Focused Freewriting: Orwell

1. I feel as if Orwell’s purpose from writing this was to advise the public support humanities rather than science. It seems as if science is already extremely popular with society at this era, but humanities are falling out of place. He also argues against Mr. J. Stewart Cook that science should not take over and be more involved in politics, in fact, Orwell’s entire essay is pitted against this idea.
2. One passage that is important to me is on page five. Orwell states that “if it boils down to more physics, more chemistry, more biology, etc., to the detriment of literature and history. Its probable effect on the average human being would be to narrow the range of this thoughts and make him than ever contemptuous of such knowledge…” This passage brings to the readers’ attention of the negative impact that getting rid of literature will bring upon society. It supports my opinion of this whole situation, and it goes to show that Orwell can see that everything, not just science, is needed in order for a nation to thrive. A passage that is most likely very important to Orwell would be in his conclusion on page six. He refers to the magazine article that he read and says: “Here you have a group of sane men in the middle of a world of lunatics.” Orwell is referring to the people who wanted to use the brilliant minds of these scientists for power. Orwell also goes on to say that these scientists have been educated in the humanities because they have a sense of right and wrong, rather than a sense of advancing science. This was a very strong argument for Orwell.
3. Orwell’s tone was cautious because he was trying to persuade people that having science take over with no balance between literature and history would detriment society. On page four, he states that the claim that those who have been scientifically trained to approach all subjects at matter in a scientific-fashion would be more intelligent than those who had no training at all is false. He cautions readers by labeling this a “great danger”. From a cautious tone of voice, I feel as if a scared tone is implied. Because Orwell is trying to advise the public, he knows that he can’t control the people to think from his point of view, he can only do his best to persuade these people to give it a chance, and even then, he wouldn’t know if these people would agree with him. It seems that whenever he cautions, he’s scared as well because there is always a chance of failure in life. He lists out all these points about how having science take over would create power hungry people, or that scientists would lose their prestige if everyone was able to call themselves a scientist; he even goes on to compare this situation to Hitler’s reign in Germany during World War II.
4. On the first page of his essay, Orwell asks the question, “What is science?” This question was probably posed to inform readers, before they read ahead, that there are two views to science. One that is “the exact sciences, such as chemistry, physics, etc.” and one that is a way of thinking that combines analytics and observation. On page five, Orwell asks if the people shouldn’t be scientifically educated at all. His belief is that scientific education should be available for people, but not everyone. This type of education will probably cause more harm than good. By answering his own question in this way, it shows that Orwell is not entirely biased; that his mind and his views are still open to the other side of the argument.
5. On the first two sentences of page six, it states that a hundred years ago, Charles Kingsley described science as making something smell in experiments, and that a year or two ago, an industrial chemist told Orwell that poetry seemed useless to him. This shows the reader how different people thought a hundred years ago. People depended on words (arts and humanities) to describe science, but now science seems to have no relation to what it used to be represented by, and thus, is a species of it’s own subject.
6. This essay asks readers to support arts and humanities more to balance out the popularity of science. Science has such a big impact on society in this era, that the arts have been forgotten. Orwell is asking those reading to promote the other subjects because science cannot rule alone. In Orwell’s last three paragraphs, he begins to shine light on what could happen if science took over: stating that this would make humanity narrow minded, and knowledge hungry. He even brings World War II as an example. When Hitler took over in Germany, science prevailed, but literature was lost. When the Allies asked their scientists to study the atomic bomb, they refused because they knew the dangers to humanity. Orwell brings to play two of the most threatening days of society to back up his claim that the arts and humanities will disappear, to no good result, if science reigns supreme.
7. He ends by saying that even people with the most knowledge in science, people who were given the title of ‘scientist’, have a background in arts and humanities. He refers specifically to the scientists who refused to conduct research on the bomb because these scientists showed that they still retained their morals, and that knowledge isn’t everything.  This allows readers to ponder about themselves and realize that these two subjects, arts and humanities, are just as prevalent in their lives as science is. Science is only part of the reason that our society has advanced to far.
8. All of these topics are linked to World War II. I believe Orwell used these topics to defend his reasoning because World War II is looked upon as one of the most catastrophic wars in history. Racial science was, to an extent, fueled by evolution, which was supported by Charles Kingsley. Racial science was what brought upon the idea that Germans were far superior to any other race to Hitler and the Nazis, which resulted in a cause of World War II. The Tribune in the 1940’s covered the war and was also pro-war. Orwell also wrote an article related to the atomic bomb for The Tribune. The atomic bomb was also the result of science.
9. This essay reminded me of the book, The Giver. The book follows a boy who lives in a utopia, a place free of diseases, emotions, diversity: anything that had the possibility to produce negativity. This boy was given the job of keeping the memories of pre-Utopian society, a place where diversity, emotions, but also death and diseases reigned, alive. In the end, the boy escapes this society because he believe that emotions, diversity, and feelings is worth all the nasty things that come along with it. I have stated before that I believe your passion is drawn into the forms of art and humanities. In a place where such feelings and emotions don’t exist, everything is dull. There is a specific part in the book where the boy asks his parents if they love him. His parents respond by saying that there is not such thing as love, that they, instead, “enjoy” him. Science can not accurately describe what causes love, but it can accurately describe what causes enjoyment. This is an example of the prevalence of science with no art or humanities in a society. The Giver is an excellent example of what could happen to society when science takes over.