im writting how did the double-think use to change the nature of man??? can some one explain it to me please. cuz our teacher said we dont have to read the whole entire book. so im here to get help. and i read the book and i dont quiet frankly know what it means.
where can i find a appropriate forum for george orwell???Originally posted by Logos
Hi binqker
I think you are referring to George Orwell's ideas of doublethink, doublespeak in 1984. I've moved this to the more appropriate George Orwell forum.
Our language dictates the way we think. The way we think manipulates our nature.
Doublespeak re-designs our language. It reconstructs our thoughts. And it makes certain types of thought illegal.
Someone once said that a dead language means a dead culture. In the same vein, bilingual thinkers can access a more meaningful world, than those stuck in a single language and culture.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
hey thanks atiguhya for replying i really appriciate it.
A. Padma is correct in many ways.
It is nearly impossible to think of something that we have no word for (or something which a collection of words cannot describe)... just as it is impossible to imagine a color we cannot see.
Therefore, if you do not know the word for your feeling, you rarely feel them (probably... not sure on that...) ... but you definately can't express those feelings... and if you can't express your feelings, other people may not realise they have the same feelings... in this way, revolt is guarded against, and power is maintained.
*commentary*
modern society does not attempt to take away words from our vocabulary... those who have the power to do so merely change the meanings of words to conform to their beliefs....Same principle... lesser, but still potent effect.
Told by a fool, signifying nothing.
I disagree that you can't feel without words. i frewuently cannot describe how i feel or what I mean I just know intrinsically on a level beyond words.
"There's nothing you can say that can't be sung."
heck yeah
shh!!!
the air and water have been here a long time, and they are telling stories.
Not sure you can really know anything if you do not understand it enough to describe it. Maybe experience is a better word for the 'knowledge' that you speak of here.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
i think of experience as true knowledge
shh!!!
the air and water have been here a long time, and they are telling stories.
Even experiance/knowledge can be found without words, words are always being created. That's the problem with Doublespeak. There aren't enough words as it is limiting them further limits society because people cannot understand anothers views or feelings without words even if they can understand their own. Limiting language limits creativity as well, imagine if all books were without multiword descriptions, each word portrays some slightly different aspect to the reader giving them a better overall understanding.
"There's nothing you can say that can't be sung."
But the inability to put knowledge into words is itself limiting. If you cannot even describe to yourself what you feel you know, then that is an extremely limited position to have. The problem here seems to be that between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. Knowledge by acquaintance will be self-limiting. Knowledge by description, on the other hand, not only has a feedback loop that updates your understanding, but also expands beyond your self, to update others.
If we did not possess the faculty of knowledge by description, we would never have developed society; we would be locked in a prison of immediate response, a slave to emotion.
It could be said that without knowledge by acquaintance we would be in a similar position. Which means that we need both. But........ knowledge by description, because of it inclusiveness, is a far greater form of knowledge.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
Not necessarily, knowledge of self/ by acquaintence (?) is incredibly important and the first step to knowledge by description. You have to understand yourself beyond words if you are to translate that into words for other people. All knowledge is important. As I said we just need a few more words, I'm constantly making them up
"There's nothing you can say that can't be sung."
I think you two are looking at the world from different, essentially separate points of view/realms, both of which are huge...one of form, one of that which precedes form. Just an observation.
shh!!!
the air and water have been here a long time, and they are telling stories.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
