An essential topic raised in Chapter Two consists of a discussion concerning the separation between symbols and their meaning. For example, snakes are seen as vile creatures. When one displays negative characteristics, they may be described as a snake. Two totally independent chains of thought have been brought together as one rather spontaneously. Thus, when a certain concept is understood, there are many forms of speech in which it may be conveyed, depending upon one's extensional versus verbal experiences.
In George Orwell's 1984, Winston often dreams of the many freedoms that the past once held. Newspeak's purpose is to eliminate vocabulary, in hopes of also eliminating ideas that follow along with that vocabulary. The concepts of freedom, liberty, and justice, however, are still vivid in Winston's mind, despite the efforts of the Party to erase them. As Mary stated,
So in the end, going back to the 'freedom' example, the word freedom is a symbol of the concept, and therefore communication is possible with just 'made up words'.
Even without the specific word "freedom," Winston would have continued to think of the justice that existed so long ago. The feeling has not died. Thus, I strongly disagree with Eric's speculation:
How can one have any concept of what "freedom" and "liberty" are if those words did not even exist? It is almost impossible to express our feelings and ideas without using the appropriate words and meanings.
In Winston's extensional experiences, he was able to identify the meaning of freedom. The younger generation, however, brainwashed by the dreaded Party, would lack this source of personal knowledge. Their leading political figures would also avoid passing on verbal knowledge of a freedom that once existed. In fact, freedom would only exist for as long as the population acknowledged its existence.
I would appreciate any responses/clarification.
I'm afraid I also am in need of further explanation concerning Grace's last thought.
(Samantha Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Freedom and liberty, to continue with the original examples, are emotions that can be felt. A person knows whether or not he is free, whether or not he is able to express it verbally. People, in general, cannot live with any sense of peace of mind unless they have freedom, so even if the Party were able to succeed in eliminating enough words from the vocabulary to make "crimethink" impossible, there would still be enough people out there that have a sense that they are missing out on something (humans were not made to be mentally locked behind bars-- we were made to discover), no matter how brainwashed the Party thinks that everyone is. From these emotions and feelings, I believe thoughts/words would come, and people would find a way to express themselves using whatever vocabulary they have, or facial expressions/actions. That's just my speculation, and since that has never happened, I can't know for sure that this is the way that things would truly play out. I welcome any more comments on this topic of emotions playing a role in thoughts, with or without having the words to express them.
(Emily Thompson)
Do you feel that Winston's attempt to write his suppressed feelings in a forbidden diary relates to Hayakawa's opinion that language helps society progress? Would this form of verbal knowledge have helped future generations to "learn from the mistakes of their past"?
(Samantha Maliha)
Winston's attempts to write his suppressed feelings in a forbidden diary could relate to Hayakawa's opinion that language helps society progress, but that would only happen if the words (or at least most of the words) that Winston used remained in the vocabulary of the people (in writing, as Eric suggested with Jabberwocky, it is very difficult to get a sense of emotion unless the words written are understood by the reader). If most of the words Winston had used remained in the vocabulary, then the words that he used that did not remain in the vocabulary could be guessed from context and the potential for progress would have existed. Chances are good, though, that, in this case, the Party would not have published the diary, and societal progress could not have been made... but, this whole situation is hypothetical anyway. The idea that Winston's diary would give potential for progress and learning from past mistakes seems to make sense.
(Emily Thompson)
I thought that this was an interesting quote from 1984:
"You were the dead, theirs was the future. But you could share in that future if you kept alive the mind as they [the proles] kept alive the body, and passed on the secret doctrine that two plus two make four."
If the proles managed to obtain Winston's diary one day, perhaps they would be shocked into awareness and realize what was going on. In this case, language certainly would be helping society, as Winston's words could actually push the proles to act. The Party destroyed all tangible records for good reason, and if such a piece of material such as the diary were to make it out to the world, it could stir up some new feelings and ideals in the proles. Eventually, as Emily wrote, those ideas could become words, and then those words could become actions.
(Eric Wei)
Post a Comment