The first thing that was raised in this seminar was the privatization of language, so it should be made clear that there is no such thing as a private language, human language is a social fact and is possibly the strongest characterization of human beings as social beings. Ludwig Wittgenstein, an Austrian philosopher, mathematician, linguist, and logician, refuted this argument of the private language. Wittgenstein uses the word "pain" as an example to explain his theory of social language. Therefore, he affirms that when I say that I feel pain, I am referring to my personal pain, but it cannot be related only to my feeling of pain, because to do so would place us in a scenario of total isolation of some people from others. There is a collective consensus on what pain' means so I can say that I feel pain and others understand me, even if they are not feeling it. In that sense, he says that there is no private language.
Consensus on the meaning of words is one of the most basic consensuses that exist in any society, so much so that we are not even aware of it. One of the most revealing books ever written by a philologist is the language of the Third Reich, by Victor Klemperer. In this book, the author carries out a philological analysis to demonstrate how the Nazis were modifying the meanings of different morphemes shared by society until they were able to re-invent a language that in fact recreates reality in the way that was convenient for Nazism. Once they redefined the meanings of the concepts for the society, it was not difficult for them to convince the Germans of their political ideas, because meanings are the key to our ideas. The truth goes even further.
According to the Oxford dictionary
A well-established idea in politics - and in the design of political communication - is that facts are not relevant, what really matters is that language can be used to convince the masses of any particular issue as long as one has sufficient strength in the media to impose one's story. This leaves us totally helpless, and ultimately means that whoever has sufficient power (media, political, economic) not only exercises power, but has the ability to define reality and alter it in its favour. This is totalitarianism. As the classic saying in journalism goes: opinions are free, facts are sacred. Only this unconditional attachment to the facts of real journalism can save us from post-truth, and unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of journalism now interested in contributing to creating this or that story, rather than committing to reality, truth and objective facts.
Now I would like to make it clear that it is not only the evil of journalism that is distorting so many concepts and playing into the hands of post-truth, but also that there are three other particularities, in my opinion, that aggravate the situation we live in with regard to the truth.
The postmodern, fully established belief that there is no such thing as truth, that there are only points of view. What really defines our era, although Orwell denounced it in the 1930s, is not so much the lie as the abandonment of the idea that truth can exist. It must be borne in mind that he says this in times of war, when it is assumed that propaganda is multiplying. It's like we're living in perpetual propaganda.
The financial crisis has left the elites with an appalling distrust. It's hard to believe someone who has the slightest institutional halo (be it an expert, a public official, a media outlet). In the face of this, we choose to believe those who ratify our previous ideas (which is aggravated by the confirmation bias).
Social networks, the web, big data, multiply the strength of lies. Hoaxes have always existed and we know their strength. But scientific research has shown that networks spread lies faster than the truth. And they also reach more people. I mean, faster and further away. This calls for our own responsibility as network users, as builders of a much-needed'civilisation' in this field in whose transition we find ourselves. It will only be possible if we do not lose sight of the Enlightenment and values such as being able to discuss with those who do not have the same opinions around minimum consensus and shared concepts.
Much could now be said about real solutions to the problems of post-truth and political manipulation through language as a factor of change. However, if these solutions are not implemented with immediate effect, civilization may be so affected to the point of involution. The beings belonging to the post-truth society do not understand the importance of the concepts of truth and all the moral duty it implies.
Orwell on Truth - George Orwell
LTI. The language of the third Reich - Victor Klemperer
