Puzzlement at the paralleles of BNW - 1984

I am studying 1984 and Brave New World at school, and i am struggling to understand the more complex ideas behind them... I am not too sure how to word my confusion..but if anyone gives me some hints in relation to what I am trying to say it might help me see things from a different angle.

What I am continually hearing is that the novels create a utopia that 'turns 'bad' (thus dystopia). Which seems to suggest that the novels depict a sort of possible idealized state of society.

In Brave New World, this seems to come through clearly. The society seems to appeal to human nature, and in many ways could conceivably be benefiting and improving the life of each person. (Although the lack of individuality comes with the obvious dangers the novel warns about). The idea of a utopia/dystopia comes through clearly, and it is remarkable how reminiscent much is to our modern societies.

Conversely In 1984, there seems to be no sign of any conceivable benefit to people, and the society purely gives gain to the controlling party. I fail to see how this could be any sort of 'idealized' state of society.

1984 seems to be horribly negative to everyone, while a small controlling party gains ultimate power.

Brave New World seems to be a realistic ideal, in which conceivably everyone gains.

This seems incredibly different. Am i missing the point here?

Is the fundamental idea behind Brave New World also about the ultimate gain of the controllers? There seemed little that suggested this...

you lucky student to be studying orwell and huxley!two of the great english intellects of the 20th century your teacher must see great potential in you.you have added a fantastic thread to this sub forum that takes much thought and contemplation.

atheist,bazarov,burmese days,geurnica,enjoi and jason will all contribute soon i am sure.

a rudimentary answer and all i can add at present is that huxley was orewlls teacher and 1984 was the students tribute to his teacher.

i have not read bnw for a long time but i find it interesting that you see it as beneficial to humanity,drugged water to make us docile and babies bred in tubes under the guise of eugenics like pedigree animals,clones not loved for their spirit but grown for specific"qualities".this to me is a nightmare.

"when i look into your eyes i see myself looking back" is a good way of discribing a healthy view of mankind.when we are sterilised and de-humanised it makes it easier for one man to be unjust to another,the common link has been stripped away and the conscience dissappears.

i do not know if you are aware with the practice of eugenics but from where i sit it is frightening,and if memory serves me right julian huxley may well have been a eugenecist,still doing a little research on the subject is beneficial i think.

also as far as i know the politics of 1984 were never cited as a utopia,is it not purely a warning against totalitarianism?
and bnw a eugenics based nightmare cold unhuman science,maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

this is all i can add at present.

BNW is so bad that I've dumped it after 60 pages. Sorry, can't help.

One down, many to go! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

...atheist,bazarov,burmese days,geurnica,enjoi and jason will all contribute soon i am sure.

---

1 down!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

i have not read bnw for a long time but i find it interesting that you see it as beneficial to humanity,drugged water to make us docile and babies bred in tubes under the guise of eugenics like pedigree animals,clones not loved for their spirit but grown for specific"qualities".this to me is a nightmare.

---

That's what makes it dystopian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

..."when i look into your eyes i see myself looking back" is a good way of discribing a healthy view of mankind.when we are sterilised and de-humanised it makes it easier for one man to be unjust to another,the common link has been stripped away and the conscience dissappears.

---

Shhh!

Don't say that - I hear that all the time from people who tell me it's how an atheistic world would look!

:lol::lol::lol:

(you're right on BNW & 1984, though)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliannnn

1984 seems to be horribly negative to everyone, while a small controlling party gains ultimate power.

---

This where you need to apply a little doublethink yourself, and luke's already touched on it. (and I wrote on it yesterday as well!)

If you can see the attraction in life in BNW, all you need to do is apply the same principles to life in 1984. Imagine a people with no "normal" morality whatsoever - and remember that as luke pointed out - you need to suspend morality the same in BNW anyway.

Without morals, humans are reduced to mere machines and can only think logically. They are, in fact, robots.

Take Inner Party members - we're currently looking at why they don't need monitoring here - and I think you'll find it relevant in comparing Alphas and Inner Party members.

Both groups are the ruling elite
They are able to have as many or as few luxuries as they desire
Life is unbelievably easy - you not only make the rules, you are the rules
While members of each group know very well that alternative morality exists, it doesn't matter

The big difference probably seems like Outer Party members and the equivalent groups in BNW. But if you look more closely, there isn't that much difference - especially if you apply Doublethink. Instead of looking at OP members through Winston's cynical eyes, look at it through the hordes of people cheering as the chocolate ration goes down.

It doesn't matter whether we think we'd be happy in the situation of Oceania/Airstrip One, it's whether the people there were happy, and clearly, in 1984, they were every bit as ecstatic as those in BNW. Instead of being able to live a life of sensual pleasure - which was always the attraction of BNW for me - in 1984, the same joy is obtained by working for BB. Deluded as hell? Sure, but happy.

Another big factor in 1984 is the war. We know it's a sham, but OP and the proles don't. Find some people who were in London in the Blitz - luke must know some as well - and ask how people felt at the time. I bet you from experience of many of those people that most will tell you of the stern spirit of the British Bulldog and how everyone worked together in terrible circumstances, but retained their spirit throughout. London was by no means deserted, even after 57 nights of continuous bombing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juliannnn

Is the fundamental idea behind Brave New World also about the ultimate gain of the controllers? There seemed little that suggested this...

---

Not the ultimate gain, but power.

Thank you for your thoughts... Reading this was exactly what I needed, much appreciated

Yes my own grandmother was underneath the blitz, and atheist is right it only strengthened the resolve of the people of the east end, she is a healthy but very old lady now and gleaning relevant information from her is like winstons attempt at conversation with the old prole in the pub about life pre revoloution.
What i do know is she spent one night huddled up with alice cooper from bethnal green sheltering from the luftwaffe's bombardment.
she does not see the funny side (is it cruel to gain humour from someone without their knowledge) schools out for the summer,yes the fokkers have just blown it from bow to billericay!

Still the atheist and juliannn has stirred more thoughts in me,

Was orwell's nightmare of 1984 really a dystopian nightmare?
oligarchical collectivism is a utopian state!
85% proletarian (happy)
around 12% outer party (99% of whom were happy)
3% inner party (100% happy,they are in power)

So rudimentary mathmatics says that in a totalitarian state 99% of the people are happy, that's better than the authoritarian politics that rule us today.


Conclusion: Orwell in his wisdom gave us the perfect system for happiness,
oceania was a utopia!

(Am i showing my proletarian roots here?)

I would hope this stir an interest from bazarov and atheist, it would be great to see you both construct one of your excellent arguments against the statement above.

And no,have you ever seen an unhappy fool (although i like that statement to) will not suffice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

Yes my own grandmother was underneath the blitz, and atheist is right it only strengthened the resolve of the people of the east end, she is a healthy but very old lady now and gleaning relevant information from her is like winstons attempt at conversation with the old prole in the pub about life pre revoloution.

---

Haha! Yes indeed. My mum was in London at the start of the blitz - she was sent out as a refugee with two small kids - and my father was in the RN, so I'm chock full of WWII and Blitz anecdotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

What i do know is she spent one night huddled up with alice cooper from bethnal green sheltering from the luftwaffe's bombardment.
she does not see the funny side (is it cruel to gain humour from someone without their knowledge)

---

No, reality provides the best humour - no harm in it. And funny!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

Conclusion: Orwell in his wisdom gave us the perfect system for happiness, oceania was a utopia!

---

Well, I agree with it, because of course, I'd be a member of the Inner Party!

The thing is, your premise is correct, and while I don't want to bother too much with religion here, I use a similar argument in favour of religion. It's been well demonstrated that religious people are happier and healthier than non-religious people. To me, that is a result of the social and societal benefits of religion, plus happiness derived from delusion. Many atheists want to cut that down, but I always figure that if people are happy through delusion, let 'em be.

On that same basis, I could make a good case as well that Party rule would actually be the ideal - most people would be happy. They'd have been taught to be happy by self-delusion (Doublethink).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

(Am i showing my proletarian roots here?)

---

You and me both, mate - me old man weren't no bleeding officer!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

I would hope this stir an interest from bazarov and atheist, it would be great to see you both construct one of your excellent arguments against the statement above.

---

Like any proposition, it's easy enough to argue against - the life portrayed by Winston is a living hell, barring his brief interlude with Julia. I think the simplest comparison is that Winston is a paranoid schizophrenic, but instead of it happening in his mind, it's really happening to him! Can you imagine a worse thing than that? Orwell couldn't, yet in his own essays, he commented that he'd rather be without his brain than without his legs. That attitude tends to support the idea that life would be ideal under Party rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

Was orwell's nightmare of 1984 really a dystopian nightmare?
oligarchical collectivism is a utopian state!
85% proletarian (happy)
around 12% outer party (99% of whom were happy)
3% inner party (100% happy,they are in power)

So rudimentary mathmatics says that in a totalitarian state 99% of the people are happy, that's better than the authoritarian politics that rule us today.

---

Well, I am good in math so I will correct your math:

0.85+0.99*0.12+0.03=0.9988 what is 99,88%

of happy people which makes your argument even stronger :D

Quote:

---

Conclusion: Orwell in his wisdom gave us the perfect system for happiness,
oceania was a utopia!

---

But in utopia people realize where they live, that it's good because it's good; not because they are too stupid too realize what is happening; what is situation with Proles.

Quote:

---

And no,have you ever seen an unhappy fool (although i like that statement to) will not suffice!

---

Why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The thing is, your premise is correct, and while I don't want to bother too much with religion here, I use a similar argument in favour of religion. It's been well demonstrated that religious people are happier and healthier than non-religious people. To me, that is a result of the social and societal benefits of religion, plus happiness derived from delusion. Many atheists want to cut that down, but I always figure that if people are happy through delusion, let 'em be.

---

What is social benefit of religion? Why delusion? Maybe you are delusioned; there are also numerous theists who believe you're wrong and what cut that down, but how to be sure who of you is right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

What is social benefit of religion?

---

I think there are a huge number.

Taking an anthropological view, apes are all societal beasts, so we're hard-wired to be social animals and we look for cohesive factors. Nationalism, religion, there aren't too many which actually work, and we've seen where extreme nationalism ends up.

Support within the group. Any group, by nature, provides support for each other.

Stability. Humans crave something stable in their lives. A infinite deity gives you that.

Removal of fear of death. I believe that only humans and a couple of other species [maybe] understand what death is on an intellectual level, but like all animals, we're hard-wired to avoid death anyway. The combination allows us to fear death, and religion takes away that fear.

I've researched this subject to death, because I didn't want to accept that in general, religious people are happier, wealthier and healthier than secular ones, but they are. I'm fairly confident that the difference is explainable by those societal factors - especially because the health differential all relates to things which religious belief can have a positive effect on - suicide, mental illness, chronic illness and heart disease (less stress = fewer heart attacks).

I can tell you, lots of atheists don't like admitting it, but it's all true and I'd rather face facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Why delusion? Maybe you are delusioned; there are also numerous theists who believe you're wrong and what cut that down, but how to be sure who of you is right?

---

Hell yeah!

If we took a vote on it, the atheists would get PWNED by the righteous!

:lol:

On the other hand, I do think it's delusional. In the hands of a mainstream christian, it's a harmless belief. Why I think it's delusional is about the quality [lack] of evidence for god/s and that the premise is too easily explainable as a human construct to be taken seriously.

As you say, maybe it's me that's deluded. Neither of us will ever know!

:D

I think we can almost segue this back into the topic, because Orwell had an almost identical view of religion to mine - silly bunkum, but with an admiration for the history, morality and cohesive factors of the church.

The Huxley family were a bit more in tune with Russell than Orwell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I've researched this subject to death, because I didn't want to accept that in general, religious people are happier, wealthier and healthier than secular ones, but they are. I'm fairly confident that the difference is explainable by those societal factors - especially because the health differential all relates to things which religious belief can have a positive effect on - suicide, mental illness, chronic illness and heart disease (less stress = fewer heart attacks).

---

Yes, many ''blame'' God for bad things in their life so it's easier for them to accept it.
Or your side gets life too serious? :lol:

Quote:

---

On the other hand, I do think it's delusional. In the hands of a mainstream christian, it's a harmless belief. Why I think it's delusional is about the quality [lack] of evidence for god/s and that the premise is too easily explainable as a human construct to be taken seriously.

As you say, maybe it's me that's deluded. Neither of us will ever know!

---

True as usual, I just don't understand why atheists worry so much about ''stupid theists''?

OT - you never seen situation in life when you wondered how and why that happened, feeling that somebody had a control above it?

I was raised as a religious, but I guess I became too smart :lol: so I am wondering a lot about everything...There is something; whether someone will call it God, Essence, etc is just a form. I haven't made my mind yet...

Thanks atheist and bazarov, you have inspired more thoughts in me which i will post later on, duty calls!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

True as usual, I just don't understand why atheists worry so much about ''stupid theists''?

---

90% because it's everywhere, 10% anti-theists who are mad at god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

OT - you never seen situation in life when you wondered how and why that happened, feeling that somebody had a control above it?

---

All the time! I think the way we analyse all those things are a natural part of our brains working to provide answers - usually to negative things. Probably because random happenings tend to cluster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

I was raised as a religious, but I guess I became too smart :lol: so I am wondering a lot about everything...There is something; whether someone will call it God, Essence, etc is just a form. I haven't made my mind yet...

---

(bolding mine)

Always trouble.

:D

Religious people do seem happier yes, i agree they must have an inner warmth and contentedness in their belief that makes them feel safe and righteous. but many do thrive on fear of non-believers and the impending doomsday that is imminent, y2k, orbiting comet, unusual date.

I think you would certainly make the inner party Atheist, but as an atheist surely you would not be in individual rapture of big brother.Therefore eventually would become an unperson i would suggest. I think you are very much like Winston and the thought police would catch up with your unorthodoxy and get you into room 101, there they would convince you the master of the universe was the easter bunny! (nightmare). You would question this but it would remain suppressed deep down as you gulped victory gin and struggled over a mate in two chess puzzle. (to cruel? but meant with goodwill).

1984 has expanded more for me now, thanks to you both and other contributors. As an instinct Totalitarianism seems anti-religious but big brother not only consumed all the human emotions of the oceanians, sex drive, anger, hate, love, he actually became a deity who replaced jesus, mohammed, buddha, vishnu, etc. Ingsoc was a religion to all, Big brother was all encompassing, total.

All the people cannot be happy all the time, there are always individuals trying to ruin the utopian Oceania and Winston was one of them. What would he have done with freedom and liberty anyhow? He probobly would have still worked at the ministry, married Julia and led a humdrum existence and wanting more,questioning more, is this freedom and liberty? How could life have possibly been better before the revoloution under the capitalists in which everything hinged on the exploitation of the Proletariat majority? Winston was a danger to the national happiness and had to be dealt with (i know this is wrong but it does make sense).

Thankyou Athiest i did not know Orwell said he'd rather lose his brain than his legs, maybe he had never seen an unhappy fool also. And from reading his work i think his intellect may have become a burden, i cite Gordon Comstock as an example.


Thanks for the mathmatics correction Bazarov!
The people of Oceania live in Oceania and it is good. It is protecting an almost perfect system of governance and religion combined and according to your calculation 99.8% of the people are happy. I cannot argue with the last part of your reposte, maybe "have you ever seen an unhappy fool" will suffice. But two of the three parts of a utopian society according to your model is not bad, also this is a majority and in a twisted way therefore democratic!


Yes people do blame god, but i think bazarov and Atheist do have an excellent view on this. It does help many cope with personal tragedy and extreme loneliness or isolation it gives them hope and comfort and i personally would not want to take that away from anyone or denounce it. My own mother prays to a picture of St Anthony if she missplaces something and sure enough it turns up! I cannot argue with that and say she would have found her keys sooner or later anyhow.
I have been lucky and have never had to rely on religious support for anything, but if i was to lose someone who was close to me who knows, there but for the grace of god? I to had a christian schooling and i would say it was positive, I remember it as 1970's, beardy, folk guitars and the singing of children, and without superstition.


I think Atheist's worry about stupid theists is purely for the reason he gives. I have personally heard a theist (creationist) explain away the fly in the ointment of prehistoric life that Noah took dinosaurs onto the ark! This defies science and common sense and would most likely have a nine year old child in fits of laughter. I honestly thought in his next sentence he was going to say the earth was flat. But as you say bazarov who is deluded? I do not know but i would back good science every time, it is the best of all possible worlds (was that Voltaire?)


Then on the opposing side we have Darwinism and the "theory" of evoloution which is still a theory. On the face of it darwinism is very plausible and is taught readily to schoolchildren. Do a little research and you expose their eugenical beliefs, not science, they believed in so strongly that within the Darwin, Galton, Wedgewood families they inbred to produce a strain of superior humans which resulted in nine of the ten children of darwin dying young or ending up in mental asylums. Eugenics then inspired Nazi doctrine that humans could be bred superior/inferior. Also the forced sterilisation of the proletariat by the family planning association (Marie stopes is considered a pioneer,but in fact was a eugenicist and nazi sympathiser). Humanity just does not work like that, cattle or dogs can be bred but it is not possible with human beings. This could be argued to be more abhorrent than the position of the theists/ creationists want of us still living on a flat earth. Humans are different from animals and natural law must state that the souls of the starving child in africa have exactly the same worth as that of her majesty the queen.

I to feel the same as bazarov, there are questions:


1. Signs of intelligent design ?

Earth itself is a paradise, its beauty is insummountable all that can be considered ugly is created by mankind (G K chesterton,i heard Stephen Fry say it on room 101, a must see.) Bird song, ant colonies, mountain ranges, the sky at night, definite signs of hyper intelligent design.



2. Order from chaos ?

This does not happen and to produce the contents of the universe?


For me there is life after death its in our children. I am heading for the darkness, but i will remain, so will my father, grandfather, and all my ancestors live on in our offspring. I was raised from the dust and to it i shall return.(i agree with genesis here)


I would have liked to include your quotes where relveant as a guide,but i cannot figure it out,thou est a luddite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

I think you would certainly make the inner party Atheist, but as an atheist surely you would not be in individual rapture of big brother.

---

Nah, I'd have no problem there - Inner Party members are well aware that Big Brother as an entity does not exist, so I'd merely have to be into self-worship, because Inner Party members are Big Brother.

I could cope with that!

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

...as you gulped victory gin and struggled over a mate in two chess puzzle. (to cruel? but meant with goodwill).

---

Not at all - and no Victory Gin, 25-year old single malt for the IP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

Thankyou Athiest i did not know Orwell said he'd rather lose his brain than his legs, maybe he had never seen an unhappy fool also. And from reading his work i think his intellect may have become a burden, i cite Gordon Comstock as an example.

---

No question in my mind. There was something quite self-destructive in Orwell's make-up. I don't know whether he maybe thought that if he were martyred, he'd gain more recognition?

Luckily, that would've been wrong anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

I have personally heard a theist (creationist) explain away the fly in the ointment of prehistoric life that Noah took dinosaurs onto the ark! This defies science and common sense and would most likely have a nine year old child in fits of laughter.

---

It doesn't, unfortunately, and as Scopes, Dover and many other examples show, lots of adults not only believe it, but insist it should be taught in schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

Then on the opposing side we have Darwinism and the "theory" of evoloution which is still a theory.

---

Just a note: that it's still the "theory" of evolution isn't a reason to doubt it in any way; that's just science's way of expressing things. A good example is Pythagoras and the square of the hypotenuse equalling the sum of the other two squares. Despite the Theory of Pythagoras being demonstrab;y factual, it's still only called a "theory" because science doesn't deal in absolutes - it leaves that for theology. As it happens, the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that even the Catholic church accepts it as factual, and if there was any way they didn't have to do that, they wouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

On the face of it darwinism is very plausible and is taught readily to schoolchildren. Do a little research and you expose their eugenical beliefs, not science, they believed in so strongly that within the Darwin, Galton, Wedgewood families they inbred to produce a strain of superior humans which resulted in nine of the ten children of darwin dying young or ending up in mental asylums.

---

Being wrong on other things doesn't negate the value of darwin's research and findings on speciation, either. Most of those incorrect beliefs came about through mistaken cause and effect. Had Darwin had access to electron microscopes and DNA typing, he wouldn't have made those mistakes, but in the context of the time and the results of his observations, they were reasonable assumptions to make. It's a great example of why confirmation bias works in biology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

1. Signs of intelligent design ?

Earth itself is a paradise, its beauty is insummountable all that can be considered ugly is created by mankind (G K chesterton,i heard Stephen Fry say it on room 101, a must see.) Bird song, ant colonies, mountain ranges, the sky at night, definite signs of hyper intelligent design.

---

To many of us, it's evidence for exactly the opposite. Out of billions of galaxies containing billions of stars and over billions of years, only one place we know of has managed to evolve the ability to see/hear things aesthetically - which is what you're talking about.

To me, the beauty of cell replication is a natural phenomenon, akin to crystals growing, but with a twist.

It is counter-intuitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

2. Order from chaos ?

This does not happen and to produce the contents of the universe?

---

That is demonstrable, however, and a simple example is a box of rice bubbles or cornflakes. When you buy it, it's all mixed up, but if you leave it on a shelf and give it just a little shake every day, after a month, it will have separated into the big flakes at the top and all the dust and little flakes at the bottom - order from chaos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

For me there is life after death its in our children. I am heading for the darkness, but i will remain, so will my father, grandfather, and all my ancestors live on in our offspring. I was raised from the dust and to it i shall return.(i agree with genesis here)

---

I'll go along with that - I agree strongly that we live on through our kids/DNA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

I would have liked to include your quotes where relveant as a guide,but i cannot figure it out,thou est a luddite.

---

Nah, not a Luddite, surely?

Just a techno-noob!

:D

Just so you know - if you hit the QUOTE button, the dialogue box will come up like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

For me there is life after death its in our children. I am heading for the darkness, but i will remain, so will my father, grandfather, and all my ancestors live on in our offspring. I was raised from the dust and to it i shall return.(i agree with genesis here)

---

Now, if you want to split it into two or more bits to discuss individually, just put [/QUOTE] in where you want to stop and write your bit after that.

To re-start the quote, just copy & paste this bit: [QUOTE=lukgem;644035] at the front of the new text, with another quote tag at the end.

Play around and feel free to ask about it - always glad to help. Use the "Preview Post" button on your posts to see if you got it right without posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

Winston was a danger to the national happiness and had to be dealt with (i know this is wrong but it does make sense).

---

That's a perspective! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lukgem

But as you say bazarov who is deluded? I do not know but i would back good science every time, it is the best of all possible worlds (was that Voltaire?)

---

I am not saying Atheist is wrong and I am right, or he is right and I am wrong ( I respect him too much :D ), but that's a sensible question, where nobody can be totally sure what is right. Piron said that smart man doesn't make conclusions, because he can always say enough pro et contra facts for everything. And theists and atheists both have enough good reasons for they belief/opinion.
Personally, I am always going for science. Except some situations :D
Voltaire said If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him., but that's not what you asked...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Just a note: that it's still the "theory" of evolution isn't a reason to doubt it in any way; that's just science's way of expressing things. A good example is Pythagoras and the square of the hypotenuse equalling the sum of the other two squares. Despite the Theory of Pythagoras being demonstrab;y factual, it's still only called a "theory" because science doesn't deal in absolutes - it leaves that for theology. As it happens, the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that even the Catholic church accepts it as factual, and if there was any way they didn't have to do that, they wouldn't.

---

No.
Pythagoras is theory or (actually theorem) because it can be proved, and if something cannot be proved but we take it like granted, it's called axiom.
An axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.[wiki]

a+b=b+a, a*b=b*a, a*0=0, etc - those are axioms. You cannot prove or disprove them, they are obviously true. But theorems must be proved, why would they be true? As so for Phytagora, Tales, Bernoulli, Newton etc.