and minds of their people. These pages are revealing and make the reader appreciate what's going on in the political world.
The writing about the sensibility of individuals in a crowd is particularly revealing and indicates that those individuals cease to have any judgment or will of their own. There are many more revelatory insights.
Nearly thirty later, Huxley revisited his own book to see whether any of the ideas from the original had come close to reality.
I think each individual reader can come to their own conclusions on whether Brave New World was predictive in any way. To me, everyone should read this book, especially Chapters 5 and 6 - 'Propaganda under a Dictatorship' and 'The Arts of Selling' - to discover Huxley's thoughts of how dictatorships control the thoughts and minds of their people. These pages are revealing and make the reader appreciate what's going on in the political world.
The writing about the sensibility of individuals in a crowd is particularly revealing and indicates that those individuals cease to have any judgment or will of their own. There are many more revelatory insights.
June 12, 2011
Huxley's addition to Brave New World is a diatribe on overpopulation and states the solution is selective breeding and aborting based on genetic materials. Surprising since this was written 15 years or so after WWII and Hitler's great experiment. Huxley attempted to support his argument by stating this is the only way to save the planet. Unfortunately, his rhetoric could only be seen as positive by those who are naive and uneducated, the very people he suggested should not be alive.
September 1, 2015
Quis custodiet custodes?
Mankind has always dreamed of the perfect society, just as it has always feared the oppressive one. From this dream has been born the fantasy of Utopia and from this fear the nightmare of Dystopia.
But is Utopia truly the antithesis of Dystopia, and is it really an egalitarian society possible? From Thomas More to Karl Marx and H. G. Wells and many others, this perfect society generally abides by some rigid, unimaginative and sometimes implausible rules, the main one being the austerity caused by the absence of personal property. But, as it has already been seen in all Communist countries, this invests the State with an incredible power over the individual, denying the latter its importance whilst overstressing the importance of the community. And because there is nobody left to sanction its actions (that is, nobody to answer the question which is the title of this review), the State is prone to become, sooner or later, a dictatorship of the enforced good, a hell paved with good intentions, like in that old joke in which a young man eagerly helps an old woman get on a tram she didn’t want to climb. How easily Thomas More’s Utopia becomes George Orwell’s 1984.
The other way around is the decadence caused by overindulgence. The hunt for happiness at any cost leads to another type of totalitarian society: the New Brave World’s one, in which the mankind is programmed to listen to its instincts and not to its reason. Apparently so different, the two societies are in fact very similar:
In 1984 the lust for power is satisfied by inflicting pain; in Brave New World by inflicting a hardly less humiliating pleasure.
Inclined to think the future will belong to the second, much more persuasive in his opinion than the first, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New world Revisited tries to find a way to escape its Siren song. Using the same premise as Freud in Civilization and Its Discontents, that the man is in search of happiness at all costs, the author denounces the major perils of our civilization, either of biological, social or psychological nature.
A first danger is the over-population that menace to consummate the resources, undermining the well-being of the individuals and therefore the social stability. He grimly foresees (in 1958!) a future where all over-populated and underdeveloped countries will be communist. His prophecy was partially true and even though communism collapsed in Eastern Europe, it continues to flourish elsewhere. Moreover, another form of totalitarianism, the Islamic terrorist State menaces to take over.
Another danger results from the fight of the humankind with the natural selection: the medical discoveries reduce the mortality rate and overcrowd the Earth with flawed individuals: in his opinion, the decline of average healthiness may lead to a decline of average intelligence and this ethical dilemma is not easy to solve.
The technology is another good thing that turned bad in our civilization, for the technological progress leads to the concentration and centralization of the economic power. Although organization is important, over-organization transforms people into automats, suffocating the creative spirit and robbing them of freedom.
Then there is the power of the mind control, from propaganda to chemical and subconscious persuasion that brainwash people into believing everything. In a democratic society the force of the propaganda consists mainly in a combination of Dr. Jekyll (a propagandist of the truth and reason) with Mr Hyde (an analyst of human weaknesses and failings), so that the nowadays politicians appeal to the ignorance and irrationality of the elector. The same is true for dictatorship, which successfully uses “herd-poisoning” – the intoxication by the crowd:
Mindlessness and moral idiocy are not characteristically human attributes; they are symptoms of herd-poisoning.
But as the human being, as Huxley justly observes, is not fundamentally a gregarious being, society is, or should be, not an organism (like a hive or a termitary) but an organization. An organization where three values should be always respected: the value of individual freedom, the value of charity and compassion and the value of intelligence.
This is why the final chapter, What can be done?, is a pleading for creating a society as a form of “self-governing, voluntarily co-operating groups, capable of functioning outside the bureaucratic systems of Big Business and Big Government.” This is the only way for the individual to assert his freedom. And even though mankind sees less and less the intricate relation between humanity and freedom, maybe all is not lost:
The cry of “Give me television and hamburgers, but don’t bother me with the responsibilities of liberty”, may give place, under altered circumstances, to the cry of “Give me liberty or give me death.”
May 2, 2023
Mai rare initiativele unde autorul isi critica propria opera.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,779 reviews