Not saying what we mean

[Q]

It does, there's a whole area of research devoted to how culture defines words and words define culture and all that sort of stuff:

Orwell most certainly believed in such a concept: Newspeak.

[Litofsky]

Orwell most certainly believed in such a concept: Newspeak.

 

The whole point of Newspeak was "If a word does not exist to represent a specific idea, said idea cannot exist, as it cannot be defined," correct?

 

Simplified, "Can there be [peace] if words do not exist to describe [peace]?"

[Q]

That's right. The government changed people's minds by changing the language. I remember someone in the book stating that the revolution would truly be over when everyone spoke in Newspeak.

 

Fascinating book, that 1984. I think I'll go read it again, see all of the parallels in today's society and get all paranoid and depressed again.

[Web Rider]

The whole point of Newspeak was "If a word does not exist to represent a specific idea, said idea cannot exist, as it cannot be defined," correct?

 

Simplified, "Can there be [peace] if words do not exist to describe [peace]?"

 

That depends on how you view words, do words define concepts, or do concepts define words? All people need are letters and new words can be invented to describe concepts, it's how it's worked all throughout history.

 

But yes, control words, you can control thoughts. Well, as long as you train people to only think within the bounds of words. Art sort of destroys this concept. You can paint a picture of a t***, even if you have no idea what to call it.

[Litofsky]

Facinating book, that 1984. I think I'll go read it again, see all of the parallels in today's society and get all paranoid and depressed again.

I need my annual reading, too. I'm starting to get too unconcerned about society and government (I still haven't figured out if rereading 1984 actually helps or not ).

 

That depends on how you view words, do words define concepts, or do concepts define words? All people need are letters and new words can be invented to describe concepts, it's how it's worked all throughout history.

To me, letters are put together to form words, which, in turn, represent ideas. Those ideas, according to Newspeak, can by squashed if no such words exist to describe them. However, I'd be willing to say that it's a combination of what you stated: words and concepts have a certain amount of leverage over the other.

 

But yes, control words, you can control thoughts. Well, as long as you train people to only think within the bounds of words. Art sort of destroys this concept. You can paint a picture of a t***, even if you have no idea what to call it.

That's a very interesting point, Web. I'll keep that in mind during my readings/writings.

[vanir]

"In the middle ages, I bet it was rare for someone not to beleive in God. If a secularist wanted to debate with a non-secularist, due to the circumstances of that time, he may have had to use the socratic method, and be dishonest, by saying he is religious."

 

 

I've another angle on this statement. Was a homeless kid and wound up in those religious hostels, so copped a lot of fundamentalism first hand.

I think the trick is that those described by others as definitely religious don't think so. There's no thought as to religion. God doesn't matter. You do what you do. It's the way you are. Grace is a matter of genuine respect. Charity is a driving need to express compassion or spend the next week balling your eyes out. Noticing the way strangers and small animals tell you what's going on or about to happen is just something you learn to notice. Following the given set of rules is a recognition that personal psychology is a result of your actions and it is simply better to have a healthy one. A big ghost with a long beard is a game we play for the kids at Christmas time. Mythology is the story of politics and what to look out for.

 

Strictly defined this is secularism, but it is not supposed to be described. Fundamentalism for example is the direct interpretation of religious texts. However this is conversational. In practise it would seem fundamentalism is to be a fan of religion, whilst actually believing what you're spouting means talking and thinking less and doing more, leaving the knowledge of such things to your wisdom and its growth.

 

IMHO