Use Of Language As A Controlling Tool example essay topic

IB Theory of Knowledge TOK Essay: Language as the Ultimate Tool of Control In spoken or written language, words are used to express thoughts. Words provide humans with an effective way of transferring and communicating thoughts. But can thoughts exist without words? If there are no words to convey thoughts, do thoughts really exist? Can language be used to manipulate other disciplines? After a careful analysis it becomes clear that thoughts can not exist without language, making language the ultimate tool for controlling all other disciplines of knowledge.

In order to assess the validity of this premise one must first refer to the definition of language as a means of transferring thoughts; a means of communication by assigning to thoughts specific symbols or names -- words. Furthermore, one must define thought as the power to think and imagine. With these main terms defined, it is possible to understand why language is essential for thought. The power of thought, the power to think and imagine, is present only if there are symbols or words to transfer it. If no language exists to transfer thoughts, then thoughts lose all their value and pass into the realm of non-existence.

For example, one can not effectively describe a picture without using words. If I try to explain the beauty of Raphael's painting "School of Athens", I must somehow use the words color, appearance, and reality in order succeed. Even if I was only thinking about the painting, I would still have to use the words color, appearance, and reality. Yet, there are those who attack this premise and profess that thoughts are independent of language. They argue that while a person may not be able to communicate without using a language, that same person can think without using a language. However, this approach is false because there is no way that a person can know that he is indeed thinking of a picture without using the word picture.

A person can not know that he is thinking of a picture and not a bus or an egg without calling a picture picture, a bus bus, and an egg egg. By using language to assign different words to different objects we draw clear differences between pictures, buses, and eggs -- otherwise, without language, our mind would equate pictures to buses and buses to eggs. Therefore, seeing that thoughts can not exist without language, one must turn to the use of language as a controlling tool. The important thing to realize here is that language is the most universal discipline, being as old as humanity itself. In every human culture men have found some means of communicating thoughts and ideas to each other, thereby making language universal. Of course, there are many who would call this proposition ludicrous.

All one has to do is look around to see how much trouble humans have when it comes to bridging the gap created by different languages. Language is not universal simply because people who speak different languages can not communicate with each other. Yet, this view is incorrect because it fails to acknowledge the essential nature of language, which includes assigning symbols and sounds to specific objects. Just because an apple might be called la man zana, jab uka, or la pomme in different languages does not mean that it is a different object. The fact that an object is assigned a name through a clearly observable process proves the presence of a universal principle in language. Language, therefore, serves as the necessary component of all other disciplines.

By being a necessary component of all other disciplines, language can be used as a tool for controlling all other disciplines. By tightly controlling language, history and the laws of math, science, and logic can be changed. In the same manner, a careful control of language will seriously limit social science and value judgments. Here, dissidents abound. Human rights activists, artists, and social scientists argue that value judgments concerning morals and aesthetics are not controlled by language. They make the argument that people often times know that something is beautiful or that an action is unjust without being able to explain.

Therefore, language can not control abstract concepts such as justice, freedom, and beauty. Still, an explanation of why this view is incorrect requires a two-part answer. First, inabilities to explain the beauty of an object or the morality of an action really do stem from the shortcomings of language. The reason why one can not explain why an object is beautiful is because he either does not understand the process used to arrive at the decision or because the language this person is using prevents him from reaching a certain level of understanding. Therefore, even in cases of moral and aesthetic judgments, language controls the thought process.

If painting and beautiful are the only words an individual knows, then that is all he will be able to say. He will never be able to discuss the artist's use of perspective, hue, contrast, or shadow because he does not know these terms. All that he will be able to do is classify the object as beautiful or not. Second, in his novel 1984, George Orwell introduced a perfect method of destroying abstract ideas by using language.

In 1984, the Party seeks to replace the modern English language with Newspeak, a form of communication designed by the Party that only has certain prescribed meanings attributed to words - meanings that fit the Party's purposes and ideology. For example, there is no word for freedom or justice in Newspeak - only the word thought crime, defined simply as "all things not good for the Party". Without the words to create and describe it, the concept of freedom as the ability to act according to one's desires never reaches the minds of Oceania's citizens. The citizens simply accept their totalitarian government as universal because they have no idea that there is any other type of government. In this manner, the concept of freedom is eradicated from Oceania; even if a book containing the idea of freedom was somehow smuggled into Oceania, it would be useless because no one would be able to read the book.

No one would know how to read Modern English if they have been raised on Newspeak. Consequently, it does not matter if the citizens of Oceania encountered the concept of freedom by reading a book or by experiencing a moment without Big Brother's vigil; they would find no words to describe the encounter and communicate it to others. Therefore, it becomes obvious that a direct control of language translates into a direct control of social science and value judgments. Then, there are those who argue that language can never change certain immutable laws of nature or events that took place in the past. Therefore, control of language will never allow someone to change history or alter the laws of math, logic, and science. Yet, this view is also incorrect because language can indeed control all four of these disciplines.

Language can change history by means of connotation. For example, hatred for Germans can be aroused by simply making the word German connote fascism. In this manner, the word German would come to be synonymous with the word fascist (this has actually happened in some Communist countries after W.W. II), which would in turn imply that everyone born in Germany is a fascist. Or, even worse, one could redefine the word fascism to simply mean "a last ditch defense of capitalism through a political transfer of power to a professional bureaucracy in a just manner". This would put a whole new spin on the Second World War, making the fascists appear to be the defenders of the Western World and the values it holds dear. Yet, by far the greatest power of language is its ability to change the seemingly immutable.

Disciplines of mathematics and logic rest on the fact that 1 = 1 and p q. The thing to notice here is that = means "exactly the same as" while means "is a direct cause of". If one changes the meanings of these symbols so that = means "somewhat similar to" and means "could be a cause of", then the entire disciplines of mathematics, logic, and natural science are redefined. Under these new definitions both. 1 and 10 are equal to 1 and the immutability of these three disciplines is lost. So when all things are considered, the initial premise that no language amounts to no thought was upheld.

Furthermore, it has thus been proven that language is the ultimate tool of controlling other disciplines. Therefore, the most important thing to realize is that knowledge transmitted by language is fluid. Whether someone learns by experiencing the world or studying from a book does not represent the final set of limitations. Language places the final set of limits with its ability to mold human beings into mindless proles, eradicate cera tin concepts, alter history, and even change the seemingly immutable laws of nature.