Customer Reviews

Abuse of Language Abuse of Power

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In this slender, but powerful work, the great (and often overlooked) Thomistic scholar Josef Pieper sends out a call to arms against "every partisan simplification, every ideological agitation, every blind emotionality . . . [and] well-turned yet empty slogans . . ." He pulls no punches in taking on those modern (and ancient) sophists who rape and pillage language in order to obtain political power and cultural currency. He also takes on modern advertising, noting that we live in an age and culture where "what is decisive is not what you say, but how you say it." In an era of politically-correct pap, vapid mantras and bumper-sticker philosophy, this book sends a clear, clean note of truth into the murky darkness of a deafened and confused populace.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)once wrote, "It is better to live uncomfortably with the truth than contentedly with lies." Joseph Pieper would agree except, Joseph Pieper would argue that living with truth and honesty can make men live comfortably. Jospeh Pieper's small book titled ABUSE OF LANGUAGE:ABUSE OF POWER is a serious book which makes this very clear to readers.

Pieper begins this book with a serious treatment of Plato's (427-347 BC)serious dispute with the Ancient Athenian sophists who taught men to use clever words and communication to deceive men with total disregard for truth. Plato argued that the sophists were very dangerous men because of their intellectual prowess and supposed sophistication. The unleaned could be easily misled and become dangerous because of the respect given to the sophists which they did not deserve. Readers may ask what is the relevance of the dispute between Plato and the sophists to modern Western "Civilization." One answer may be studied in the Bolshevik (Communist)Revolution in Russia in 1917. Those who engineered this revolution were members of a declasse intelligensia who knew the use and abuse of language.

Pieper then makes a solid point that any communication (language) between an honest man and a liar is useless since the liar has nothing to offer leading to knowledge. Pieper states in effect that the honest man may just as well be talling to thin air, or hot air. The liar is trying to manipulate and gain power over the honest man which is destructive to the honest man if he unaware.

Pieper has an interesting explanation of the destruciveness of flattery. The flatterer is trying to intellectually disarm those whom he flatters to gain advantage. A knowledgeable man who is honest is immune to such flattery. However, flattery can be used to undermine the victim to the advantage dishonest person. A good example is in the Book of Genesis whereby the snake successfully flatters Eve to her destruction as well that of Adam.

Pieper uses Plato's DIALOGUES using Socrates' statements regarding an honest search for truth which could lead to bona fide knowledge, better thinking, wisdom, and ultimately Divine Wisdom which Plato thought should be the ultimate goal of civlized men. The religous implications of the concept of Divine wisdom are obvous. Sophistry (the sophists)has no regard for knowledge or Divine Wisdom and is only concerned with material advantage and corruption of language. This in turn means corrpution of thought and has nothing to with actual learning.

Pieper is not complaining about ignorance. This reviewer defines ignorance as not knowing. An honest ignorant man can learn from an honest learned man which benefits the former. A good example is the communication between student and teacher. Plato's DIALOGUES uses such example to let readers know that those who are not learned can indeed learn.

Pieper shows scorn for advertising and media. He comments that advertising appeals to the lowest human instincts in an attempt to promote materialism to the point of lack of respect of others and lack of self respect. Pieper argues that advertising and media appeal to sexual exploitation, disregard for any civilized values, uncontrolled violence, etc. The point has been reached in Western "Civilization" that the masses are taught to take sadistic pleasure at the tragic misfortunes of others.

With the emergence of mass media and advertising, tyrants and despots have enhanced their power. Tyrants are alert to the effectiveness of propaganda and advert6ising in deceiving the masses. Threats of physical violence are blurred by the abuse of language. Such words as purges, liquidation, etc. are substituted for actual concentration camp brutality and mass murder. The masses are complicit in such evil by their indifference and "a ruthless desire to conform." Tyrants and despots must have enemies, real or imagined, to promote a materialistic utopia which ignores wisdom and "ultimate values."

The second part of the book uses Aristotle's (384-322 BC) and St. Thomas Aquinas'(1225-1274 AD)thinking to futher illustrate authenic learning and honest reason to help men learn wisdom and ultimately "Divine Wisdom." Both men argued that through logic, learning, etc. men could approach God, The Prime Motor, The Unmoved Mover, etc. by serious study and honest truth. What Pieper implies that these men and many in the historical Catholic Church did was to enshrine reason next to Devine Revelation and to learn more of Divine Revelation. Reason and honesty were to be communicated to enhance learning and religious understanding as well as relgious convictions. HOnest communication meant so much to these men.

Another example from Ancient History can be gleaned from Thucydides'(c.460 BC-c.400 BC)book THE PELOPONESIAN WAR. Beginning on page 242 (Penguin Edition)Thucydides showed serious concern of how war and revolution corrupted language, honest character,etc. and enhanced corrupt political power. George Orwell's 1984 has disturbing comments on the abuse of language especially beginning on page 17.

Pieper's book should require careful reading even for its small size. Pieper's book is clear that those who are concerned with honest communication, truth, honest discourse, etc. are free from petty materialism and apprehensive concern for conformity. On page 54, Pieper cites a quote from Boethius (c. 480-520 AD)who wrote, "The human soul, in essence, enjoys its highest freedom when it remains in the comtemplation of God's mind." Boethius wrote this in his jail cell on the eve of his execution.

We drive down the freeway of life and are bombarded with little slogans and attempts to convince and smartly convert us to a way of thinking with marketing bill boards, or through the mail, on TV, in the paper - subtle attempts to steal our minds by over-loading them with a coorporate marketing agenda and sloganism. A bit abusive language on my part.

The question is worth pondering, and the questions raised in this book are of the sort that any educated man should ponder, even if there is no solution, it makes great "smartening-up" not "dumbing down" (sloganism) of the curriculum. Peiper persuasively argues that communication is not happening as much as might be thought, because communication must be void of ulterior motives. And his arguement that we must be able to express our view of the "truth of things" in freedom; why many do not is due to what he calls "the lingo of the revolution".

Pieper offers a brilliant summary of the importance of language, and cultivating the understanding that at its core language is meant to convey truth. He reaches back to the time of Plato and Socrates and their struggles with the Sophists, analyzing the role of language in honest and meaningful communication aimed at uncovering the truth, to show the relevance of their struggle even in this day and age.

Pieper argues that the abuse of language invariably leads to abuse of power, and unless language is used for communication in search of truth, it breaks down as a legitimate means of communication and devolves into a means of control. A concept that Orwell also illuminated in many of his works, most famously in his essay "Politics and the English Language" (see also his concept of newspeak).

I very highly recommend Pieper's concise and well written treatise as a first step in reclaiming language from the demagogues and present day sophists, if for no other reason than to make the first necessary steps in restoring language to once more become the trusted means of communication it was intended to be.

This book is well your time. It is insightful and profound. You will find yourself re-evaluating your approach to language. I forces your to think on a different plane. I Highly recommend it.

Josef Pieper is one of my favorite contemporary philosophers. He gives you all the commonsense, all the grandeur, all the Truth that has passed down through history, all the way back to Aquinas, to Augustine, to Paul, to Christ. What more dare we ask for?

What are these other reviewers talking about--giving the book five stars as they do!!! I found it useless! I wanted to research how the abuse of language is happening today. Instead, this book is not a book, it is a philosophy paper, which never should have been made into book form, and it is poorly written at that! I will not trust Ignatius Press as publishers anymore; I'll never pick out of their catalogue again. But also it seems even had I checked these Amazon reviews I also would have been deceived as to the nature and utility of the work. What to do? I knew that I was in trouble when I first received the book and I opened to the table of contents . . . and there were only two entries! Okay, so technically the "book" has been formed by juxtaposing TWO philosophy papers; I stand corrected! Also, the publisher started the numbering of the text on page 7. (It goes through page 54.) This is not standard publisher numbering, they are supposed to use roman numerals for the front matter and start the real text on page 1 of the arabic numbers. It looks like the publisher was striving to give a too short manuscript a greater length than it deserves. (Same with margins and too many blank front and end-leaf pages.) But here are my real criticisms:

1). Pieper uses no actual examples for the Greek material. He REFERS the reader to examples, ones known by his coleagues who have memorized Plato, even names them, but doesn't present them to the reader by a quote or summary paragraph and has no footnote references to make it easier. If you as a reader cannot off the top of your head name five of the Socrates' conversational debate partners, you will need quotes from the texts and they aren't provided. He should have clearly nailed down in two pages exactly who were the Sophists and what they did / said / stood for in ancient Greek society.
2). Likewise, for modern examples, the author gives none. He speaks in general, making his points, delivering what would otherwise be profound insights, except he comes off sounding like Rush Limbaugh on steroids--all opinion, no proof. He uses fighting words with his opponents, the opinions he is condemning, strong words like rape, corruption, poison, degradation, trickery, deception, etc. but doesn't actually prove anything to the reader. He only taps into existing strong emotions. There appears to be intellectual thought going on, but really it is not since nothing is intellectually transferred to the reader. No arguments are made, assertions are simply given.
3). Too much name dropping of other authors, also without adequate reference.
4). Too much use of foreign language phrases, even though translation was given and even though I didn't need the translation to be provided because I could read it as a result of my own studies.
5). The transition between the two chapters was abrupt. Didn't work well. Totally different topics.
6). The ending of the book (the second chapter) was equally abrupt. It was as if the author just decided to stop talking.

The only people who will like this book are the ones who already know what the author is talking about and are seeking to reaffirm their own strongly held beliefs and emotions without having or needing demonstration. So, what's the point of reading it if that is the case? This book may help you fill out an understanding of the problem, but only if you can supplement it on your own with, oh, another three or four chapters of real information and argument.