Dumbing down.
- This topic has 125 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Someone on TV thought Charles Darwin was 17th century and Isaac Newton 1950s.
Already, the classical English novel has become a foreign language to many and Shakespeare has been “translated” (with calls for certain plays to be banned).
This will escalate until all books disappear anyway. But you’ll be plugged into your “devices”, which should make you happy. You won’t have heard of Dickens (a Japanese girl asked me “who’s that?”) or of Laurel and Hardy (two English girls told me they’d never heard of them), but you’ll be a speedy texter, clueless on how to hold a pen.
Language is constantly evolving. I really liked PJS’s Pathfinders article on that subject in this month’s SS.
Not even an arch conservative language professor would use the word “ye” in earnest nowadays when speaking standard English, or “thee” or “thou”. “You” is now used as subject, object, singular and plural. Good! I don’t see a problem if the word “you” does become “u” over time. Easier to write (especially if you’re not too good with a pen).
Some say that emoticons are a sign of dumbing down – they are not replacing the alphabet, they are a rich addition to it and express more in a concise way. Not that you have to like them.
Can’t hold a pen? How many people can cut and sharpen a quill, or mix their own ink, or, for that matter, fill a fountain pen? We simply don’t need to now. It doesn’t make us dumber, any more than not knowing where Katmandu is.
They won’t be able to formulate the idea “language always changes” because they won’t have any historical knowledge.
Another thing about the ignorant is that they are proud of it.
Thomas_More
MARCH 5, 2021 AT 1:51 PM
What about the connection with history and the increasing inability to understand classic literature? The Japanese have been mulling the idea of abolishing kanji, even though that will mean later generations will be unable to read a literature spanning centuries. Shakespeare is being rewritten, which robs us of the poetry of his English. Historical continuity will be lost in grammar and grammatical studies. The beauty of the classics will be unknown and so will the mental discipline of reflective thought, self-analytical thought, materialist as well as its opposite idealist thought. We will have no connection with our past nor with past thinkers, writers, philosophers and commentators on the life of the past. Is that what we want? No evolution, no becoming, no knowledge of the past, no communion with those we came from?You say we don’t need to know how to hold pens any more.
So you see no place for calligraphy, the love of writing and drawing?
You’ll just say we can all do it on computer screens and those who want different can be laughed at and must lump it?
The same with those who love printed books? “Hard cheese!” you exult.
Have you not thought that today’s obsession with speed is part and parcel of crazy rush capitalism? That in socialism we would have more leisure and might want to draw, write, study old crafts, preserve old beautiful buildings and art works or emulate them, read books? Learn old languages in order to translate or just for enjoyment, with no need to rush about like Pooh’s bizzy backsons?
Or is socialism for you to be Year Zero?Where is William Morris’ dream?
This is becoming embarrassing. I don’t think you are old enough to qualify as a grumpy old man. But (or should that be “however”?) you might get a letter in the Daily Telegraph as Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
Where is William Morris’ dream of the beautiful, of beautiful things and crafts, in your mind? Does it have a place?
“This is becoming embarrassing. I don’t think you are old enough to qualify as a grumpy old man. But (or should that be “however”?) you might get a letter in the Daily Telegraph as Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.”
How does this mockery answer any of the points I have made?
You don’t have an answer, do you? Just mockery.Carl Sagan in “Cosmos” praised the fact that in a simple Penguin Book taken from the shelf and opened, one can be inside the mind of an ancient Roman, or any writer from hundreds of years ago.
This has no value for you?I am well aware that the subject case is no longer used. I was trying to illustrate the importance of connection with our grammatical history.
Again with the mockery, avoiding answering the points made.
People are unable to read English classics, let alone read ancient works on papyri.
Good luck explaining historical materialism to those with no history.
Carl Sagan in “Cosmos” praised the fact that in a simple Penguin Book taken from the shelf and opened, one can be inside the mind of an ancient Roman, or any writer from hundreds of years ago.
This has no value for you?You can also find more, much more, from a Google search. This was not available to me. You have to already know where to look and what to look for .
It took a number of years before I could find an explanation for ‘abolishing the wages system‘ which I heard about at work but was mystified by.
A google search would have comeup with this
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.