5 ms·

i think it's really funny how many of his examples of dead metaphors are still used > Ring the changes on, take up the cudgels for, toe the line, ride roughsho

i think it's really funny how many of his examples of dead metaphors are still used > Ring the changes on, take up the cudgels for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles’ heel, swan song, hotbed. the whole essay is hilariously savage. also this observation back in 1946: > The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. and finally > You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you – even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent – and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. reminds me of the capabilities of a certain chatbot as well. i ultimately disagree because i'm too taken by descontructionists. orwell's assertion of finding pure, simple meaning in clear language, well i don't believe in that. > When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualising, you probably hunt about till you find the exact words that seem to fit it. [citation needed]

LAC-Tech 4y ago
"Fascist" is one of those curious words when - used outside serious history - it says more about the person using it than it does about what the person is describing.
- asplake 4y ago
  And let’s not forget that Orwell was an active participant in that serious history. Makes his comment especially noteworthy, surprising even
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    IIRC the official stance of the USSR at that time was that Trotsky of all people was a fascist - a very modern usage of the word. I imagine Orwell - as a non-Stalinist socialist - was aware of it.
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      Even before: it's been a long time since I read "Homage..." but I would not be surprised if POUM had been calling the anarchists fascists at some point.
    - philwelch 4y ago
      The KPD (German communist party) held the official stance that the SPD (Social Democrats) were fascist. This was when the actual NSDAP were still a fringe minority. After the war, when the Berlin Wall was constructed, its official name in East Germany was “Antifascist Protection Rampart”. It’s hard not to notice that in official Communist usage even before WWII, the term “fascist” typically meant nothing other than “enemy”, which is how a lot of modern leftists use the term today. I can even find instances of anti-Stalinist leftists calling Stalin a fascist, which is fair enough to me!
salawat 4y ago
Are you an aphantasiac? (Lacking of the capacity to mentally "see" or generate imagery). That would be the only reason why I'd think this would not be self-evident. If I think of a concrete sidewalk, I literally imagine a suburban sidewalk composed of squares of poured concrete. I have a mental image of it prior to picking the words to describe it. Maybe it's white and smoothed, or gray and rough... But I still wordlessly visualize it. In short, Wittgenstein put it best. Ways of life precede the language that nominatively identifies them.
- LesZedCB 4y ago
  i'm not, but that's an interesting conclusion. my experience is that my 'conscious' thought is a constant thread of language in monologue. i'm not very good at meditation (though i don't practice much) because quieting my internal monologue feels nearly impossible. putting on podcasts helps me fall asleep because i no longer need to generate my own movement, but the external speaking can relax me. i personally fall slightly more into the (maybe Lacanian) view that language is essential - maybe even primordial - in our formation of subjectivity. i don't necessarily buy into it 'scientifically' per se, but i'm skeptical of pure ideas existing without language, at least in any human subject capable of language. i don't really know, this is one of those places where i'm always fine tuning and changing my thoughts.
  - salawat 4y ago
    So... Out of silliness. Consciously repeat a single word, say "blueberry", over and over and over and over again until you're sick of it, then try to visualize your actual house. This is a mind quieting exercise that I read about in a book, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. Many people will get stuck when drawing, only making the crude symbols of the thing they are thinking about because they are thinking with the linguistic part of their brain. Much of the spacial processing tends to take place in the opposite hemisphere of the brain. Repeating that same word over and over and over will exhaust the language processing part of your brain, allowing the non-verbal parts to do do their thing more effectively. Relevant book: https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Right-Side-Brain-Definitive/dp/1585429201 https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Right-Side-Brain-Definitive/d... Bonus bit: The concern you have with the intrinsic link between language and thinking is exactly why Orwell was completely justified to my thinking to be concerned about manipulation of language as a mechanism to control thought. The escape hatch, as it were, is that language as a concept transcends any of it's concrete implementations, and is intrinsically bound to the act of being. We are immersed in the business of being, and one can imagine a mute, illiterate thinking being nevertheless existing and thinking, without spoken, written, or heard language. Their language would just be to point at what it is they are trying to describe, or recalling the memory of it. Our words as spoken or written, are just a shorthand that allows us to communicate with one another and evoke a shared experience of being. Everything is language. A language can constrain your thinking within the context and grammar of that language, but another language lacking the same constraints need not necessarily constrain thinking in the same way. Wittgenstein thusly posits that the very act of Philosophy is constantly engaging in language games, in which we experiment with changing up the rules by which we communicate in the attempt to forge shared understanding. In short: Communication is really hard, and once you start thinking about, you'll really start having to wonder whether anyone really does deep and meaningful "we're saying the same thing about the same thing" level communication a lot less than we think we do.

LAC-Tech 4y ago

"Fascist" is one of those curious words when - used outside serious history - it says more about the person using it than it does about what the person is describing.

asplake 4y ago
And let’s not forget that Orwell was an active participant in that serious history. Makes his comment especially noteworthy, surprising even
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  IIRC the official stance of the USSR at that time was that Trotsky of all people was a fascist - a very modern usage of the word. I imagine Orwell - as a non-Stalinist socialist - was aware of it.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    Even before: it's been a long time since I read "Homage..." but I would not be surprised if POUM had been calling the anarchists fascists at some point.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    The KPD (German communist party) held the official stance that the SPD (Social Democrats) were fascist. This was when the actual NSDAP were still a fringe minority. After the war, when the Berlin Wall was constructed, its official name in East Germany was “Antifascist Protection Rampart”. It’s hard not to notice that in official Communist usage even before WWII, the term “fascist” typically meant nothing other than “enemy”, which is how a lot of modern leftists use the term today. I can even find instances of anti-Stalinist leftists calling Stalin a fascist, which is fair enough to me!

salawat 4y ago

Are you an aphantasiac? (Lacking of the capacity to mentally "see" or generate imagery). That would be the only reason why I'd think this would not be self-evident. If I think of a concrete sidewalk, I literally imagine a suburban sidewalk composed of squares of poured concrete. I have a mental image of it prior to picking the words to describe it. Maybe it's white and smoothed, or gray and rough... But I still wordlessly visualize it. In short, Wittgenstein put it best. Ways of life precede the language that nominatively identifies them.

LesZedCB 4y ago
i'm not, but that's an interesting conclusion. my experience is that my 'conscious' thought is a constant thread of language in monologue. i'm not very good at meditation (though i don't practice much) because quieting my internal monologue feels nearly impossible. putting on podcasts helps me fall asleep because i no longer need to generate my own movement, but the external speaking can relax me. i personally fall slightly more into the (maybe Lacanian) view that language is essential - maybe even primordial - in our formation of subjectivity. i don't necessarily buy into it 'scientifically' per se, but i'm skeptical of pure ideas existing without language, at least in any human subject capable of language. i don't really know, this is one of those places where i'm always fine tuning and changing my thoughts.
- salawat 4y ago
  So... Out of silliness. Consciously repeat a single word, say "blueberry", over and over and over and over again until you're sick of it, then try to visualize your actual house. This is a mind quieting exercise that I read about in a book, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. Many people will get stuck when drawing, only making the crude symbols of the thing they are thinking about because they are thinking with the linguistic part of their brain. Much of the spacial processing tends to take place in the opposite hemisphere of the brain. Repeating that same word over and over and over will exhaust the language processing part of your brain, allowing the non-verbal parts to do do their thing more effectively. Relevant book: https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Right-Side-Brain-Definitive/dp/1585429201 https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Right-Side-Brain-Definitive/d... Bonus bit: The concern you have with the intrinsic link between language and thinking is exactly why Orwell was completely justified to my thinking to be concerned about manipulation of language as a mechanism to control thought. The escape hatch, as it were, is that language as a concept transcends any of it's concrete implementations, and is intrinsically bound to the act of being. We are immersed in the business of being, and one can imagine a mute, illiterate thinking being nevertheless existing and thinking, without spoken, written, or heard language. Their language would just be to point at what it is they are trying to describe, or recalling the memory of it. Our words as spoken or written, are just a shorthand that allows us to communicate with one another and evoke a shared experience of being. Everything is language. A language can constrain your thinking within the context and grammar of that language, but another language lacking the same constraints need not necessarily constrain thinking in the same way. Wittgenstein thusly posits that the very act of Philosophy is constantly engaging in language games, in which we experiment with changing up the rules by which we communicate in the attempt to forge shared understanding. In short: Communication is really hard, and once you start thinking about, you'll really start having to wonder whether anyone really does deep and meaningful "we're saying the same thing about the same thing" level communication a lot less than we think we do.