Brave New World

[English] Aldous Huxley: *Brave New World*, translated by Wang Bo, Chongqing Publishing House, June 2005

I’d long heard of it, and Teacher Liu had recommended it too, but I still hadn’t read it. Probably just laziness.

I really ought to read some literary works too. I’ve always admired and emphasized literature, but that can’t just remain lip service forever, can it? After being reminded once again, I decided to show some decisiveness in my reading—if I think of reading it, I buy it; if I buy it, I read it. The book was just delivered this afternoon, and I finished it in one sitting.

It really is excellent—very excellent! Well worth reading.

Sometimes I think that philosophers seem to be serving writers of literature. Philosophers go round and round, working out systems and arguments, laboring earnestly and doing everything they can to express certain thoughts; yet in the hands of writers of literature, those very thoughts are interpreted in such vivid and lively forms!

After finishing it, I didn’t get many new revelations—you know what I mean? The reason there were no new revelations is that everything resonated. It was like reading Kant and others: at times I felt that this was simply something I had written myself (an illusion—of course it’s an illusion, yes).

Today dystopian works are no longer rare. Many novels, films, and even animated works take dystopia as their subject, but in any case those are only imitations of the classics. Works that surpass the “dystopian trilogy” are not really possible. Classics are classics indeed; more than seventy years of sedimentation has not diminished the shock they can still give people.

The thought the author expresses in *Brave New World* is consistent with what we so-called “anti-science cultural people” believe. A future in which technology is brilliant and flourishing is not necessarily a good future.

In that brave new world, there are two things in excess—science and order.

But using the word science here is inaccurate, because what flourishes in that new world is not real science, but merely “technology.” There is only practical technology there, and no longer any “useless” science that exists for the sake of knowledge, for the pursuit of truth. When technology is at its most brilliant, that is precisely when science is completely forgotten.

And the “order” there is only an order driven to utter monotony. I oppose extreme liberalism and egalitarianism; unlimited freedom leads to chaos. Society needs order; it needs stability. At the very least, just as a family needs its elders and juniors arranged in proper sequence, there cannot be unlimited familiarity with no distinction of senior and junior. In order to maintain social stability and guide social development, a centralized governmental apparatus is necessary. However, if the pursuit of order goes too far, one will fall into yet another kind of deformity. An ideal society is like a piece of music (just as Confucius emphasized the character “music”): true and beautiful order can neither be completely equal and uniform—for example, all notes being the same pitch—nor completely free and scattered, disorderly—for example, simply plucking at random. Nor can one say that, in order to guarantee both stability and difference, differences should be artificially designed and arranged—for example, following the sequence do-re-mi-fa and playing them all from low to high. A graceful melody seems to follow no pattern at all, yet seems faintly to contain some kind of order, and that order cannot be planned by mechanical formulae. In short, an ideal society may well exist, but it is difficult for human beings to design it, and especially impossible for science to plan it. So I remain, personally, an idealist; however, I think no doctrine can fully and completely depict every detail of an ideal society, just as no simplified description can fully depict a piece of music. An ideal government will maintain a moderate degree of control over society—for example, guiding its “rhythm,” so that it does not turn into a burst of “noise”—but it should never attempt to exercise control over “every single detail.”

In the “new world” there are three things in short supply—past, present, and future.

For the individual as a citizen of the new world: he has no past; he was born in a laboratory, has no parents, like a car assembled on a production line. He has no present; he has never reflected on his own life, but merely works like a machine, and mates and seeks pleasure like a beast. He also has no future; beyond serving the existing society he has no pursuit, no hope, no descendants, and even less any ideal—nor does he need these. The indoctrination from childhood and the pleasures of the moment are enough to make one forget everything. They do not fear death either—even if a person at the moment of death probably cannot avoid fear, that fear is hard to transmit to others, because there are no concepts such as relatives or parents.

For civilization as a whole: it has no past; it abolishes “history” and everything ancient. It may still know that human beings came from apes, yet it no longer understands the origins of civilization; its culture has no roots—if it can still be called “culture” at all… It also has no present; it abolishes “philosophy,” that is, it abolishes reflection on reality. Once reflection is forgotten, there can be no affirmation of the “present”; all that remains is “habit.” It also has no future; all meaning lies only in this eternally unchanging and most perfect society. There is no ideal society, nor is one needed. “Religion” is even more meaningless—because it is too ancient, and because it is of no “use.”

My first feeling was: after all, this is a novelist’s exaggeration; such a society is simply too unreal. But thinking carefully, why is it unreal? It is in fact far too real; indeed, the real world is almost just a shadow of that “new world.”

Worship technology, despise history, deny philosophy, eliminate religion—isn’t this precisely what our present age is forcefully carrying out? On the individual level, though it is not as extreme as being born from a laboratory with no father and mother, the modern notion of “family” really is growing ever thinner. The relationship between parents and children has to be made into something like a business deal, with contracts signed and agreements drawn up; cases of this sort are even frequently promoted and hyped by the media. Once the relationship with one’s parents becomes an economic relationship, how different is that from an offspring produced on a conveyor belt with no father and mother? In addition, although our present age still maintains monogamy and has not become as extreme as the “new world,” the relationship between husband and wife is also moving farther and farther away from that spiritual bond of mutual belonging, and increasingly emphasizing the bodily and economic bond. Marital relations increasingly depend on sexual desire or economic ties to hold them together, rather than on spiritual fusion. As for the future? What are modern people busy working so hard for? Of course, unlike in the “new world,” modern people would rarely answer: I’m only serving this society. Modern people do not yet seem to be that selfless. But in the end, what is it really for? Like the people of the “new world,” modern people are also increasingly immersed only in established, mechanized work, while avoiding reflection on the meaning of work. People toil and make money either in order to enjoy themselves, or, more selflessly, supposedly in order to create good conditions for the next generation. But after creating conditions for the next generation, what is the next generation to seek? In short, modern people always avoid the question of meaning and goals; apart from forgetting themselves in busyness, they forget themselves in entertainment and indulgence. And how much difference is there between modern people’s increasingly mechanized work and increasingly vulgar entertainment (just look at those programs that expose the ugliest side of human beings to the fullest), compared with the “new world”?

Also, note this: this “new world” may seem terrifying to us (if there are already modern people who think that it is truly a beautiful world, I can only respond with sorrow), but to the people of the “new world” it is a matter of course, and indeed truly beautiful. Putting ourselves in others’ shoes: if we stand from the perspective of ancient people and look at our modern society, what would they think? Would they think it beautiful? Would they, like modern people, feel that society is becoming more and more civilized, more and more advanced? Or, as we see the “new world,” would the modern society in the eyes of ancient people also be terrifying? Modern people always like to stand high above and congratulate themselves. Apart from being a bit more technologically advanced, how many things in modern society are truly worth boasting about? We might as well try standing in the position of ancient people, and in the position of people in the future, and in the position of outsiders (for example, another species), and reflect on and reconsider our present age from multiple perspectives. That is exactly what philosophy needs to do.

Oh, and there is one more important thing lacking in the “new world”—ugliness!—“What I want is not this sort of comfort. I need God! Poetry! true danger! Freedom! Goodness! Sin too! … Even if I am now asking for the right to suffer.” … “Then do you also need senility, ugliness, impotence, syphilis, cancer, hunger, wounds and injury, all these ugly things? Do you even wish always to worry that tomorrow something unpredictable may happen, or do you also need to endure all sorts of indescribable torments of pain?” Then came a long silence. “Yes, all of that, I want too.” The Savage finally spoke. (pp. 236–237) — In a certain sense, modern people are fortunate, because in this world ugliness and evil still exist. Only an existence that can contain ugliness and evil can possibly possess true beauty and goodness. This too is the gist of my philosophy of the starry sky. Let us regard goodness and beauty with gratitude, and accept evil and ugliness with tolerance—and then, let us also be grateful for the existence of evil and ugliness! Precisely because stupidity and wickedness still exist in society, philosophers and heroes can appear; precisely because there is a deeply rooted ugliness and evil in our human nature, we have the chance to possess a precious heart of goodness.

Friday, August 18, 2006

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.