Manipulation of Truth

The manipulation of truth is a philosophical matter, which can be dealt with using various intensities. During our class activity we observed that there are actually very few truths that can on the whole be seen as ‘objective truths’. Others have in some way, influenced everything we have learnt over time, including all the knowledge we’ve gained. Simple ideas such as ‘we need oxygen to survive’ or ‘I have lungs’ can be questioned to such an extent that it starts leaning more toward a subjective piece of knowledge. If such thoughts, which have been engrained in our minds, can be thought of as subjective truths, then what exactly IS an objective truth?

After listening to the various presentations and the arguments presented against each case, it seems as through ‘truths’ with the least amount of information are the most likely to be considered objective. For example, the most objective truth was that ‘An object (solid) at a given moment in time can be measured’. There are a lot of restrictions on this truth, therefore making most arguments unfeasible. Many arguments would be about the value of measurement, and that the shape of the object could change over time; however, with the restrictions these arguments no longer worked. Is it possible that a truth can only be objective if it is dissected to the very detail in order to avoid uncertainty? If this is true, then how can knowledge, which is a compiled number of ‘truths’, be considered reliable?

Due to the fact that most of what we know is subjective, and a projection of our own mind, perhaps an approach in that of 1984 is necessary. The numbers were told what was true and what was not, despite what their own knowledge was telling them. From a logical point of view, this seems the only solution to eliminating any error that might come into play, for it is only truths with numerous restrictions that are can be accepted. If forced to ignore what your own mind is telling you, knowledge is ridden of the ‘subjective’ error, due to the fact that objective truths are imposed upon the minds of humans. This illustrates the concept of ‘doublethink’, which I thought to be a very interesting concept in 1984. It requires very strong discipline of ones mind, but allows a society to be more unified in their thoughts.

The human mind is such an unreliable place of thought, especially because we ourselves don’t know very much about it or how it works. Subjective truths are impacted by each individual mind, for each person can see something differently or have a different experience when encountered with the same thing. Humans have very different ways of thinking, and who are we to say what is right and what is wrong? Maybe the idea of telling people what is right and forcing them to believe it is the only way to gain true reliable knowledge for a society, a seemingly efficient method in 1984.

Reaction to Class Exercise

During the class activity we analyzed several old pieces of writing according to the rules that Orwell presents in Politics and the English Language. Upon observation, it seems as though many errors that Orwell talks about are present in many of these writings, showing just how political the English language is. The most prevalent errors were the use of common metaphors, and the use of words that humans don’t necessarily know the meaning of. These two errors seem to be used especially when wanting to sound more formal and profound. The use of common metaphors, normally talking about life, death, and the meaning of mankind, are normally used for motivational speakers. Many motivational speeches, for example a speech made by a president to his country, use many clichés to get their point across. Even though these clichés are easily detectable, they still seem to move the audience to a certain extent. Perhaps it is the presentation and not the actual language that makes a speaker who they are. The use of words that humans don’t necessarily know the meaning of, such as liberty, democracy, and such others are used for a completely political purpose. Humans don’t really know the meaning of freedom, or liberty, perhaps because we have never truly experienced it. We have been taught that ideals of freedom are good, and it is what we should want, therefore it is used a lot in language to convey a positive message. Words are thrown around a lot, without considering the actual meaning. When a president promises freedom for all, what exactly does that entail? The problem is that society does not know, and therefore are swayed by mere language and presentation. Is it possible that some of history’s most powerful speakers, such as Martin Luther King Junior, are just following the stereotype of ‘good writing’ in order to make an impression? 

Reaction to 'Politics and the English Language' by George Orwell

Politics and the English Language, by George Orwell, provides a very peculiar outlook on the English language. Although his observations are very insightful, and supported with evidence by numerous writers, I find his idea that simpler language is better. For years we have learned that sounding pristine and astute is what made good writing. The reason why thesauruses are our best friends, and why we have the constant need to lengthen our sentences is because of the structure people expect of our writing. There have been so many times when people editing my essay will apply the exact tactics Orwell said NOT to use in order to make my essay better sounding. Young writers nowadays feel it to be necessary to use these tactics to strengthen papers, for it seems as though political language is what is accepted most in modern society.

Many writers, including myself, do not rely on simple words to construct our thoughts, for that tactic seems very elementary. I like Orwell’s theory that many people use Latin based words due to the fact that they sound smarter and more scientific. Many times, especially in scientific labs, I will use larger words and elaborate more on theories, just to give the idea that I know what I’m talking about. Kids today have managed to develop an excellent skill of writing without a clue of the actual content- a very useful skill. Perhaps the addition of larger words and lengthy sentences allow students to make their work sound more believable, and achieve the designated word count. In addition, it may also be used in order to remove an emotion from the paper, making the piece less bias and more scientific (based on facts).

What I found odd about this article was that it was written by the same author as 1984. In 1984, Orwell describes a new type of language called Newspeak, in which the English language is made simpler, as described in his article. However, 1984 seems to be a criticism of totalitarian rule, and machine like humans. He especially seems to be casting a bad light on the reduction of our nouns and verbs, for it destroys the beauty of our language. Orwell’s article seems to portray that even the lengthening and use of large worlds can lead to the dehumanization of the human language. So, in order to maintain that level of English we once had, we must resort back to a poetic style of writing, using imagination instead of vocabulary. In a sense, I do prefer this type of writing; however, only for personal narratives and stories. For essays and other formal pieces of writing, the political style of English is still engrained in my mind while writing. 

Reaction to 'The Psychology of the Novel'

The Psychology of the Novel provides an interesting analysis on the relationship between a reader and the novel they are reading. It describes this relationship, almost as two humans interacting. The way the reader reacts to the novel, deciding whether or not she feels happy with the narrator is quite similar to human relationships. The author describes how the narrator can impact the way one reacts to a novel. For example, when reading Eat, Pray, Love, I felt a very strong connection with the narrator, the author, because of her personality being displayed in her work. Her writing was funny, witty, and was easy for me to relate to. Contrarily, when reading The White Tiger, the narrator was not exactly the most pleasant characters- being a driver in India committing many disturbing acts. Although I could not relate to this narrator, it was still interesting to read from the point of view of someone that was particularly disturbing to me. Contradictive characters have always appealed to me, for they bring more character to the novel I am reading.

Another aspect of the psychology of the relationship between a reader and the novel is what happens when the reader does not particularly enjoy the novel. I am the type of reader that gets bored with books very easily, and once I put a book aside, it takes a lot for me to return to reading it. I have lost out on reading many great books, due to the fact that I cannot commit. In the rare occasions that I do decide to force myself to read the book, I end up liking it, perhaps just in the act of accomplishing the task of reading the book. I have never disliked a book after reading it, but only when leaving it halfway. In addition, when dealing with my own reading habit, I find that I am extremely susceptible. As long as something is in print, and I am reading, I very rarely doubt the accuracy of it. I have never had a problem with reading a book that is not very believable, for I take the authors writing as the final world. Essentially, my relationships with novels include a lack of commitment and easy susceptibility- not very promising bases for a relationship.

I found the deliberations on lying and gossip very interesting, especially when discussed from a literal point of view. The human mind is not a very stable basis for anything, for it is easily manipulated and not very reliable. But it is our own mind, and sanity, that keeps humanity going (an idea presented in 1984). If we accept novels to be false, how are we so susceptible to believing lies and gossip? Authors themselves are the most skilled liars, for they knew the logical trend of the ‘game’. They know exactly what it takes to make a story seem real and believable. However, their main intent is not to simply tell lies, but to deliver a message. Perhaps this is the reason why humans know novels to be false, for there is always a distinct intent of the author to be writing whatever he/she is writing.

Finally, I found the discussion of inspiration versus intuition very interesting. Some people say you are born a writer, others say you can learn to become one. I always thought that the true skill of writing is something you are engrained with, for it is a very unique and difficult way of expression. Only authors can understand each other’s language, and the readers are simply there to try and figure it out. I don’t know whether it takes a good reader to be a good author, or vice versa, but it seems as if the two skills come hand in hand. Writing is truly an art that one must master the ability to appreciate in their own individual manner.