how is double think used to change the nature of man??

[binqker]

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.

[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.

[binqker]

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.

where can i find a appropriate forum for george orwell???

[Logos]

This is the George Orwell forum. Look to the top of this page and you'll see the link `George Orwell' and click on it to bring you back to the main page for it.

[atiguhya padma]

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.

[binqker]

hey thanks atiguhya for replying i really appriciate it.

[imthefoolonthehill]

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.

[Cassandra]

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.

[amuse]

heck yeah

[atiguhya padma]

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.

[amuse]

i think of experience as true knowledge

[Cassandra]

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.

[atiguhya padma]

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.

[Cassandra]

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 :)

[amuse]

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.

[atiguhya padma]

What does understand yourself beyond words mean Cassandra?

If you can describe to me what that is, then I presume you don't understand yourself beyond words. If you can't describe what that means, then why should I believe you? How can you convince m eof your position, if you cannot describe it? If you can convince yourself without description, without language, then I think that must impose certain restraints upon your critical attitude to your self-knowledge. I mean how would you know something unless you could analyse it sufficiently enough to be assured?

[crisaor]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
I mean how would you know something unless you could analyse it sufficiently enough to be assured?
No knowledge can be assured, no matter how much one tries. At best, you can hazard an educated guess, but no more. That's why Socrates said that the only thing he knew was that he didn't know anything.

Of course, is much easier to handle life and conversations ignoring this fact, but it's still true.

[Cassandra]

And ignoring the obvious flaws with this argument. I cannot explain and i don't expect to be believed (if only for my name :) ) I can analyse without words, people can be deeper than language.

[atiguhya padma]

Crisaor,

Being assured is not the same as being certain. I agree, there is no certainty. Still one can be assured.

[atiguhya padma]

I still maintain that understanding is not quite there, unless you can sufficiently explain what it is you understand, even if only to yourself. And to do that you need language.

I think Socrates was being somewhat facetious when he said that Crisaor.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Crisaor,
Being assured is not the same as being certain. I agree, there is no certainty. Still one can be assured.
I think Socrates was being somewhat facetious when he said that.
Agreed. But I still think he was right, though.