Jez's Blog

People pray to god when they hope for comforts, good lucks, and other things. However, some of them might be atheists. I am technically a Buddhist, but I doubt the existence of Buddha sometimes. Am I a doublethinker? Or am I only a skeptic? Or are they the same? Referring to George Orwell’s novel, 1984, doublethink is “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” For instance, in 1984, Winston Smith, the main character, works for the Ministry of Truth, where historical certain documents are destroyed, and are rewritten before bring published in order to fit the policies that are established by the “Big Brother,” or the totalitarian government of Oceania. Thus, he believes that the real history of Oceania is possibly not exactly the same as how it is written in textbooks, and how it has been taught to people. However, he is forced to believe that the history of Oceania is exactly how it has been written, and how it has been taught. Doublethink is considered as a crime -- thoughtcrime -- in Oceania, and doublethinkers will be punished by death. Is Winston in life danger? Is he committing doublethink, thoughtcrime? Is doublethink possible in reality? If so, how do we determine it?

In 1984, Winston, unlike other citizens under the Big Brother, does not follow Big Brother’s policies indiscriminately. Instead, he has his own thoughts. However, because having personal thoughts that are against the government’s will in any sorts is considered as a crime in Oceania. Thus, Winston kept his personal thoughts written, and hidden in his diary, and follows everyone else’s beliefs in public. In one part of the story, Winston questions the credibility of history textbooks in Oceania. Being enlightened by the content of his job -- destroying and rewriting historical documents -- Winston becomes curious about the real history of Oceania. He believes in both possibilities that the history of Oceania might be different than how it has been taught to people, and that it might be just the same as how the Big Brother says it is. The reason why Winston also believes that the history of Oceania might be exactly how it has been taught to people is because that, despite questioning the credibility of textbooks is considered as crime, he, himself, is also taught to believe that the textbooks are correct, and he has no historical documents to prove them wrong. Anyhow, Winston is accused for committing doublethink due to his ambivalence towards either or not to trust textbooks. According to this point, if ambivalence can be considered as doublethink as well, then doublethink is definitely possible in reality.

I am a Buddhist, but I doubt the existence of Buddha sometimes. I doubt the existence of Buddha because there is no hard evidence suggesting that Buddha does exist. The only “prove” seems to be the Buddhist legends, and stories. However, I accept the belief in which Buddha do exist because, as a Buddhist, I am supposed to. Further, when being inside a temple -- surrounded by the sacred atmosphere, and religious people who believe in Buddha by their hearts -- I automatically believe that Buddha do exist. Nevertheless, I am a skeptic about the existence of Buddha when I am on my own, in places that involves no religious matter. The definition of doublethink is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. In this case, I accept my religious belief, which suggests that Buddha exist. However, I also accept the belief which suggests that Buddha do not exist due to the lack of evidence proving that it does. And this probably explains how a religious scientist may be the master of all doublethinkers.

Doublethink is not the same as belying. Doublethink is to accept both contradictory beliefs whereas belying is only believing in one of the two contradictory beliefs, but pretending to believe the contradictory one as well in order to belie one’s true belief. In the reality, there are several cases where people belie their true beliefs, usually under a force, or pressure of the authority. For instance, North Korea is a totalitarian state. Recalling a documentary about the reaction of cataract patients when they were cured by a professional American surgeon, each patient, and their families thanked the ruler of the country, Kim Jong-il, by cheering for him in front of his portrait, and promised to serve for him forever. On the other hand, the American surgeon was ironically left behind. No one thanked him. All the North Koreans believed that every goods that they receive, are granted by their great ruler. However, was it their true belief? Or was it out of fear? Fearing that they would be punished for not worshiping their ruler. In this case, if one believes that all goods are granted by the Kim Jong-il out of fear, it is not doublethink. Instead, it is belying -- one is only pretending to believe that all goods are granted by Kim Jong-il in order to hide their true belief, which might be that the American surgeon, rather than Kim Jong-il, is the one who people should thank for the remedy for cataract.

As a result, doublethink is not impossible. According to the cases of Winston doubting the credibility, and accuracy of history textbooks, and my personal experience as a Buddhist skeptic for the existence of Buddha, doublethink may seems complex, but is actually almost equal to doubting! When one is in doubt, they have two contradictory beliefs, and will accept both beliefs are true. Let’s take another example: a girl suspects that her boyfriend is cheating on her, but meanwhile, she also believes that he is not that kind of person. Doublethink. Either the girl’s boyfriend is cheating on her or not, she believes both that he might be, and that he might not be. However, doublethink shall not be confused with belying. Belying does not require one’s believing in both contradictory beliefs whereas doublethink does. Belying is, perhaps, common under a totalitarian state, or dictatorship nowadays. People would belie their true beliefs, that are against the authority's will, by pretending to believe in only the belief which is for the authority’s will, due to the fear of brutish punishments.