《Brave New World》是一本由Aldous Huxley著作，Harper Perennial Modern Classics出版的Paperback图书，本书定价：$12.95，页数：268，文章吧小编精心整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
《Brave New World》读后感(一)：转载：刘瑜《你还要些什么》
2503年，一个婴儿养育室里。护士们在地板上摆了一堆图书和鲜花，然后把一群长得一摸一样的、8个月大的婴儿放到了地板上。婴儿们看到图书和鲜花，飞快地爬过去，拿起来玩耍。这时候，长官一声令下，护士长启动电路装置，一时间，刺耳的警报响起，地板被通上了电，触电的婴儿们在痛苦中痉挛并尖叫不已。过了一会儿，护士长关上了电闸。
“这样的试验大约重复200次左右，”长官微笑着对参观者说：“这些孩子们就会对图书和花朵形成本能的憎恨，他们的条件反射就这样被限定了。”
“限定”，大约是《Brave New World》一书中的最关键词汇。在Aldous Huxley笔下的那个美好盛世里，人从受精开始就被“限定”了。精子和卵子在试管里被调制好，不健康的胚胎被“限定”出局，健康胎儿在孵化器里长大。然后从婴儿养育室开始，孩子们一路被“限定”得厌恶书籍和自然、厌恶独处、厌恶家庭、厌恶宗教和艺术，同时被“限定”得热爱集体、热爱消费、热爱滥交。
当然，并不是所有的人被限定的方式都一样。美好新世界里，人类被分成了五级，Alpha、Beta、Gamma、Delta以及Epsilon——Alpha被限定得聪明漂亮，而Gamma以下的人不但被限定得矮小愚钝，还批量生产。不过没关系，虽然在那个世界里人有等级贵贱，但是他们都一样幸福——因为无论哪个等级，其接受的“睡梦教育”都会告诉他，他所在的等级最美好最幸运。
这样的世界，有什么问题吗？
美好新世界的首长Mustapha，问质疑者“野人”John。
有什么人类跋山涉水追求了几千年的东西，新世界里没有呢？经济发展？新世界里如此富足，上至Alphas下至Epsilons，人们不愁吃穿。健康？生物学家们早就把人类限定得不再有疾病。青春？这里人们青春永驻，直到突然死亡。美女帅哥的青睐？这个更不用担心，因为新世界里“每个人都属于他人”，滥交是最大的美德，你要是长期只跟一个美女上床，会成为该世界里骇人的丑闻。
不错，这个世界里没有艺术、诗歌、撕心裂肺的爱情、没有毕加索或者莎士比亚，但是，当你每天都幸福得晕眩时，为什么还会需要毕加索或者莎士比亚？文学艺术往往是为了表达冲突超越痛苦，那么，在一个冲突和痛苦根本不存在的世界里，文学艺术也就变成了社会的阑尾。更不要说“爱情”，那简直是高速公路上突然蹦出来的一头羚羊，如此危险，通通地，限定了之。
所以，这样的世界，有什么问题吗？
柏拉图估计不会觉得有什么问题，因为新世界里政治家和科学家就是智慧非凡的哲学王。老子估计也不会觉得有什么问题，“劳心者治人，劳力者治于人”在这个桃花源里被充分实施。希特勒更是会欣喜若狂，因为将人类的未来当作一个巨大的生物工程来建设，简直是他的毕生追求。还有斯大林，荡漾在新世界人们脸上的微笑，与沉浸在丰收喜悦里的社会主义农民如出一辙，而新世界的“睡梦教育”，简直可以说是对苏式灌输教育赤裸裸的抄袭。所有那些信奉“精英治国”、信奉“稳定高于一切”、信奉“老百姓无非就是关心吃饱穿暖”的人，都会是“美好新世界”的热情粉丝。
这个新世界如此美好，它只有一个小小的缺陷——在那里，幸福的人们全都是“被幸福”的。
就是说，在那里，人们的幸福是政治家和科学家呕心沥血的科研成果，与每个个体自己的创造力、情感体验能力、审美能力都毫无关系。 民众只需像儿童那样，系上围兜，张口吞下哲学王或者先锋队一勺一勺送过来的食物，就乘坐直升电梯抵达了极乐世界。而精英们为了民众，制作食物既考虑营养，又考虑消化，可以说是殚精竭虑。有如此鞠躬尽瘁的统治者，民众的个体自由意志完全是多此一举。 如果说奥威尔的《1984》里，人们为失去自由而痛苦，那么Huxley的《勇敢新世界》里，人们则为摆脱了自由的重负而狂喜。真的，如果政治家科学家给民众带来如此丰盛的快乐，民众何必要自己去斗争？就像如果你可以从父亲那里继承一大笔遗产，何必要自己去辛苦挣钱？除非——
你认为得到的过程比得到本身更有意义。除非你不识抬举地认为，通过个体努力去争取幸福比“被幸福”更体现生命的价值。
也正是在这个意义上，我在一切精英治国观里读到的是对生命的藐视。当统治者的恩赐被视为民众幸福的源泉时，统治者越高大，民众就越渺小。对有些人来说，幸福如此简单，无非是对着送过来的汤勺不断张嘴，而对另一些人来说，它如此复杂，需要汗滴禾下土粒粒皆辛苦。由于运气和能力，也许耕耘未必能带来收获，但是恩赐来的幸福和捕猎来的痛苦之间，你选什么呢？在幸福药丸soma和跌宕起伏的莎士比亚之间，野人John选择了莎士比亚。但是当然，对于美好新世界里的绝大多数人，这根本不是一个问题。他们从来没有选择的权利，无处不在的幸福不由分说，一把把他们给罩住，他们只能躺在幸福的牙缝里，被咀嚼，然后变成一堆残渣，被气势磅礴地给吐出来。
-
《Brave New World》读后感(二)：A Classic Read Without Much Pleasure
This is the second book of my all-native-but-me book club, and my peers loved the book so much they proposed to change the book club's name into ''orgy porgy", yea, who wouldn't love it？ I bet the number of our dwindling male members will increasing if we put it out there!
ack to the book, while most of the book club members love the book so much, Jojo, the latest member loved it so much, she rated it 9 out of 10, I hesitated to put out my number, which is a big old 6. Sorry folks, it wasn't for me. I was about to give it 6, but given the circumstances: I read it in the middle of my GRE preparation, I literally need to squeeze time out for the book, flipping a couple of pages through lunch break, or during my commute. I even have to delete all the games in the iphone to make time for it. And then there is the exploration by the members, they vehemently share their thoughts on the precious childhood read (several of them regard it as the first and best exposure to literature.)
It is a unprecedented success on my part, an expression now I used often on surviving another hectic day filled with GRE vocab reciting. However,this is my first sci fi book, my first dystopian book and it has to count as something.
Two opposite worlds, one with all the efficiency, people are made out of tubes on a conveyor belt,mass production is popular, instant gratification, soma holiday, there is no parents discipline us, no god, no solitude,no one gets old, old one is faithful to anyone,even kids were playing sex game(which is shocking enough,but at least they are having sex with each other.) And then there is another world, people have feelings, they read Shakespeare, they grow old and they have babies in the most mammal way. Most of readers (The one I have a discussion with) were constantly battling between which world they love better.
I love how the book is ahead of time, the sci fi is published in 1932 and at that time, industrial revolution was just over, and people see Henry Ford as God(as oppose to Steve Jobs？) I can imagine how shocking readers at that time when they read the book filled with audacious plots on the main characters being promiscuous and parents being the dirty words.
ut my inclination on the savage world was never for a mere moment faltered. In another word, Aldous Huxley never succeed in convincing me that the brave new world is appealing. I couldn't imagine living without solitude, or any rules, I highly doubt if I'd be happy at all. And how about reading？ Even Aldous Huxley said so: Words can be like X-rays if you use them properly -- they’ll go through anything. You read and you’re pierced. But how can you get pierced without the solitude. I think if you are living in the world where there is always distractions, which sadly I think we are easily living in the mode, but what fun it is in that type of life？ If you are born to be in a tube with your life and destiny decided by the staff in the center, what you are supposed to like or despise, all settled for you, is it really the best condition of living？ Would you rather be a sad smart guy or a happy fool？
Another reason the book doesn't speak to me is the language, which is my initial thought. Sci fi is fraught with made-up words, which I agree, and in the beginning I couldn't follow the plots and I believe it's because of the language. But the fact that I can enjoy Juno Diaz's books which constantly interrupt by Spanish told me, this isn't about language at all. Readers got potentials, they are trained to take challenges in reading, and you add the condiment in and we generally grow with it. Eventually I set with the conclusion that Aldous' book is not gripping enough for me because of the mish-mash of inconstant plots and the stilte 1930s language.
Finally, the ultimate deep thought provoked by the book, where is the brave new world, is it anywhere to be found in real life？ Sophia, another member of the club raised the question: Is China or America more like the brave new world？ And some said: China! I listened patiently for them to lash out the reasons. Some are filthy rich, and they are above the rules, and they don't even have religions to regulate them. As a religious Chinese who see both side of the countries, I have to say, it might happen in China, or America, or anywhere in the world, but it can't be simplified as one country or even one region. There are people who think they are so privileged and above the law in every country, but just because they think they can get away with anything, they don't actually get away with anything. At some point, it will backfire.
To briefly summarize, the brave new world might be on every 100 books you have to read before you kick the bucket. But unless I'm stuck in a room with nothing but the book to keep me sane, I would't go back and read the whole thing again any time soon.
till, hooray to my first sci fi classic.
《Brave New World》读后感(三)：Pathetically Comical Conservatist Rant. 1984 is so much more relevant to our world.
Disgusts me to no end. How could people call this "dystopian" in any sense？ At most has certain value as a half-assed, comical critique of his own era(social stratification etc.). Its projection of the future is just so pathetically bullshit. Advancements in technology has, and will continue to liberate and empower individuals, instead of creating a totalitarian and collectively mindless future as projected by the book. They say there is a mindless "consumerism" nowadays. That's partly true. But just reflect upon the time of Huxley! Weren't the vast majority of people living an even more controlled, uninformed, and mindless modes of life？ Also, what the author intended to describe as "depravity" in the book are *exactly* the right, natural, and liberating things to do now (Even the word "depravity" itself, which is just a social construct specific to certain eras, in the same vein as "marriage" or "family", reeks of archaic hypocrisy and restraints on human nature). Such appalling conservatism against the liberation and empowerment of individuals, such stubborn aversion and even denial to the power of rationality over primitive emotions, are doomed and to be ridiculed. The proclaimed "moral" acts of the protagonists, if carried out today, will be deemed as nuts and detestable. Especially the rejection of the most natural of human behaviors, and subsequent violent assaults of "The Savage", on a female! A "dystopian" novel itself portraying anti-humanity acts in a kind of a positive light, that's just plainly horrible. I know the author intended that to be a tragedy, and probably a slightly exaggerated satire, but is there any "tragedy" more unnatural, uncalled-for and laughable than this one？ That actually served as the best illustration of just how pervert, distorted and inhumane those conservative ideas are.
o wonder 1984 is so much more acclaimed than Brave New World. This book just comically confuses cheese for chalk, and is simply irrelevant to our world. Though saying so as a leftist liberal shouldn't come as any surprise. Just never thought this book could be so rightist beforehand.
------
Was reading Brave New World and struggled really hard to comprehend the astonishingly conservative and archaic values of the protagonists. It just doesn't make any sense, especially considering that this book doesn't sound very antique. Finally it occurred to me that it could have something to do with the history of contraceptives in relation to the time when the book was written. It seems that in the 1920s and early 1930s, condoms were still not in mass production and the mere notion of employing any contraceptive measure was quite blasphemous. No wonder. It's amazing how advancements in contraceptive measures have been able to bring about such a great liberation in a span of less than 100 years, that values which were expected to be the norm at that time can appear hilariously outlandish nowadays. The world at that time must be horrible to live in, though. As of the book itself, it looked to me more likely a critique of the author's own era(social stratification etc.) than anything of a "dystopian novel". At least for now, we can pretty much rest assured that advancements such as contraceptive measures, and, hopefully, the eventual abolishment of the institutions of "marriage" and "family", will empower and liberate individuals, rather than create a totalitarian future as projected in the book.
《Brave New World》读后感(四)：熵增是永恒的方向
About freedom:
If a society is full of alphas, it will turn into a mess. When the case turns to reality, though each member of the society is an unique alpha, it still runs well, for we are not conditioned and pre-destinationed. Mr. Savage tried to force the Deltas to have freedom, and he failed, for freedom with force is no-freedom in disguise. Everyone in the brave new world is born without freedom –no matter it is a double-plus-alpha or minus-gamma.
关于人本与社会的职能：
美丽新世界为了一个稳定的社会发展而牺牲了个体的发展。诚然，个体的发展仰赖于社会的稳定与发展，然而一个成熟社会的标志之一就是人本，当社会为了自身而牺牲个体的无限可能权利的时候，社会的职能已偏离了它“人本”的本意，而变成单纯的维系与存在。就如GDP的发展初衷是为了生活于其中的人有物质的满足，然而新世界里，GDP的发展只为了它自己的发展而已，忽略了人的需要——甚至更残忍的是，操纵人的需要。无知者可以说是幸福的，因为生下来就被教以幸福的定义。我不能说现实生活中的我们已摆脱了这种暗示而达到了完全的对幸福的定义权，因为一个人的成长环境、文化背景已不可避免地沁入到我们的意识当中，与书中新世界的睡眠灌输法一样，在原本空白的意识上染上色彩。但是——每个人对世界的认知、对幸福的定义本身就是外界染色中自我意识加工的结果，哪怕是“原始人”约翰，不也受到了他所成长的文化的影响？但是新世界中的人们，因为社会太过强大而专注于它自身的维持，被剥夺了自我意识加工的空间。故而说，他们丧失了自我，丧失了自由，丧失了无限的可能性，也丧失了发展。
关于甜美苦涩的真相：主角之一Bernard诚然算不上真君子，然而作为一个社会upper class的成员他有了比他人知悉更多真相的权利——例如价值观的灌输是如何实现的、自我认知与意识是如何由强迫接受进而成为内在根本的。新世界可以说是个伊甸园，但只对不明真相的人而言。就如同那个古老的传说一样，一旦品尝了名为知识与真相的禁果，伊甸园对之就永远关闭——因为知道了自己的幸福感原来只是强大的社会给自己的安排，伊甸园便成了无法摆脱的牢笼。
关于真社会性与进化：
表面上来看，达到真社会性的人类社会——职责分工明确、无生育权，从胚胎初期到童年再到青少年乃至成年，心智与身体都被塑造成社会所需要的那个样子。人口不多不少，职能不多不少。一切都井井有条按部就班——一种更高端的计划经济。出生时已被设定，只要按设定生活，就能“幸福”。这样的社会，可以说是最有效率的，短期来看，或许也是最稳定的。然而，如果人类社会是个有机体，而个体是其中的基因，那么我们现实的这种混沌才是最佳状态。因为我们有着无限的可能，就如同基因有着突变与重组的无限可能一样。假使人类社会的外界环境变化，我们便能很快进化出与之对应的状态予以应对。除去人本主义之外，从纯理性的角度来看，新世界最大的问题，是它太过僵化，缺乏变化的动力与应变的能力，也没有创新的原力（不要告诉我那少数alpha负责这个，这绝对比不上全世界都是群没被pre-destination过的独一无二的alpha）；如同稳定僵化的生态系统，一旦遭受重大变故便极难重建。
而熵增是永恒的方向，混沌才是世界运转的根本。
关于幸福到底是什么：
新世界认为没有痛苦、没有对欲望的压制便是幸福。但是没有对比就不能体会幸福真正的甘美——这是John的观点（当然我们没必要像他那么极端，为了接近幸福而进行无意义的苦修）。但是幸福确实是苦涩与平淡之中的一丝甘甜，是无限可能中胜出的最终选择，是自由的抉择与自我。所以，现在的我们，因为有着种种得不到，但是确乎是幸福着的。
《Brave New World》读后感(五)：简单易读的英文书
贴一段写知识分子和herd-poisoning的，真的是一本很简单的，很流畅，很深刻的书。
A man or woman makes direct contact with society in two ways: as a member of some familial, professional or religious group, or as a member of a crowd. Groups are capable of being as moral and intelligent as the individuals who form them; a crowd is chaotic, has no purpose of its own and is capable of anything except intelligent action and realistic thinking. Assembled in a crowd, people lose their powers of reasoning and their capacity for moral choice. Their suggestibility is increased to the point where they cease to have any judgment or will of their own. They become very excitable, they lose all sense of individual or collective responsibility, they are subject to sudden excesses of rage, enthusiasm and panic. In a word, a man in a crowd behaves as though he had swallowed a large dose of some powerful intoxicant. He is a victim of what I have called ` herd-poisoning'. Like alcohol, herd-poison is an active, extravagant drug. The crowd-intoxicated individual escapes from responsibility, intelligence and morality into a kind of frantic, animal mindlessness.
Reading is a private, not a collective activity. The writer speaks only to individuals, sitting by themselves in a state of normal sobriety. The orator speaks to masses of individuals, already well—primed with herd-poison. They are at his mercy and, if he knows his business, he can do what he likes with them.
Unlike the masses, intellectuals have a taste for rationality and an interest in facts. Their critical habit of mind makes them resistant to the kind of propaganda that works so well on the majority. Intellectuals are the kind of people who demand evidence and are shocked by logical inconsistencies and fallacies. They regard over-simplification as the original sin of the mind and have no use for the slogans, the unqualified assertions and sweeping generalizations which are the propagandist's stock-in-trade.
hilosophy teaches us to feel uncertain about the things that seem to us self-evident. Propaganda, on the other hand, teaches us to accept as self-evident matters about which it would be reasonable to suspend our judgement or to feel doubt. The propagandist must therefore be consistently dogmatic. All his statements are made without qualification. There are no greys in his picture of the world; everything is either diabolically black or celestially white. He must never admit that he might be wrong or that people with a different point of view might be even partially right. Opponents should not be argued with; they should be attacked, shouted down, or if they become too much of a nuisance, liquidated.
Virtue and intelligence belong to human beings as individuals freely associating with other individuals in small groups. So do sin and stupidity. But the subhuman mindlessness to which the demagogue makes his appeal, the moral imbecility on which he relies when he goads his victims into action, are characteristic not of men and women as individuals, but of men and women in masses. Mindlessness and moral idiocy are not characteristically human attributes; they are symptoms of herd-poisoning. In all the world's higher religions, salvation and enlightenment are for individuals. The kingdom of heaven is within the mind of a person, not within the collective mindlessness of a crowd.
In an age of accelerating over-population, of accelerating over-organization and ever more efficient means of mass communication, how can we preserve the integrity and reassert the value of the human individual？ This is a question that can still be asked and perhaps effectively answered. A generation from now it may be too late to find an answer and perhaps impossible, in the stifling collective climate of that future time, even to ask the question.
《Brave New World》读后感(六)：快乐不是真的快乐，痛苦不是真的痛苦
这本书真的是很精彩，从大学就被列在一百本经典读本里面，但是惭愧一直到现在才有机会静下来读一读。跟朋友聊天说最近在读<Brave New World>，他们会问哦，那你读过《1984》吗？是的这两本书总是放在一起被讨论。但是这本书读起来感觉与《1984》真的完全不同，而且某种程度上讲对于我们这个年代的人读起来可能更好理解。书后尾赫胥黎自叙说他想象的这个Utopia是在600年后，不过他认为一个century就可以实现。读到某些段落时我都在想和现在好像，比如娱乐至上，比如追求幸福快乐，比如崇尚社交拒绝孤独。
书中讨论了社会的等级问题，其实现在我们所讲的歧视也好偏见也好，很多真的是教育的产物，一遍遍的suggestion让你认为某些人就是优秀，某些人看着就是不顺眼。其实你仔细问他，他也不知道为什么，但是他会自信地给出take for granted的理由，而那些理由其实都是在他没意识的情况下已经被重复了千万遍的暗示。
书中还提到了冰山理论，也探讨了没有等级的可能性，但是根据乌托邦首领的话说基本是不可能的。有一点有趣的是，这个乌托邦首领，尽管所有其他人都too simple, sometimes naive，最为最高统治者之一的这个乌托邦首领他其实是博览群书，早前也对science有很大的兴趣，基本上倒数第二章都是John与其对于一些社会构造想法的探讨，关于科学，关于感情，关于娱乐，乌托邦首领都能一一作答，而且给出比较信服的理由，并不是拍拍脑门说就是应该这样，这点其实让我读到还蛮惊讶的，这不是通常这类小说首领的形象啊，lol. 其实我觉得这本书精彩是因为书里给的还是比较中立的感觉，它告诉你John和首领两边的观点，你自己去思考哪种好。我其实觉得作者并没有特别倾向或者不倾向哪一种，快乐不是真的快乐，痛苦不是真的痛苦，真正的乌托邦可能应该是其综合体吧。这种书惯常的写法都是一边倒，把反方写的极其可恶极其弱智。而赫胥黎描述的这个乌托邦确实是很美好的，很符合人类各方面需求的，谁喜欢痛苦谁喜欢被孤立谁喜欢有感情纠葛然后生离死别阴晴圆缺，这样一个乌托邦不就是让人们避免这样一种痛苦么。但是你又隐隐觉得这种美好的乌托邦底下有些东西不对劲，这也就是John的出现了，提出问题，让读者思考。
《Brave New World》读后感(七)：可惜空白太小写不下
第一遍听完《Brave New World》后的一点（不成逻辑乱七八糟的）感想。
首先，最最重要的是，真的，不要和三观不同的人谈恋爱……以及，善待穿越者……
从现在的角度看，Mr. Savage就像从维多利亚（？算吗？）时代穿越的人，他的三观和即使是当下的大众相比，可能也有不少差距。不过，我的感觉是，虽然现在社会的性观念和宗教观念似乎偏向小说描述的那样，不过从根本的指导思想上，至少性观念是有本质差别的。至于宗教观念，Mr. Savage提到了它与独处的关系——事实上这恐怕也是这个社会被诟病的重要点之一，所谓“没有独处的自由”，当然这是被刻意限制的，因为这是个丧失私有的世界，尤其是精神上的私人空间（说实话我不知道“钱”为什么还存在，算是保留市场经济的“黑猫”吗）。
除了丧失私有之外，大量的“内涵”似乎也被刻意抹消了，比如beta-的Linda只知道chemical实际的意义而不知道具体的意思，比如连Mr. Savage都不知道science是什么意思。
不过他居然知道freedom是什么意思，还知道上帝在英语里是God，这些词或许在莎士比亚里，不过意思是那么容易对应得起来的吗？
于是其实那个New Mexico Reservation给人一种异常神秘的感觉。从各种仪式看应该对应现实世界中较原始的文明（这个说法或许是not adequate as far as the principle of relativity in anthropology is concerned），如果是这样，那能在那里发现莎士比亚的英文版什么的大概本身就是奇迹了。
这片迷之自治区里的故事这也是本小说重要的转折点——我至今不确定Mr. Savage是怎么勾起了总统的兴趣，破例让Bernard带回去的。毕竟，原则上是不能带自治区的人回去的，他除了是“文明人”的后代，从小受到特殊的conditioning、现在刚好是个会说英语的成年男性又愿意进城看看（最后这部分真的算吗）之外，真没什么特别的。我也不觉得他正好是DHC的儿子这个身份是不是会引起总统的兴趣，毕竟对总统而言，DHC不过是个小人物。
不过对Bernard而言就不是了。他用舆论扳倒DHC的手段一方面，在一开始显得很大快人心（因为DHC出厂跋扈得让人不爽），后来一细想又觉得有点过分了（打丑闻牌什么的），尤其是后来Bernard那小人得志的表现让我彻底路人转黑，后来他种种挣扎之后，作为读者的我倒也不舍得黑他了，毕竟真的只是个小人物而已，被百般折腾，生活在被边缘化和自惭形秽中也挺不容易的，求出头也是正常的，可怜他很长时间内都没发现——这点也是相当现实。他到底是块什么料，在第一次描写他和Watson的谈话的时候就能看出来，被威胁发配冰岛的时候几乎就明确了，尤其是在最后和Watson的反应形成了鲜明的对比。
这里提到Bernard主要其实是想说，他被DHC蓄谋发配和DHC被扳倒事件是否有联系。不妨来梳理一个可能的逻辑线索：Bernard找DHC签去New Mexico的条子→DHC多嘴自曝黑历史→DHC突然发现自己多嘴了，想通过威胁让Bernard听话→Bernard逗比反抗→DHC误解了他的意思，痛下杀手→Bernard得到消息慌不择路→Bernard利用黑历史，先下手为强。看上去有些黑历史，在原文中也没有明显的依据，但是从种种客观陈述的迹象看，还是可以接受的。
总统到底想用这个Mr. Savage做什么研究，也没在小说里明确提。要是做文化比较之类方面的研究的话，小说在高潮部分Mr. Savage与总统的一系列对话，一定可以作为重要的研究材料予以记录。其中开展的“论苦痛的价值”的讨论，针对一个一切以“幸福”为出发点的社会，显得尤为重要和发人深省。非常具体地说，如果存在一种（至少在一定合理剂量范围内）没有任何副作用和成瘾性的迷幻剂类药品的话，它在任何条件下的使用对人类，甚至人类社会的发展是否有益。这是一个子问题。另一个子问题是，“苦痛”对于John的意义是什么？是本我影响下的自我与超我发生冲突造成的神经性焦虑？是现实与自身三观产生的巨大落差造成的认知障碍？还是信仰被挑战时感到的被侮辱的恼羞成怒？事实上，John对宗教的认识除了模糊的部落价值观、莎士比亚作品中的价值观和仪式之外还有什么？他的形象到底是怎样的？我以我现下的立场出发或许也不能说完全赞同或者否定其观念和决定，尤其是考虑到他的反抗和牺牲并不是毫无意义，虽然在文本中可能是毫无价值的，而且在现实视角下可能是过激的。当然如果他真的穿越到现实中的话，即便有分歧，我相信会有人愿意和他在保留一定深度的层面上进行求同存异的探讨，（至少在理智上）也不会强迫他改变观念或者剥夺他独处的权利（虽然实际上由于媒体的关系……不过媒体的注意力真的会那么狭窄吗）。
哦，这段讨论给我的启发的话，麻木在感官享受中是对现实中矛盾的逃避，沉浸在自我救赎中也是对现实中感官需求的逃避。如果要彻底物质化考虑这些问题的话，当然是首先着眼解决现实存在的问题和需求，而不是优先考虑它们是否合理，是否要逃避。
以上主要是这部小说带来的思考，以下是带来的一些疑问。
总统口中的这个社会可能是比房龙的《宽容》还要宽容的（无怪贴吧有用户很欣赏这种社会模式）——大众的生活是简单而幸（无）福（知）的，精英的生活是比较艰苦的但不会剥夺他们追求真理的权利，而且他们还有不被庸众干扰的特权，他作为一个物理学家，在艰难地（做出轻描淡写地省略了过程的）抉择后，放弃了真理奔向了幸福。那么，选择真理、从事基础研究的流放人员，不知道你们的粒子对撞机是谁赞助的——啊这段我有好多没听懂，没准政府的赞助可能会细化到这一步也不一定。
在看《心理测量者》的观后感时，有用户提出，反乌托邦必备两点要素：愚民策略和暴力机关。这个社会的愚民策略显而易见，那么，这个社会的暴力机关是哪里？镇压手段是什么？从9年战争的文本考虑，军队之类的武装力量理论上是存在的。而文中也提到了应对骚乱时会出动喷洒soma喷雾的防暴小分队。之前的“小电影”里也提到会把当事人遣送到机构re-condition，之后总统也提到了把真正的高知流放小岛的策略。然后再加上养老设施。——总之就是一派祥和，仿佛暴力机关啊什么的真的不需要了。真的是这样吗？至少那位读（观）者（众）不一定也这么想。
最后，这个社会里没有家族的话，姓名到底是怎么决定的？尤其是姓氏。这对我而言一直很难理解。难道写在瓶子上？
大致就是这些吧。以后重读或者读revisit的话可能会有补充。最后，居然有人提这里面没提到环保——拜托，没提核弹、人口爆炸、机器人还算了（虽然我也觉得有点牵强，毕竟核弹不能生产，作者应该早知道人口爆炸理论，毕竟Malthusian Drill啊Belt啊都是拿他命名的，流水线时代就有类似机器人的东西了啊，比如传送带），说作者没考虑到环保的，这都不是重污染构成的乌托邦了还想怎样嘛？人死后都变成化肥了，还有花有树的还想怎样嘛？可能灭绝了苍蝇蚊子这点有些问题——额，如果考虑到核弹的因素可能……额……反正你们显然是钻牛角尖了啊！
《Brave New World》读后感(八)：不勇敢的新世界——快乐，可行吗？
一、快乐的可行性
在昆德拉的《不能承受的生命之轻》里，萨比娜对媚俗的一段叙述让我困惑：一想到苏联的媚俗世界会成为现实，而她却不得不生活其中，让她直起鸡皮疙瘩。她宁愿生活在现在的制度下，哪怕有种种迫害，哪怕要在肉店门口排长队。在现实世界里，是可以生存的。理想世界一旦实现，在那个到处都是愚蠢的笑脸的世界里，她恐怕连一句话都说不出口，过不了一周，她就会恐惧而死。......媚俗的真正作用：媚俗是掩盖死亡的一道屏风。
我想，如果一个世界真的没有了痛苦，没有了粪便般的丑陋，没有了迫害，没有了鸡毛蒜皮带来的鸡飞狗跳，那不是很好的改进吗？萨比娜为什么会感到恐惧？
看过Brave New World 之后，我若有所悟。没有粪便的生活是不存在的。一个苏联的媚俗世界没有解决矛盾，它只是把矛盾藏得更深，更隐蔽，以至于你忘记了痛苦的真实存在，忘记了痛苦的意义。这将是一个自欺欺人的世界，自欺者和欺人者如此入戏，以至于忘记了自己正在演戏。粪便与美丽肩并肩地站立，如同阴和阳，正和负。如果有一个完全快乐美满的世界，那么这个世界，就必定是在隐藏着什么。它不能消除粪便，它只能掩盖粪便。它不能消除痛苦，它只能麻醉痛苦。麻醉剂褪去，痛苦还在。而延迟了的痛苦仍然是痛苦。
oma就是这样。它没有了酒精和毒品的副作用，但是本质上，它们一致。它带来的快乐不是问题解决后的释然，而是短暂的自欺。一觉醒来，问题仍在。也许作为短暂的心情调剂soma确实有效，但是当面对真正严肃的危机时，soma是无效的。
快乐，没有痛苦的快乐，是不可行的。即便有soma。soma改变的只是主观心境，而对于客观现实却无能为力。而我们学过政治的人都知道，唯物主义才是正确的主义。
二、快乐为主旨是否正确
这个才是问题的关键。
新世界pros and cons
ros: 快乐、稳定
Cons：
1.没有自由、不平等（从最一开始就否认平等的可能性，不平等造就了不自由）、
2.不尊重个人——此处引发了新世界最大的悖论：社会稳定的目的在于造福更多的个人，人才是社会的基本单元。然而为了维稳，又必须无视个人的利益。如果个人的利益从最一开始就无足轻重，那么为什么不能允许战争？大家白茫茫大地真干净岂不直截了当。这个如此美妙而稳定的世界为谁而存在？明显不是为了World Controllers,这些哲学王不是1984里作威作福的特权阶级。似乎也不是为了Alpha、Beta们，他们也有自己的责任，智商越高，社会责任越重，他们也不可为自己为所欲为。更不会是底层的Gamma们。他们是被鄙视的低能儿。那么这个社会到底为谁而存在？似乎人类反倒成了社会的奴隶。
3.把人作为工具使用的可拍倾向。
《Brave New World》读后感(九)：No title
I think this book is amazing because of how it eerily predicted some things that have since happened in our society. One simple example is the use of soma, a drug that people living in the first world use in the novel. In the fifties in America, scientists developed a muscle relaxant called Soma, during an era in which we believed there would be better living through science. Eerily (but not unexpectedly, at least in retrospect), Soma has begun to be abused in our culture, along with other similar drugs. While soma in the novel was never expected to be a painkiller, it was definitely synthetic and pushed on the people to keep them relaxed, and uninterested in real issues that were surrounding them. It was definitely an interesting read.
Curious, that it's probably the latter half of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World that gives the book such intellectual immortality and literary distinction. At least the first third, in fact, struck me as being disjointed, random, and almost reckless and willynilly in what, at the onset, seems almost pointless in its contrived weirdness.
While at first struggling to make it through to the real meat and potatoes of Huxley's magnum opus, I was even reminded of having once known an extremely frustrated friend from a previous job, who was a college student at the time, who was being forced (okay, "assigned" - your word for societal conditioning here, as you please, of course) to read Brave New World, and with the turn of almost every page, while slogging methodically through every colorful (though usually bizarre) catchphrase that the author uses to more fully illustrate his version of a totally pacifistic, impotent and pacified (drugged, stoned, rendered mute AND moot) futuristic human populace, the odd recollection of my tortured young student friend just kept coming back to me, time and time again.
quot;Viviparous." My young friend kept repeating whenever possible, at work. "Do you know what it means？" His instructor was MAKING him read the damn book, he lamented, and just getting through the first few chapters was giving him something suspiciously close to a nervous breakdown. And I must confess, at the time, I was quite mystified, not so much by the word "viviparous" itself (because like all avid readers, I positively love to learn new vocabulary), but the fact that his assigned reading was vexing his struggling, scholastic mind with such profound, torturous ardor.
I'd seen the first telefilm adaptation of BNW as a kid, of course, but simply had no true sense of the depths of my friend's affliction with having to wrap his bewildered mind around the dystopian world of Huxley's imagining, until years later, when I undertook my own journey into the untamed, almost flighty wilderness of the hallucinogenic laced dream-scape presented in the book.
Thankfully, however, I soon found, that if you stick with it, that perplexing Brave New World starts to gradually make a great deal more sense - despite all its artful senselessness and carefully contrived absurdity, that is. But the author never fails to do what all the best writers throughout history have always done. They make you THINK, while (in Huxley's case, anyway) still confounding you with their own seeming inability to practice what they so eloquently preach.
o Brave New World's about the danger that society will one day become so hyper controlled, overly parented (via excessive government interference - thereby making parenthood obsolete and even obscene), sterile, docile and impotent, that humanity cannot help but be reduced to a herd of genetically engineered, assembly line produced cattle. And the author was himself an avowed pacifist. Not that there's anything wrong with THAT, of course. And given that Huxley's highly ordered future certainly isn't what you'd call warlike, he's at least consistent in that regard. But in one other important respect, the contrast between his fiction and his reality seems positively schizophrenic.
Take soma, for example (but for goodness sake, hopefully not literally), Huxley's cure all super-drug of the perpetually stoned masses of the "happy" future. The author's got you convinced that its all a bad, bad, bad idea for mankind, until you read that the dude was into psychedelic substances himself! Like WHAT？ That's almost like Charles Manson brainwashing a few handpicked followers to commit random murders in the hopes of inciting a race war, simply because he believes its gonna eventually happen anyway! And Huxley really does give us the blueprint for a truly dystopian future does he not？
Helter Skelter! But Charles Manson wasn't even born when Huxley was writing the book, and "race" certainly doesn't seem to be a problem any longer in his Brave New World of the far flung future. But classicism？ Oh, yes. Oh, yes, indeed.
o then which Aldous Huxley are we to ultimately put our faith in？ The one who so eloquently tells it like it really is (or rather, the way it could be, if we're not extra careful) within the pages of his most highly touted masterpiece, or the guy who took his own share of mind altering substances, and during his own lifetime, did more than most, to lay out the Marxist-esque prototype of the hippie commune, free loving, drugged up 1960s carefree lifestyle, several decades before it got to be counterculture cool？
ut let's keep in mind, shall we, that both Huxley and the hippie movement died in the sixties. The author died quite literally on November 22, 1963, of advanced laryngeal cancer, with his passing being aided by a couple doses of "LSD, 100 µg, intramuscular," helpfully administered by his wife. The counterculture movement of course went on well into the early seventies, but many scholars argue that its real death knell was sounded on the night of August 8-9, 1969, when Charles Manson's "family" murdered eight month pregnant actress Sharon Tate, her friend and former lover Jay Sebring, and three unfortunate others. Two more murders were committed the following night, and whether the free love loving, "soma" sucking hippies yet knew it or not, the Brave New World would soon be essentially over.
What a magnificent head trip this Brave New World of Aldous Huxley's far flung, far out, dream-questing, melodramatic, prophetic future! What a delightful mental brain-freeze for soma laced ice cream lovers of all generations, past, present, and still, perhaps most frighteningly, yet to come! For let us not forget that so very much of what makes this masterfully told masterwork so fearfully effective, is that so much of it has already, and still continues to cyclically come to pass, in one way or another. So, color me "the savage," I suppose. I'll take my Shakespeare and good old fashioned reality injected pain to my earthly grave, thank you very much. So like this review, lump it, or leave it, as you wish, I suppose. And by all means, have my share of soma if you so choose. While "modern" society still affords you the luxury of free will, that is. Like the poor savage, I don't really need your permission or approval either.