Freedom is not the freedom to say that 2+2=4

Post Reply New Topic

In 1984, as Orwell probably knows, in 1984 there is this statement:

This statement has one problem though, it is wrong.

Freedom is not the freedom to say that 2+2=4, the reason being that almost everyone agrees that 2+2=4 is the correct answer, so the freedom to common sense is hardly a freedom at all. Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=77. Freedom is the right to dissent, even if everyone else believes that you are utterly wrong, and can argue against your point at length. It is not the freedom to be a Catholic in Spain under the Inquisition, where everyone "knew" that Catholicism was correct, but rather it is the freedom to be a Jew, a Protestant, a Muslim, an atheist, or even a devil-worshiper in the face of that opposition. The questions of the world are rarely so settled as 2+2=4, and to say this literally is absurd, and to say this figuratively is either meaningless or gives way to the right to be absurd. In order to have the right to say that 2+2=4, one has to have the right to say that 2+2!=4, as without this right, how will we discover the proper truth in the first place? How can a right to say one thing be truly a right, if there is no opposite to it? I certainly don't have the right to work, if I am forced into that, am I? Aren't I enslaved instead? The same seems to hold on this matter! So, I hold that losing the freedom to say that 2+2=77 is the real loss in freedom, not any matter of 2+2=4, for if I have the right to the latter, then I only have the right to agree with the commonly regarded set of truths, not anything else.

Thoughts? I think I have now written a stance in opposition to one that other WP people have taken.

As long as you don't expect it to be marked as correct on a math test.

Well, anyone could write a math test, so really the expectation is that others will have different ideas about what is correct. But if I wrote a math test, then it could have 2+2=77. If I was close friends with the grader, I could get the same result of having my answer marked as correct.

Freedom is absolutely the right to dissent anything, anytime. Several avidly republican acquaintances have called me unpatriotic because of expressed anti-war sentiments (within the context of discussing the Iraqi war). I queried who was more patriotic: The one exercising free speech or the one trying to take away free speech.
It is important to dissent responsibly. It is good to be informed and to consider context. One can talk about 2 + 2 = 77 on this site, write letters to the editor, form a club, start their own school, and picket peacefully, etc., but it would not be responsible to take over 1st-grade classrooms to assert oneself to the children.
One exercising one’s right to dissent when uninformed or in the wrong context can look a fool at best. Nonetheless, I will stand up for your right to insist that 2 + 2 = 77. Shall I write a note to your math teacher?

JanetFAP

It might be wise to do so.

Well, the statement wasn't meant to be taken dead literally. I mean, even if we are all Aspies, we can appreciate that literature includes metaphors. You have to consider the context- that was Winston Smith writing in his diary, in society with a theory of truth that stated that 2+2=5 or 2+2=3 or 2+2=whatever the hell the Party wants it to equal. What was meant was that freedom was the right to express the truth as it is apparent to you and not have to back down when society says you are wrong. Actually, your entire OP is spent explaining why freedom *is* the freedom to say 2+2=4 as taken in the context of Oceania.

NOBODY SUSPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

I imagine that your claim on the statement could be true, however, the issue is that I wanted to reinforce a more subjectivist bent as well. A major issue with that comes down to whether or not Orwell was as much of a subjectivist as I am. If he was sigifnicantly less of one, then my attack, while overblown, is valid. After all, he and I are attacking different enemies, he is attacking emotive fascism, while I am attacking more rationalistic ideology.

EDIT: However, I will admit that I am feeling a bit more crazed than my original post pushes for. I posted this partially as a reaction to a person desiring to sue the Catholic church for claiming that miracles exist at Lourdes.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 26 May 2009, 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHGOl-jfUK0[/youtube]

I think you miss the subtext of what Orwell was saying.

In 1984, "truth" was whatever the state said it was. Doublespeak, disinformation, Big Brother, etc.

So, to say the TRUTH could be criminal. If the state said 2 + 2 = 5, that was the correct answer. You were not "free" to give the logical and correct answer that 2 + 2 = 4.

While indeed freedom can be the freedom to give any answer, the most important element of freedom (geopolitically) is to be able to present the truth without being censored by the state. In every dictatorial or fascist regime, truth is the first casualty of war.

Umm.... Orwell said that earlier and I addressed his claim already as well. In any case, it is relatively irrelevant what Orwell (the author) really meant though, as my point is not really "Ha! Orwell is wrong!" as nobody really cares, at least I don't. The quote is a starting point for a different expression attacking different enemies than Orwell was attacking, that is all. It was not even written as some absolute logical argument, where I used Premise A, Premise B, etc, to reach a conclusion, but rather I took his quote as a background to put myself in opposition to.

I mean, you can fault me for distorting Orwell, but even then, there isn't necessarily a huge distortion necessary, as Orwell is attacking something that I am not, and the way he is attacking it would technically leave him open to this kind of attack, as you haven't attacked me for making *any* distortion, and Orwell only attacked me for being too literalist on this quote. Neither of which make me at fault for any intellectual error.

Boy, it does get a tad confusing when I chose this name. I propose referring to the real one as Eric Blair.

Yes, yes it does looking at my past post. I think I should call you "loser boy"

Anyways, the answer is 42.

No, it is obviously AG.

in a purely objective sense, 2+2=4, whether under maniacal capitalism, or sanctimonious communism (except for a short period in the early 20th Century, when 2+2 actually did equal five [they had slogans and banners made up], although it really meant finish the 5-year plan in 4 years...

I'm still waiting on the ultimate question, though...;0