4 ms·
Perhaps, but that sounds more like a kneejerk reaction rather than a real critique. The idea behind it is supposed to show that by removing the verb 'to be', y
by neikos 11y ago
Perhaps, but that sounds more like a kneejerk reaction rather than a real critique.
The idea behind it is supposed to show that by removing the verb 'to be', you have to think more on how to properly convey what you actually mean.
So in a sense it even allows you to get your actual thought process out there rather than having it dismissed for sounding overly harsh for example.
Contrast that to Newspeak, whose design is to limit and shape people's thoughts by external means (Another person chosing what is ok and what not), where as here /you/ get to choose what you say, it is merely the form that changes.
- d4nt 11y agoIt's not an in-depth critique, you're right. But there are some interesting themes here, and by mentioning 1984 I'm referencing some deep questions in (what I hope is) a fairly shorthand way. To be more explicit: 1. Do people 'think in a particular language' such that limitations in language limit their thought? This is something that psychologist have considered. The other comments in this thread suggest to me that there might be something in this. 2. Is it dangerous to allow any kind of authority that tells people what they can/can't say? If the answer to #1 is 'yes' then would such a group be too powerful to be allowed to exist?