Make a list of the examples of paradox, logic, and illogicality in chapters 6€“8 of 1984.

There
are numerous places in chapters 6 through 8 where logical contradictions are exposed. In this
section of the novel,is questioning many of the fundamental premises by which society is
governed, although he knows it is dangerous to do so. As he wonders about whether and how social
changed might be implemented, he is constantly confronted with the logical impossibility of such
change ever occurring.

In chapter 6, he reviews the rules governing sexual
relations. The Party, he understands, aims to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. One of
the paradoxes of Party practice relates to the kinds of unions that are allowed between men and
women. ( discusses only heterosexual relationships.) All marriages had to be approved in advance
by a Party committee; the logical contradiction is that even the appearance of sexual attraction
between the two people means that the marriage will not be permitted: though the principle was
never stated ... permission was always refused. That is, people are supposed to know the rules
even though they are not written down anywhere. Winston does not know why the Party wants to
kill the sex instinct, but he thinks of that goal as natural.

Chapter 7
deals with the topic of social change through rebellion. Winston raises what becomes a recurring
theme of hope of a prole revolt. Here theis that the necessity for change must go unacknowledged
because of the total mental conditioning people undergo, which in turn effectively blocks people
from formulating the idea of change. He states this logical contradiction: Until they become
conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled, they can never become
conscious. He thinks about the ways the Party controls the proles so that they cannot formulate
political ideas, and their discontent ... could only focus on petty specific grievances. Those
who are at the bottom of the social order and would benefit most from its total transformation
are those least capable of effecting, or even desiring, such a radical
change.