Sounds like something that would be banned for "national security" purposes.

Reading such things might insight critical thinking within the masses.

If you read this classic, i.e., Republic, you would know that critical thinking is beyond the masses.

Look! It's Justin Bieber!

It's the end of the world as we know it..... Their grip is strong and I don't know if we can loosen it at this point. The system has done a great job unfortunately :/

Anarchy and democracy are opposites.

There is no anarchy in democracy.

The word I think you intended to use was 'chaos.' Which is not anarchy.

If you're going to use words at least look up what they mean.

So the translator is lazy. Big surprise.

Pick up a proper translation.

I had to go through three copies of the Tao te Ching before I found a decent translation.

I would suggest you take care of what you read and who's interpreting what you're reading.

Remember that you're not reading Plato in the native tongue.

Very good points.

i think he meant the "freedom of choice" aspect of democracy, when people can educate themselves politically without the state interfering or choose their own profession instead of the government making the choice.

I'm roughly familiar with what he intended to say (a lot of it is empty rhetoric).

But there are reasons why you should care for your word choice.

Anarchy is not "freedom of choice."

If that's what he truly intended to say then he should have said "freedom of choice."

. . . and, yes, I'm aware that I'm being pedantic.

I think we could call it poetic license. It sounds good and the average person gets the meaning intended.

A good poet chooses his words carefully.

Carefully crafting a description or movement completely understandable by the reader.

A lazy poet is not careful with his words.

Confusing, vague or conflicting language is the hallmark of the unskilled.

He has the spirit. Just not the skill.

With training he could be better.

I agree, however, not only good poets get poetic license. It is first-come first-serve.

That doesn't make any sense.

I'm only saying that his word choice was poor and he can do better.

One should strive to make good things rather than mediocre things.

He is right though, calling him an ass hole is not really giving credence to the import of what he is saying.

... but enough about yourself.

Chaos and anarchy both mean disorder. They are synonymous. Words have more than one meaning. Most of the time when people say the word anarchy they are not referring to a political philosophy.

Anarchy does not mean disorder.

It's Greek:

[a] = without / anti / no / negation

[archon] = lord / king / master / ruler

Anarchy means "no ruler."

No more. No less.

Over time words take on more meaning than their etymological roots. You are being silly.

No.

In Greek [a] is still a negation.

And [archon] still means ruler or master.

If you don't believe me I invite you to use Google to check for yourself.

What you're talking about is "association." Loosy-goosy

I'm coming at it etymologically; precision in thought and word.

Precision in thought and word was the basis for newspeak in 1984. That is basically what you are promoting. Double plus good obfuscation.

Holy shit, you have no idea what you're talking about.

NewSpeak was THE OPPOSITE of precision.

Did you even read that book? The afterward was an entire bonus chapter all about NewSpeak. It was about reducing the number of words in the lexicon so that people would have less choices and less precision in communication.

Me making an obvious etymological delineation between 'chaos' and 'anarchy' is exactly what NewSpeak would be against.

Go read the fucking book, bro.

You can do so for free online.

I actually have it sitting behind my computer.

From the Appendix, The Principles of Newspeak:

"Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice' or 'This field is free from weeds.'"

The point was to make the communication precise so as to fit the party line and not leave the possibility of thought other than what the party deemed desirable. One way to do this is to only allow words to have one meaning.

"Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods."

This sentence is referring to the usage of one word for multiple meanings.

By using the word "anarchy" to mean two different things you're engaging in NewSpeak.

I, myself, made a distinction between "anarchy" and Chaos" - which is the opposite of NewSpeak.

So, I'm on Orwell's side.

You are not.

"This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever."

This is one of the reasons why I like having a big vocabulary and one based on root words. I don't mind associations so long as the words being used are exactly what I intend to communicate. And, because of my large vocabulary I can do so not only precisely, but also with some subtlety.

By using anarchy to mean something other than anarchy you're engaging in NewSpeak.

So, I'm on Orwell's side.

"To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice' or 'This field is free from weeds."

Holy fucking God. Just substitute "anarchy" for "free" and we have this very exchange. So, Orwell would completely back me up on this. Thank you for putting up that quote to make my point. It's unfortunate that it only proves that you didn't understand what was being said.

It's okay to be wrong, but, for the love of God, don't skim a book and pretend to discuss it without understanding what's being said within the book. It just makes you look idiotic and other people will come into this sub and you're going to represent all of us. I don't like that your ignorance is in any way associated with me by proxy.

Read more carefully and pick up a godamn dictionary.

You are wrong in every way. You seem to think that Orwell was all for Newspeak and that is why you think he is on your side. Orwell was an anarchist that believed in democracy. Even in your delusional etymological displays you are wrong. Anarchy means without a leader as in without a chief. Democracy means 'demos kratos,' which means an assembly of the people rule. They are not opposites at all. They are complementary like yin and yang.

Holy fucking shit.

You really don't know what you're talking about or saying.

I'm going to just assume you're either too young or simply unable to comprehend.

Let's try and make it easy for you:

Firstly:

NewSpeak = few words = limited thought

normal speech with a full vocabulary = free thought = precision in word = effective communication

Orwell was opposed to NewSpeak as am I. I honestly don't understand how you can confuse this.

Secondly:

kratos means "state." You said it yourself "the people rule." RULE.

Just because the rulers are a group of people doesn't negate the "rule" aspect.

So, again, you've proven yourself wrong by your own words.

I doubt you'll understand, but I tried.

Good day to you.

Altering, simplifying and misusing terms is newspeak in Orwells 1984. It is what you are a victim of on this conversation. Your masters and the media have led you to think anarchy is chaos.

You are simplifying a word to its etymological root, ignoring the context in which it is used and the metaphorical nature of language, and claiming everyone is wrong if they don't do the same.

Newspeak wasn't about "misusing terms." The words that were created in newspeak were very precise and removed any sort of poetic or figurative use. It was about setting a strict definition of words to obstruct freedom of thought and then condemning people for misusing the old words.

Almost like using the word anarchy to mean chaos. Got it.

You replied to the wrong guy, yo.

I am not /u/toomuchpork

Anarchy has been associated with chaos through the mind control technique of repetition. Chaos is what we have now, with rulers that have too much power. But by associating anarchy with chaos the slaves learn to fear anarchy, which is a state of freedom. The slaves are now afraid to be free, thinking chaos will result.

"Moron?"

The difference between anarchy and chaos IS important.

If you're going to intend to say 'chaos' then use the word 'chaos.'

Anarchy is not chaos.

I've been looking into banking, Freemasonry, Luciferianism, mythology, Communism and so on for the better part of a decade. I know the bigger picture. I have book shelves devoted to the bigger picture.

I'd like to make the point that I am an anarchist.

As such this word has meaning for me. I do not believe in "chaos." I do not promote "chaos." There are anarchists in this world and they would object, rightly, to being called "chaosist" by some lazy speaker.

I'm of the opinion that the solution to much of the central control systems is anarchy. We don't need the self-appointed rulers. Whether you believe they're lizard people, Illuminati, Jews or whatever you care to call them. We don't need them. We don't need commanders commanding us to be good people.

[a] = without

[archon] = king

We don't need kings and we don't need their government.

That has nothing, at all, to do with chaos.

They are two different words and that is an important and worthy distinction.

I think the previous poster was encouraging you to accept that he is very attached to his ignorance.

Dude sounds pretty smart.

I think you just convinced me to follow up on your essential reading.

I listened to the republic free on https://librivox.org/

Read or listen to Economics by Aristotle and try not to punch a wall nearest you... (Spoiler alert) economics = stealthy theft...

You have to read On Rhetoric by Aristotle. This is the basis for all manipulation of opinion since. Read a critique or explanation of it too, it is very dense material.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

though in this day in age it's more like those who choose to ignore it.

Value > values

Relevant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes

We are insatiable beings. It's a vice and a virtue.

Yeah, but 2300 years ago, they did not have 21rst Century tech to spy on the population. Do not forget this important point.

from plato to nato.

Plato was a very smart douche. :P

Same goes for Thomas Hobbes.

Recommending to read Plato always gets an upvote from me. If there's only one book you have to read in your life, it has to be something by Plato.

This is the process that took place in Rome under the Caesars. It is happening now in America. We have not yet achieved our first dictator, but we are close. One more major disaster, natural or man-made, should do it. I mean a major disaster, on the scale of 9-11. A nuclear strike against an American city might do it.

So Crates?

So what you're saying is, we need more government, in order to put a stop to these tyrants?

Why do I want the majority to tell me what to do? How did that work out for blacks? Or gays? Or any other minority, ever?

Seems to me that the solution to control structures that always devolve into pure self-interest is to not create control structures.

"Anarchy of democracy" doesn't really make sense, a democracy can't have anarchy. Anarchy simply means "without rulers". I don't know if this is a bad translation or just someone else's bad analysis of the book but I'm 100% sure that that isn't what Plato was saying in the original.

Edit: And I see that others have made the same point. Whoops, should've probably skimmed the comments first before posting.

Over time words take on more meaning than their etymological roots. You are being silly.

He is right though, calling him an ass hole is not really giving credence to the import of what he is saying.

... but enough about yourself.

I think the previous poster was encouraging you to accept that he is very attached to his ignorance.

It's the end of the world as we know it..... Their grip is strong and I don't know if we can loosen it at this point. The system has done a great job unfortunately :/

I agree, however, not only good poets get poetic license. It is first-come first-serve.