Orwell's Warning: Doublethink

The Rational Argumentator ^ | April 11, 2003 | G. Stolyarov II

[G. Stolyarov II]

G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent philosophical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician and composer, contributor to Enter Stage Right, writer for Objective Medicine, and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator. He can be contacted at gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.

[Support Free Republic]

---

PRETTY IN PINK
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[RLK]

I am convinced the key to imposing doublething is control over the structure of language --overuse of the metaphor, evasive (bland) abstraction, deletion of confrontive concepts and vocabulary, and so forth.

[G. Stolyarov II]

Your insight here is indeed correct. As a matter of fact, a later section of my commentary (not yet posted) is devoted to the oligarchy's imposition of Newspeak, the precise deletion of vocabulary, shades of meaning, and any terminology that may spark dissent that you mention. This trend, to a milder degree, is quite visible in today's "politically correct" lingo, which shuns argumentation in favor of blandness, monotony, and agreeability.

[JohnGalt]

The Party said that [the United States] had never been in alliance with [Saddam Hussein]. He, Winston Smith, knew that [the United States] had been in alliance with [Saddam] as short a time as [15] years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -- if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control,' they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink.'

[Trailerpark Badass]

1984 was a novel, and a rather mediocre one at that. Presenting it as a study of rhetoric is emabarassing.

For you.

[UnBlinkingEye]

Orwell warned, the people didn't listen.

[RLK]

This trend, to a milder degree, is quite visible in today's "politically correct" lingo, which shuns argumentation in favor of blandness, monotony, and agreeability.

----------

Freedom of choice = abortion.

[JohnGalt]

Orwell was a socialist who picked up a gun for Stalin, even if he felt bad about it after. He wrote some great stuff though...

[Trailerpark Badass]

You misspelled dumb in your screen name.

Follow any internet chalatan you want, but this is trash. And I read it twice.

[Lurker]

Check this out.

L

[Lurker]

Presenting it as an example of rhetoric may not be the best thing to do, but I don't think that's what's being done here.

It's an attempt at an in depth analysis of the novel, and when viewed in that light, it's not bad.

At least IMO.

Regards,

L

[Trailerpark Badass]

Perhaps your right, and I mischaracterized the poster's intent. I just never assumed that something I read in 8th grade would lend itself to "in-depth analysis."

[Trailerpark Badass]

Not only that,but the notion that mid-century totalitarian governments used sophisticated rhetorical tropes to subjugate the populace is absurd. Brute force, unrelenting, combined with enforced starvation of an illiterate population is what was perpetrated.

Orwell is, at best, an amusing distraction.

[Republicanus_Tyrannus]

My recommendation? Re-read it - and compare it while you're reading it to current university "speech codes".

Orwell wrote better than you probably remember. I am sure you will enjoy it on another read-through.

[Lurker]

I read Orwell in the 8th grade also. But the one that really got to me was "Anthem" by Rand. Pardon the analogy, but while Orwell could be considered a nice wine, Rand was a shot of 100 proof single malt for a 12 year old.

I kind of enjoyed this guys analysis. Orwell wrote a truly masterful book IMO. It hasn't aged all that well, I'll agree. But, he did accurately lay out the 'logic' necessary to run a truly monstrous totalitarian state. Judging from recent events, one could call Orwell a truly prescient individual.

Lucky for us that the tyrants he envisioned have, at least recently, been consigned to the relative backwaters of the planet. In that regard, we have been very lucky. If it weren't for the US, the entire world would be living under various guises of Saddam, Il Jong, Pol Pot, et al.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading this well researched bit of work on a book which I too read in High School.

The fact that it isn't still required reading in most High Schools is more than just a little disturbing to me.

Regards,

L

[VxH]

You can see this in action on http://la.indymedia.org

The party has landed.

[elbucko]

Brute force, unrelenting, combined with enforced starvation of an illiterate population is what was perpetrated.

Exactly!

The intellectual class is convinced that wordsmiths can only create the ultimate totalitarian society. The wordsmith's are, in fact, the useful idiots of the viscous, illiterate thugs that always run the show.