[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only

Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble


File: 1626731982768.png ( 134.3 KB , 450x308 , hideradlib.png )

 No.388443

The hypothesis of linguistic relativity, also known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, the Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, is a principle suggesting that the structure of a language affects its speakers' worldview or cognition, and thus people's perceptions are relative to their spoken language.

Is radlib word policing based on the SWH and how scientific is it? is it idealist?
>>

 No.388578

>>388443
This idea is nothing new, it goes back to at least Herder but probably further back.
Radlib's word policing is the opposite of this idea, it's like America's world policing.
However the idea taken in isolation still has a tendency towards idealism and nationalism.
>>

 No.388595

>>388578
isn't it idealist because language is superstructural? and therefore it would be superstructure influencing itself rather than base influencing superstructure?
>>

 No.390119

In my view, this theory serves as an adequate explanation, for why Burger and Angloposters are so stupid. English is a brainlet language.
>>

 No.390138

>>388595
>language is superstructural?
Language isn't something the base/superstructure dichotomy deals with. Your question makes as much sense as "where does the lung belong? base or superstructure?" or "what''s the chemical element of class consciousness?"

in short, you are an idiot
>>

 No.390146

>>388578
This. Word policing is just a brainlet take on the lingustic turn.
>>

 No.390167

Languages have different requirements in certain distinctions you have to make when crapping out sentences and in that way nudge you more or less to think in this or that direction. For example in French and German you have different ways of saying you, so you don't glide as smoothly into being more personal with somebody as you can in English, you instead have to explicitly make a switch. Nobody believes in a strong version of Sapir–Whorf. If it were a really strong thing, anybody speaking more than one language would be basically a different person in each, falling in love with one person while thinking in one language and loathing them while thinking in another and so on.

The arrogance of Brits and Burgers comes from history and education/media, not the grammatical structure of the language.
>>

 No.390172

File: 1626794061929.pdf ( 22.66 MB , 194x300 , Marxism and the Philosophy….pdf )

>>388595
>>390138
You should read this. Despite being written in the late 1920s, I think this has continued relevance when it comes to philosophy of language. It also deals with the whole superstructure and base stuff, if you're into that kind of thing.
>>

 No.390177

>controlling people's thoughts by language policing
unironically that's literally 1984 (or at least a component of the setting)
>>

 No.392899

>>388443
Radlibbery is just a subset of Angloism.
>>

 No.392908

>>390177
you must be underage or something, lmao.
>>

 No.392947

>>392908
dont blame him, orwell is required reading in alot of high school

Unique IPs: 10

[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / lgbt / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome