VCE Stuff > VCE English & EAL
Odd little question :)
ninwa:
Hmm. I think in 1984, the Party destroys more and more words in the language, getting rid of those "shades of meaning", because it wants ultimately to eliminate unorthodoxy by making it impossible, since once Newspeak was fully implemented, the people wouldn't even have to language available to commit thoughtcrime.
The Party doesn't regulate free speech; it destroys the language which make it possible.
That's why I disagree with the fact that language can't be used to control people. I think 1984 shows that it can.
Gosh I love that book :P
Collin Li:
--- Quote from: "ninwa" ---Hmm. I think in 1984, the Party destroys more and more words in the language, getting rid of those "shades of meaning", because it wants ultimately to eliminate unorthodoxy by making it impossible, since once Newspeak was fully implemented, the people wouldn't even have to language available to commit thoughtcrime.
The Party doesn't regulate free speech; it destroys the language which make it possible.
That's why I disagree with the fact that language can't be used to control people. I think 1984 shows that it can.
Gosh I love that book :P
--- End quote ---
Uhh.. I think the "controlling" clearly comes from the authoritarian government that restricts free speech in the first place. Obviously if you restrict free speech (e.g: do not allow languages to include certain words) you will control the populace. Instead, I have a problem with implying that language by itself can have an effect of control, such a notion is dangerous and self-defeating to our common belief in free-speech.
It is apparent the society does regulate free speech. Firstly, they have a monopoly on the dictionary. This is a state-sanctioned government monopoly that clearly leads to the regulation of free-speech. In addition to this, they also rigourously censor the newspapers in Oceania, so I don't think it can be denied that there is a regulation of free speech in 1984.
edit; haha, your binary Sudoku has wayyyyy too much information. Why give out an entire row? They only need to give one number. Hell, they could just leave it blank and you'd have a 50% chance of getting the suggested solution, lol.
brendan:
The confusion of the use of speech as power makes it possible to exploit the people?s rightful cynicism of the arbitary exercise of power and state authority. However, given the liberal principle that state authority must be limited or constrained, to accept the use of language and speech as power or a tool of control, suggests that speech must also be limited and contained. Yet, as long as the speech is not explicitly harmful, any limitation or containment of speech violates the basic principles of individual liberty.
ninwa:
--- Quote from: "brendan" ---The confusion of the use of speech as power makes it possible to exploit the people?s rightful cynicism of the arbitary exercise of power and state authority. However, given the liberal principle that state authority must be limited or constrained, to accept the use of language and speech as power or a tool of control, suggests that speech must also be limited and contained. Yet, as long as the speech is not explicitly harmful, any limitation or containment of speech violates the basic principles of individual liberty.
--- End quote ---
.... you've lost me :(
@ coblin: lol. I suck at sudoku, so binary sudoku is probably the only kind I'm capable of solving
brendan:
lol see colin's post
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version