What do you think?
Rate this book
Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power
One of the great Catholic philosophers of our day reflects on the way language has been abused so that, instead of being a means of communicating the truth and entering more deeply into it, and of the acquisition of wisdom, it is being used to control people and manipulate them to achieve practical ends. Reality becomes intelligible through words. Man speaks so that through naming things, what is real may become intelligible. This mediating character of language, however, is being increasingly corrupted. Tyranny, propaganda, mass-media destroy and distort words. They offer us apparent realities whose fictive character threatens to become opaque. Josef Pieper shows with energetic zeal, but also with ascetical restraint, the path out of this dangerous situation. We are constrained to see things again as they are and from the truth thus grasped, to live and to work.
54 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1992
18 people are currently reading
985 people want to read
About the author
Josef Pieper
166 books297 followersJosef Pieper was a German Catholic philosopher and an important figure in the resurgence of interest in the thought of Thomas Aquinas in early-to-mid 20th-century philosophy. Among his most notable works are The Four Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance; Leisure, the Basis of Culture; and Guide to Thomas Aquinas (published in England as Introduction to Thomas Aquinas).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
January 12, 2021
Living in Glass Houses
Christianity backed the wrong horse. Not Jesus who was admirable in many ways, divine or not. But language, that most unreliable of creations, which morphs and wiggles incessantly and always ends up controlling those who think they are using it. And the Christian sect most controlled by the independent beast of language is the Catholic Church, which doesn’t appear to realize that when it speaks, when it literally pontificates, it is doing so from the belly of the beast of which it thinks itself master.
Joseph Pieper was a leading German Catholic philosopher who wrote a number of interesting books on the philosophy and theology of culture. But in his Abuse of Language - Abuse of Power he has ventured out onto some very thin ice. His thesis is that language, that essential carrier of culture, has been corrupted and controlled, primarily by political interests which want to manipulate not merely public opinion but the very minds of the general populace.
Whether or not one agrees with Pieper’s thesis, however, it is clear that historically the dominant controller of language and mass linguistic manipulator has been the Catholic Church itself. The Church firmly hitched its wagon to the star of language as soon as it started making infallible pronouncements in the early Middle Ages. It’s been squirming ever since to get out of its historical positions on things as varied as slavery, usury, military service, democracy, Jews, and whether or not it’s only Catholics who can be saved. Language is its permanent vulnerability but it can’t back down from its obsession with it.
Unaccountably, this seems not to have occurred to Pieper. Nor does he seem to understand the essential connection between the control of language and what Christians refer to as faith. So his apologetics implicitly condemn precisely that which he means to defend, the authority of an institution which is the eminent example of the abuser he is attacking. The problem is in fact more fundamental than just saying regrettably stupid things. It lies at the core of Christian doctrine itself; so the Church, and in fact all Christian churches, are stuck with the consequences.
Christian faith is a somewhat slippery thing. It is a concept invented in its entirety by that genius of religious innovation, Paul of Tarsus. According to the theology of Paul, that set of ideas which forms the core of Christian thought, the desired state of human existence, that is to say, salvation, requires this essential quality: faith. It is generally accepted by Christian theologians ever since that this quality can not be acquired by trying to get it. It comes as a gift not as a reward for doing good or thinking good thoughts.
According to Paul, the object of this faith is Jesus as the risen Christ whom he expected to appear imminently to take ownership of the universe, which he will then return to his Father from whence it came. Paul got his timing for this event rather wrong. But Christians have stuck with Paul’s idea of the importance of faith out of... well I suppose out of the importance of faith. The self-referentiality doesn’t appear to bother them much. Nor, I suppose, should it since we have to build our lives as some presuppositions as we go along.
But what is this presupposition of faith? Paul says it is Jesus, a person whom he never met but about whom he has heard stories from others. Clearly, however, the historical existence of Jesus is itself a not very substantive matter. That existence is the tip of an iceberg which Paul and others would like all of us to accept as factual characteristics of that existence, things like Jesus’s motivation, his special status, the consequences of his short but dramatic life in cosmological terms, and his intentions for those who remembered him after his death.
Thus Pauline faith demands some considerable elucidation. It requires language in the form of foundational scriptures (mainly Paul’s letters to his dispersed Asian congregations), references (particularly to the existing Hebrew Scriptures which Paul used to ‘prove’ his assertions about Jesus), and gradually various creeds which summarized the ‘content’ of this thing called faith. As a practical matter, without this linguistic content, faith would be vacuous.
Hence the Christian problem of faith which arose immediately as the story of Jesus spread through the Roman Empire. Or more properly ‘stories’ since language implies interpretation which implies variation which creates disunity. So the early Church began a series of linguistic conflicts which continue to the present day. From the so-called Judaizers and Gnostics in the 1st century, to the Protestant Reformers of the 16th, to the dissenting traditional Catholics the 21st, the nexus of religious unity has always been linguistic content and its interpretation in every Christian sect.
Faith, in other words, is not just the acceptance of a formula of words (whether biblical or doctrinal makes no difference) but the commitment to defend this formula against competing formulae. Whatever historical events, original intentions, or progressive interpretations lie ‘behind’ these formulae are irrelevant. The words themselves are what one is meant to believe, to have faith in. What else is there? This is Christian faith, the defensive repetition of credal formulae.
In such a situation how could Christian churches do anything other than control language in order to maintain the unity of their adherents. It is an unavoidable consequence of Pauline theology. And it is more than a bit obtuse for an educated, intellectually sophisticated thinker like Pieper to pretend that he is defending human freedom against political forces out to reduce it. The Church is the standard, both historical and current, of just the sort of abuse he is worried about.
Christianity backed the wrong horse. Not Jesus who was admirable in many ways, divine or not. But language, that most unreliable of creations, which morphs and wiggles incessantly and always ends up controlling those who think they are using it. And the Christian sect most controlled by the independent beast of language is the Catholic Church, which doesn’t appear to realize that when it speaks, when it literally pontificates, it is doing so from the belly of the beast of which it thinks itself master.
Joseph Pieper was a leading German Catholic philosopher who wrote a number of interesting books on the philosophy and theology of culture. But in his Abuse of Language - Abuse of Power he has ventured out onto some very thin ice. His thesis is that language, that essential carrier of culture, has been corrupted and controlled, primarily by political interests which want to manipulate not merely public opinion but the very minds of the general populace.
Whether or not one agrees with Pieper’s thesis, however, it is clear that historically the dominant controller of language and mass linguistic manipulator has been the Catholic Church itself. The Church firmly hitched its wagon to the star of language as soon as it started making infallible pronouncements in the early Middle Ages. It’s been squirming ever since to get out of its historical positions on things as varied as slavery, usury, military service, democracy, Jews, and whether or not it’s only Catholics who can be saved. Language is its permanent vulnerability but it can’t back down from its obsession with it.
Unaccountably, this seems not to have occurred to Pieper. Nor does he seem to understand the essential connection between the control of language and what Christians refer to as faith. So his apologetics implicitly condemn precisely that which he means to defend, the authority of an institution which is the eminent example of the abuser he is attacking. The problem is in fact more fundamental than just saying regrettably stupid things. It lies at the core of Christian doctrine itself; so the Church, and in fact all Christian churches, are stuck with the consequences.
Christian faith is a somewhat slippery thing. It is a concept invented in its entirety by that genius of religious innovation, Paul of Tarsus. According to the theology of Paul, that set of ideas which forms the core of Christian thought, the desired state of human existence, that is to say, salvation, requires this essential quality: faith. It is generally accepted by Christian theologians ever since that this quality can not be acquired by trying to get it. It comes as a gift not as a reward for doing good or thinking good thoughts.
According to Paul, the object of this faith is Jesus as the risen Christ whom he expected to appear imminently to take ownership of the universe, which he will then return to his Father from whence it came. Paul got his timing for this event rather wrong. But Christians have stuck with Paul’s idea of the importance of faith out of... well I suppose out of the importance of faith. The self-referentiality doesn’t appear to bother them much. Nor, I suppose, should it since we have to build our lives as some presuppositions as we go along.
But what is this presupposition of faith? Paul says it is Jesus, a person whom he never met but about whom he has heard stories from others. Clearly, however, the historical existence of Jesus is itself a not very substantive matter. That existence is the tip of an iceberg which Paul and others would like all of us to accept as factual characteristics of that existence, things like Jesus’s motivation, his special status, the consequences of his short but dramatic life in cosmological terms, and his intentions for those who remembered him after his death.
Thus Pauline faith demands some considerable elucidation. It requires language in the form of foundational scriptures (mainly Paul’s letters to his dispersed Asian congregations), references (particularly to the existing Hebrew Scriptures which Paul used to ‘prove’ his assertions about Jesus), and gradually various creeds which summarized the ‘content’ of this thing called faith. As a practical matter, without this linguistic content, faith would be vacuous.
Hence the Christian problem of faith which arose immediately as the story of Jesus spread through the Roman Empire. Or more properly ‘stories’ since language implies interpretation which implies variation which creates disunity. So the early Church began a series of linguistic conflicts which continue to the present day. From the so-called Judaizers and Gnostics in the 1st century, to the Protestant Reformers of the 16th, to the dissenting traditional Catholics the 21st, the nexus of religious unity has always been linguistic content and its interpretation in every Christian sect.
Faith, in other words, is not just the acceptance of a formula of words (whether biblical or doctrinal makes no difference) but the commitment to defend this formula against competing formulae. Whatever historical events, original intentions, or progressive interpretations lie ‘behind’ these formulae are irrelevant. The words themselves are what one is meant to believe, to have faith in. What else is there? This is Christian faith, the defensive repetition of credal formulae.
In such a situation how could Christian churches do anything other than control language in order to maintain the unity of their adherents. It is an unavoidable consequence of Pauline theology. And it is more than a bit obtuse for an educated, intellectually sophisticated thinker like Pieper to pretend that he is defending human freedom against political forces out to reduce it. The Church is the standard, both historical and current, of just the sort of abuse he is worried about.
November 1, 2020
When this book arrived in the mail, over 2 years ago, I was a bit annoyed because the paperback, I had paid $ 9.65 for, turned out to be a tiny booklet containing no more than 35 pages. The booklet landed in one of my many boxes with unread books.
While trying to get my unread books a bit sorted and organized, I, yesterday, came across this little booklet again. I had just watched the news and was still infuriated about the way our new President as well as his spokespersons and several of his supporting political analysts are abusing the language by avoiding to properly answering questions and instead twisting the truth and spitting out propaganda. So I picked up this booklet and read it within a few hours.
Joseph Pieper (1904-1997) was a 20th-century philosopher, and this book (or rather essay) was first published in 1974, in German language (titled “Missbrauch der Sprache—Missbrauch der Macht”). Pieper quotes and summarizes what philosophers of the past, especially Plato, had said about the use, or rather abuse, of language.
I am very short of time. Therefore, please forgive when I do not write a real review but only list a few passages that stood out. Here they are:
Summing up Plato on this topic:
“Public discourse, the moment it becomes basically neutralized with regard to a strict standard of truth, stands by its nature ready to serve as an instrument in the hands of any ruler to pursue all kinds of power schemes. Public discourse itself, separated from the standard of truth, created on its part, the more it prevails, an atmosphere of epidemic proneness and vulnerability to the reign of the tyrant. Serving the tyranny, the corruption and abuse of language becomes better known as propaganda.”
“A common element in all of this is the degeneration of language into an element of rape.”
“The abuse of political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the word, indeed, finds it in the fertile soil in which to hide and grow and get ready, so much that the latent potential of the totalitarian poison can be ascertained.”
“The degradation, too, of man through man … … … (concentration camps, torture) has its beginning … … when the word loses its dignity.”
“The place of authentic reality is taken over by fictious reality … … … a pseudoreality, desceptively appearing as real … …”
“… the general public is being reduced to a state where people not only are unable to find out about the truth but also become unable even to search for the truth because they are satisfied with deception and trickery that have determined their convictions … …”
“Opposition is required, for instance, against every partisan simplification, every ideological agitation, every blind emotionality; against seduction through well-turned yet empty slogans, against autocratic terminology with no room for dialogue, against personal insult as an element of style, against the language of evasive appeasement and false assurance … …”
Quoting Hegel:
“You need not have advanced very far in your learning in order to find good reasons even for the most evil of things. All the evil deeds in this world since Adam and Eve have been justified with good reasons.”
Quoting Aristotle:
“Whenever someone, oblivious of possible usefulness, disadvantages, or even death, is able to say, ’So it is; this is the truth’—then we witness, in an eminent degree, human freedom in action.’ Into this quote, Pieper had inserted, “(e.g., 'the Emperor has no clothes!')", which, of course Aristotle had not said. :-)
In regard to our present political situation, here in the U.S., I leave it up to the reader to come to his or her own conclusions.
My own humble opinion: Humankind hasn't advanced too much since Plato.
For a very elaborate description of the above booklet, I recommend reading Jan Rice’s review. Here is the link:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
While trying to get my unread books a bit sorted and organized, I, yesterday, came across this little booklet again. I had just watched the news and was still infuriated about the way our new President as well as his spokespersons and several of his supporting political analysts are abusing the language by avoiding to properly answering questions and instead twisting the truth and spitting out propaganda. So I picked up this booklet and read it within a few hours.
Joseph Pieper (1904-1997) was a 20th-century philosopher, and this book (or rather essay) was first published in 1974, in German language (titled “Missbrauch der Sprache—Missbrauch der Macht”). Pieper quotes and summarizes what philosophers of the past, especially Plato, had said about the use, or rather abuse, of language.
I am very short of time. Therefore, please forgive when I do not write a real review but only list a few passages that stood out. Here they are:
Summing up Plato on this topic:
“Public discourse, the moment it becomes basically neutralized with regard to a strict standard of truth, stands by its nature ready to serve as an instrument in the hands of any ruler to pursue all kinds of power schemes. Public discourse itself, separated from the standard of truth, created on its part, the more it prevails, an atmosphere of epidemic proneness and vulnerability to the reign of the tyrant. Serving the tyranny, the corruption and abuse of language becomes better known as propaganda.”
“A common element in all of this is the degeneration of language into an element of rape.”
“The abuse of political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the word, indeed, finds it in the fertile soil in which to hide and grow and get ready, so much that the latent potential of the totalitarian poison can be ascertained.”
“The degradation, too, of man through man … … … (concentration camps, torture) has its beginning … … when the word loses its dignity.”
“The place of authentic reality is taken over by fictious reality … … … a pseudoreality, desceptively appearing as real … …”
“… the general public is being reduced to a state where people not only are unable to find out about the truth but also become unable even to search for the truth because they are satisfied with deception and trickery that have determined their convictions … …”
“Opposition is required, for instance, against every partisan simplification, every ideological agitation, every blind emotionality; against seduction through well-turned yet empty slogans, against autocratic terminology with no room for dialogue, against personal insult as an element of style, against the language of evasive appeasement and false assurance … …”
Quoting Hegel:
“You need not have advanced very far in your learning in order to find good reasons even for the most evil of things. All the evil deeds in this world since Adam and Eve have been justified with good reasons.”
Quoting Aristotle:
“Whenever someone, oblivious of possible usefulness, disadvantages, or even death, is able to say, ’So it is; this is the truth’—then we witness, in an eminent degree, human freedom in action.’ Into this quote, Pieper had inserted, “(e.g., 'the Emperor has no clothes!')", which, of course Aristotle had not said. :-)
In regard to our present political situation, here in the U.S., I leave it up to the reader to come to his or her own conclusions.
My own humble opinion: Humankind hasn't advanced too much since Plato.
For a very elaborate description of the above booklet, I recommend reading Jan Rice’s review. Here is the link:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
November 16, 2014
September 27, 2014:
In 1974 Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper wrote an essay in his native German called Abuse of Language--Abuse of Power. I came across it when a friend of a Goodreads friend commented it on one of my friend's reviews. The subject is sophistry (Plato's battle with it)--a subject which the author asserts is pertinent to any time and any place. Pieper quotes Neitzsche as having said, "The era of the sophists? Our time!"
On the second page the author quotes Hegel on sophisticates. According to Pieper, when it comes to sophists the issue is perfectionism, not perfection (where "perfection" means "completion" or "wholeness"). So one must consider the relationship between "sophistication" and "sophistry." Hegel reportedly also said such sophists could find a reason for--justify--anything without breaking a sweat. That's how I understand the sophists, too, as rhetoricians for whom there is no truth, who for a price could speak on any subject and who had the tools, rhetoric, to influence their hearers.
For a price? Pieper goes into a spiel on the difference between honorarium and wages. He goes on to say that Bertrand Russel was contemptuous of professionals because they, too, accepted payment. Pieper seems a little defensive on that point. I'm not sure he made a convincing counterargument.
This little paper begs for dialogue. On reading it you want to be in dialogue with the author.
Plato also characterized the sophists as handsome, says Pieper, who cites Theaetetus on true beauty. Again, the surface beauty of the sophists was part of their armamentarium.
Pieper then goes on to explore what Plato had against the sophists, and his answer is that they are corrupting the language. Instead of using words--the sea in which human beings swim and the air we breathe--for communication and truth, in fact for the communication of truth, they use language for power. And they are doing so deliberately.
Pieper then goes on to the language of advertising as sophistry, focusing on the use of flattery. Sophistry, then, has an ulterior motive. Supply and demand; making one want a product. In short order he jumps from that to Schadenfreude, slander, the destructive urge, and going for the "final solution," still focusing on flattery as the tool, which isn't quite clear--but Pieper explains that's because he's trying to get from how Plato translates to ugly picture we have today. He cites Plato's admission that the sophists are masters of the corrupting art, affecting not just single institutions but "the commonweal of all people," so that public discourse becomes unmoored from truth and reality. The word "pollution" comes to mind--a word that has become more resonant with time. People could be said to be in bondage to misinformation
The process elevates entertainment over communication, and by its nature is hidden so that the sophist looks like a true philosopher. Can similar techniques be used to bring people back to truth, seduce them to the truth? Pieper quotes Kierkegaard, "Cajole them to the truth," but it seems that would still be corruption of language.
Propaganda, ideological cliques, using word as weapon, the language of rebellion--"...those for whom the menace is intended must nevertheless be eased into believing (and that is the true art) that by acquiescing to the intimidation, they really do the reasonable thing...." Language becomes a receptacle of latent violence; Pieper says rape.
In sum, all of us, not only philosophers and intellectuals, are nurtured by truth. We need a sanctum of truth protected from propaganda and special interests--not just protected from outside but from within academia as well--from "every partisan simplification, every ideological agitation, every blind emotionality, against seduction through well-turned yet empty slogans, against autocratic terminology with no room for dialogue, against personal insult as an element of style..., against the language of evasive appeasement and false assurances..., and not least against the jargon of the revolution, against categorical conformism and categorical nonconformism...." History has shown the consequences otherwise. "(C)orruptio optimi pessemi, the best corrupted becomes the worst."
In reading this I saw that the author's heart was in the right place, from the words he has chosen, threading a path between extremism of the right and of the left. But the complications are even worse than he recognized.
He says sophists are those who are acting "deliberately" to corrupt words and truth. Going beyond the field of advertising and "ordinary" politics into the more fraught terrain of ideological language, there may be those who are acting deliberately, in other words, because they can. At the same time, the lines between what is deliberate misleading and what is the fervor of certainty are often, maybe usually, blurred. A propagandist first progandizes him- or herself. It works better if one believes one's own words and in what one is doing.
In the private sphere of consciousness one awards one's own perceptions a sacrosanct reality not accorded to the "opponent" or "enemy"--which is why diverse religions all contain versions of loving the neighbor as the self and not treating others in ways oneself doesn't like. From within the space of self, it is oh so easy to perceive the opponent's behavior as deliberate and his or her motivation as venal or otherwise despicable. Doing so greases the path to opposition or enmity, and, in fact, to being or becoming what one fights.
I am not saying I disagree with what the author has written or that there is no truth. I don't believe that. I am allergic to the manipulation of language he has described. I am just asking how we get from the advice to the reality. Diverse people with diverse opinions, some of which are in error, can put on his language just as I am doing, and they, too, can say they are the possessors of truth. And they will believe it.
I almost want to say, "We have met the enemy and he is us." The quote about dialogue--don't forget that. In this enterprise we have got to have the dialogue.
November 15, 2014
Knowledge and Freedom
In addition to the 32-page Abuse of Language--Abuse of Power this short book includes a second essay, a 14-pager. After reading it the first time, I thought I'd skip the review. Aristotle, not Plato, was cited; I hadn't been studying Aristotle. But on last night's second reading it came clearer.
Josef Pieper's main concern remains the totalitarian state. Here he's asking what freedom has to do with knowledge. He concludes that philosophical knowledge is higher than any sort of practical knowledge. In other words, knowledge that is an end in itself rather than a means to something else is the higher knowledge--according to which all technology is lesser. He traces that line of thought back to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. All that changed with the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution, after which the practicality of knowledge was elevated. Pieper cites Descartes. He says that reversal shows up in American pragmatism and reaches its apex under communism: "Any scientist who concerns himself with abstract problems must never forget that the purpose of all science consists of satisfying the needs of society" (from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia).
So, according to Pieper, for freedom in knowledge we must return to the older point of view--that is, reverse the paradigm shift that occurred at the inception of modernity.
But there is a problem here, the problem of elitism--the same problem that came up in discussing Plato's dictum that the unexamined life is not worth living, in connection with my review of Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away. Goodreads friend Dolors found me this helpful article by the philosopher and writer Julian Baggini.
In the 19th century, university was a luxury most people couldn't afford. Josef Pieper acknowledges as much when he writes that the academic philosophical faculty in medieval times used to be called "the faculty of the arts," and in the 19th century the university was to provide a liberal education--"a gentleman's knowledge" (the latter quote attributed to John Henry Newman). It was only in the twentieth century that, in consequence of the paradigm shift that had occurred, the standard of living had risen high enough for more people to seek an advanced education.
This is a big subject, one I'll have to think a lot more about when it's time to review The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought. But for now I'm hypothesizing that the loss of freedom Pieper fears doesn't come so much from avoiding "practicality" as it does from over-control of one's direction and aims, whether by a totalitarian state, by a theocracy, or by excess rigidity of social mores. When there are lots and lots of individual seekers, some will make unimaginable discoveries. As with the genetic engineering of seeds, there is no government agency--or other agency of control--that can "play God" well enough to substitute for the exploratory initiative that will be found within masses of individuals.
Or, as Barack Obama said in his Myanmar speech yesterday, "The future of this region — your region — is not going to be dictated by dictator or by armies.... It’s going to be determined by entrepreneurs and inventors and dreamers."
In 1974 Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper wrote an essay in his native German called Abuse of Language--Abuse of Power. I came across it when a friend of a Goodreads friend commented it on one of my friend's reviews. The subject is sophistry (Plato's battle with it)--a subject which the author asserts is pertinent to any time and any place. Pieper quotes Neitzsche as having said, "The era of the sophists? Our time!"
On the second page the author quotes Hegel on sophisticates. According to Pieper, when it comes to sophists the issue is perfectionism, not perfection (where "perfection" means "completion" or "wholeness"). So one must consider the relationship between "sophistication" and "sophistry." Hegel reportedly also said such sophists could find a reason for--justify--anything without breaking a sweat. That's how I understand the sophists, too, as rhetoricians for whom there is no truth, who for a price could speak on any subject and who had the tools, rhetoric, to influence their hearers.
For a price? Pieper goes into a spiel on the difference between honorarium and wages. He goes on to say that Bertrand Russel was contemptuous of professionals because they, too, accepted payment. Pieper seems a little defensive on that point. I'm not sure he made a convincing counterargument.
This little paper begs for dialogue. On reading it you want to be in dialogue with the author.
Plato also characterized the sophists as handsome, says Pieper, who cites Theaetetus on true beauty. Again, the surface beauty of the sophists was part of their armamentarium.
Pieper then goes on to explore what Plato had against the sophists, and his answer is that they are corrupting the language. Instead of using words--the sea in which human beings swim and the air we breathe--for communication and truth, in fact for the communication of truth, they use language for power. And they are doing so deliberately.
Pieper then goes on to the language of advertising as sophistry, focusing on the use of flattery. Sophistry, then, has an ulterior motive. Supply and demand; making one want a product. In short order he jumps from that to Schadenfreude, slander, the destructive urge, and going for the "final solution," still focusing on flattery as the tool, which isn't quite clear--but Pieper explains that's because he's trying to get from how Plato translates to ugly picture we have today. He cites Plato's admission that the sophists are masters of the corrupting art, affecting not just single institutions but "the commonweal of all people," so that public discourse becomes unmoored from truth and reality. The word "pollution" comes to mind--a word that has become more resonant with time. People could be said to be in bondage to misinformation
The process elevates entertainment over communication, and by its nature is hidden so that the sophist looks like a true philosopher. Can similar techniques be used to bring people back to truth, seduce them to the truth? Pieper quotes Kierkegaard, "Cajole them to the truth," but it seems that would still be corruption of language.
Propaganda, ideological cliques, using word as weapon, the language of rebellion--"...those for whom the menace is intended must nevertheless be eased into believing (and that is the true art) that by acquiescing to the intimidation, they really do the reasonable thing...." Language becomes a receptacle of latent violence; Pieper says rape.
In sum, all of us, not only philosophers and intellectuals, are nurtured by truth. We need a sanctum of truth protected from propaganda and special interests--not just protected from outside but from within academia as well--from "every partisan simplification, every ideological agitation, every blind emotionality, against seduction through well-turned yet empty slogans, against autocratic terminology with no room for dialogue, against personal insult as an element of style..., against the language of evasive appeasement and false assurances..., and not least against the jargon of the revolution, against categorical conformism and categorical nonconformism...." History has shown the consequences otherwise. "(C)orruptio optimi pessemi, the best corrupted becomes the worst."
In reading this I saw that the author's heart was in the right place, from the words he has chosen, threading a path between extremism of the right and of the left. But the complications are even worse than he recognized.
He says sophists are those who are acting "deliberately" to corrupt words and truth. Going beyond the field of advertising and "ordinary" politics into the more fraught terrain of ideological language, there may be those who are acting deliberately, in other words, because they can. At the same time, the lines between what is deliberate misleading and what is the fervor of certainty are often, maybe usually, blurred. A propagandist first progandizes him- or herself. It works better if one believes one's own words and in what one is doing.
In the private sphere of consciousness one awards one's own perceptions a sacrosanct reality not accorded to the "opponent" or "enemy"--which is why diverse religions all contain versions of loving the neighbor as the self and not treating others in ways oneself doesn't like. From within the space of self, it is oh so easy to perceive the opponent's behavior as deliberate and his or her motivation as venal or otherwise despicable. Doing so greases the path to opposition or enmity, and, in fact, to being or becoming what one fights.
I am not saying I disagree with what the author has written or that there is no truth. I don't believe that. I am allergic to the manipulation of language he has described. I am just asking how we get from the advice to the reality. Diverse people with diverse opinions, some of which are in error, can put on his language just as I am doing, and they, too, can say they are the possessors of truth. And they will believe it.
I almost want to say, "We have met the enemy and he is us." The quote about dialogue--don't forget that. In this enterprise we have got to have the dialogue.
November 15, 2014
Knowledge and Freedom
In addition to the 32-page Abuse of Language--Abuse of Power this short book includes a second essay, a 14-pager. After reading it the first time, I thought I'd skip the review. Aristotle, not Plato, was cited; I hadn't been studying Aristotle. But on last night's second reading it came clearer.
Josef Pieper's main concern remains the totalitarian state. Here he's asking what freedom has to do with knowledge. He concludes that philosophical knowledge is higher than any sort of practical knowledge. In other words, knowledge that is an end in itself rather than a means to something else is the higher knowledge--according to which all technology is lesser. He traces that line of thought back to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. All that changed with the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution, after which the practicality of knowledge was elevated. Pieper cites Descartes. He says that reversal shows up in American pragmatism and reaches its apex under communism: "Any scientist who concerns himself with abstract problems must never forget that the purpose of all science consists of satisfying the needs of society" (from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia).
So, according to Pieper, for freedom in knowledge we must return to the older point of view--that is, reverse the paradigm shift that occurred at the inception of modernity.
But there is a problem here, the problem of elitism--the same problem that came up in discussing Plato's dictum that the unexamined life is not worth living, in connection with my review of Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away. Goodreads friend Dolors found me this helpful article by the philosopher and writer Julian Baggini.
In the 19th century, university was a luxury most people couldn't afford. Josef Pieper acknowledges as much when he writes that the academic philosophical faculty in medieval times used to be called "the faculty of the arts," and in the 19th century the university was to provide a liberal education--"a gentleman's knowledge" (the latter quote attributed to John Henry Newman). It was only in the twentieth century that, in consequence of the paradigm shift that had occurred, the standard of living had risen high enough for more people to seek an advanced education.
This is a big subject, one I'll have to think a lot more about when it's time to review The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in Western Thought. But for now I'm hypothesizing that the loss of freedom Pieper fears doesn't come so much from avoiding "practicality" as it does from over-control of one's direction and aims, whether by a totalitarian state, by a theocracy, or by excess rigidity of social mores. When there are lots and lots of individual seekers, some will make unimaginable discoveries. As with the genetic engineering of seeds, there is no government agency--or other agency of control--that can "play God" well enough to substitute for the exploratory initiative that will be found within masses of individuals.
Or, as Barack Obama said in his Myanmar speech yesterday, "The future of this region — your region — is not going to be dictated by dictator or by armies.... It’s going to be determined by entrepreneurs and inventors and dreamers."
July 22, 2013
In Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power Joseph Pieper begins building his case against sophistry by showing what Plato most deplored about the sophists of his day: their wealth (no surprise) and physical beauty and how the former is gained through the corruption of the latter as well as the manipulation of language. Pieper includes quotes from Hegel and Nietzsche – both separated from the Father of Philosophy by more than a millennium – which assure us of the pervasive continuity of sophistry from then until now, as if we needed any.
‘Human words and language accomplish a two-fold purpose... First, words convey reality. We speak in order to name and identify something that is real, to identify it for someone, of course—and this brings us to the second aspect in question, the interpersonal character of human speech.’
We are then led to look at lies, the crafting of well-reasoned arguments and whether the author is seeking to convey the truth or deceive his audience. When such is the case, ‘from that moment on (the author/artist) no longer considers the other as partner, as equal. In fact, he no longer respects the other as a human person.’ Plato, through Socrates, calls this “flattery”. Pieper says this ‘becomes a speech without a partner, since there is no true other; such speech, in contradiction to the nature of language, intends not to communicate but to manipulate.’
The rest of the essay goes on to examine the loss of character in our language through slogans, advertising, propaganda, and mass media—just different forms of deceptive trickery and mental bondage.
Plato's three statements about the necessity of truth to the health of human society are summarized and as true today as ever: 1.) the good of man and meaningful human existence consists in perceiving, as much as possible, things as they really are; 2.) all men are nurtured by the truth; 3.) the natural habitat of the truth is found in interpersonal communication.
Pieper calls for ‘an area of truth, a sheltered space for the autonomous study of reality, where it is possible, without restrictions, to examine, investigate, discuss, and express what is true about anything—a space, then explicitly protected against all potential special interests and invading influences, where hidden agendas have no place, be they collective or private, political, economic, or ideological.’ His mentor, Plato, would no doubt agree with this necessity, recognize the description of his own Academie and be proud. Who indeed would disagree? And yet, where can such a place be found?
Recent events in our country made me think of this essay and want to reread it.
‘Human words and language accomplish a two-fold purpose... First, words convey reality. We speak in order to name and identify something that is real, to identify it for someone, of course—and this brings us to the second aspect in question, the interpersonal character of human speech.’
We are then led to look at lies, the crafting of well-reasoned arguments and whether the author is seeking to convey the truth or deceive his audience. When such is the case, ‘from that moment on (the author/artist) no longer considers the other as partner, as equal. In fact, he no longer respects the other as a human person.’ Plato, through Socrates, calls this “flattery”. Pieper says this ‘becomes a speech without a partner, since there is no true other; such speech, in contradiction to the nature of language, intends not to communicate but to manipulate.’
The rest of the essay goes on to examine the loss of character in our language through slogans, advertising, propaganda, and mass media—just different forms of deceptive trickery and mental bondage.
Plato's three statements about the necessity of truth to the health of human society are summarized and as true today as ever: 1.) the good of man and meaningful human existence consists in perceiving, as much as possible, things as they really are; 2.) all men are nurtured by the truth; 3.) the natural habitat of the truth is found in interpersonal communication.
Pieper calls for ‘an area of truth, a sheltered space for the autonomous study of reality, where it is possible, without restrictions, to examine, investigate, discuss, and express what is true about anything—a space, then explicitly protected against all potential special interests and invading influences, where hidden agendas have no place, be they collective or private, political, economic, or ideological.’ His mentor, Plato, would no doubt agree with this necessity, recognize the description of his own Academie and be proud. Who indeed would disagree? And yet, where can such a place be found?
Recent events in our country made me think of this essay and want to reread it.
March 10, 2020
A wonderful pair of essays on the importance of truth as intention, in language and in science. The titular essay is very good. In it, Pieper lays his ground rules for the conditions under which communication is possible. Use of language to do anything other than convey truth is flattery or, as you might expect, an "abuse of power", the power of the ability of language to convey reality and truth. A couple quibbles: first, he suggests language is THE way to convey reality. Body language and social cues, however, are powerful and nonverbal methods of communication (depending on the truth intended, they are far more powerful, nuanced, and precise). Second, he seems to present "truth-communicating" and "flattery/language abuse" as the two options of a binary. I think this fails to account for the reality that our brains are not wired for truth, but for consistency and survival. How I communicate a truth depends on to whom I am speaking, and some formulations are necessarily less precise than others. Delivering brute truth is rarely an effective means of communication, if one's goal is for the listener to accept truth. (Admittedly, Pieper is more concerned with replicating the conditions under which communication is possible, rather than the conditions under which truth is best accepted. But I have to think the intended end, consensus on truth, must influence the means to some degree.) Finally, he doesn't address situations where there is disagreement or ambiguity about what is true. Does this matter for an essay concerned with a priori conditions of communication rather than a successful outcome? I'm not sure. But I keep thinking about it.
His second shorter essay concerns the need for freedom in science, based on the stifling of science in the totalitarian regimes of his day. I mostly agreed with his claims, other than the claim that once philosophy starts being "practical" it stops being philosophy. What about ethics? Aristotle wanted to know how best to live, how humans can be their best, most flourishing selves. How is that purely theoretical? I wasn't sure why he stuck the landing there. The definition of "freedom" was also missing (which Pieper acknowledged) and that's a bit unfortunate. But I felt comfortable assuming his intent.
The first essay in particular is worth reading for the lens with which it gives us to evaluate our consumer, political, and educational realms. It doesn't solve the thorny issues of what is true, but its focus on intent in communication is helpful and could be a corrective for some.
His second shorter essay concerns the need for freedom in science, based on the stifling of science in the totalitarian regimes of his day. I mostly agreed with his claims, other than the claim that once philosophy starts being "practical" it stops being philosophy. What about ethics? Aristotle wanted to know how best to live, how humans can be their best, most flourishing selves. How is that purely theoretical? I wasn't sure why he stuck the landing there. The definition of "freedom" was also missing (which Pieper acknowledged) and that's a bit unfortunate. But I felt comfortable assuming his intent.
The first essay in particular is worth reading for the lens with which it gives us to evaluate our consumer, political, and educational realms. It doesn't solve the thorny issues of what is true, but its focus on intent in communication is helpful and could be a corrective for some.
December 3, 2024
A superb confutation of deconstructionist/postmodern views of language by using their very own theoretical framework. Language becomes a tool of perversion, violence, manipulation, indeterminacy—whenever it is employed apart from truth and as a means by which to glimpse outside reality. The titular essay would be an excellent addition to a survey of literary theory after encountering Foucault and Derrida. But seriously, publishers, put some more goodies inside this book if you're going to sell it for 12 bucks. 54 pages, really?
May 30, 2023
short but mighty- I had to take this one slow. understanding the purpose of communication is needed in our times!
pre-read for 2023-2024 edu year & Literary Life podcast 2023 challenge (“philosophical work”).
pre-read for 2023-2024 edu year & Literary Life podcast 2023 challenge (“philosophical work”).
February 24, 2022
"...wherever the main purpose of speech is flattery, there the word becomes corrupted, and necessarily so. And instead of genuine communication, there will exist something for which domination is too benign a term; more appropriately we should speak of tyranny, of despotism."
"The natural habitat of truth is found in interpersonal communication. Truth lives in dialogue, in discussion, in conversation - it resides, therefore, in language, in the word. Consequently, the well-ordered human existence, including especially its social dimension, is essentially based on the well-ordered language employed."
Have I mentioned that Pieper is my favorite philosopher? And as you can see from the above quotes, so very relevant to society's current problems. I have ordered several copies of this slim little book to give away or donate to my daughter's forthcoming (God willing) bookstore in order to do my part to make more Pieper fans. ;) The second essay in this book is also very good, and echoes in a briefer manner some of the ideas put forth more fully in his Leisure, the Basis of Culture.
"The natural habitat of truth is found in interpersonal communication. Truth lives in dialogue, in discussion, in conversation - it resides, therefore, in language, in the word. Consequently, the well-ordered human existence, including especially its social dimension, is essentially based on the well-ordered language employed."
Have I mentioned that Pieper is my favorite philosopher? And as you can see from the above quotes, so very relevant to society's current problems. I have ordered several copies of this slim little book to give away or donate to my daughter's forthcoming (God willing) bookstore in order to do my part to make more Pieper fans. ;) The second essay in this book is also very good, and echoes in a briefer manner some of the ideas put forth more fully in his Leisure, the Basis of Culture.
December 15, 2013
Josef Pieper is not for the faint of heart! I had to read and reread these essays in order to wrap my head around the truth conveyed ! Yet, his works hold some of the most concise words of truth for our generation ... demonstrating that "truth" does not lose its relevance over time. In this small but powerful book there are two closely related essays ... the first titled, "Abuse of Language --- Abuse of Power" and the other "Knowledge and Freedom".
In the first essay, the author starts out by explaining the pitfalls and dangers Plato saw in the practice of the sophists of his time. These sophists were those "... highly paid and popularly applauded experts in the art of twisting words, who were able to sweet-talk something bad into something good and to turn white into black." Plato's contention with the sophists lay in their corrupting of the meaning and dignity of words. The underlying theme of Plato and Pieper is that "... words convey reality." He further explains that when we speak we do so "... in order to name and identify something that is real, to identify something for someone." When we lie or twist the meaning of words to manipulate or convey something that is less than the truth, we actually cannot participate in true "communication". We then "... withhold the other's ... portion of reality..." When this withholding of reality takes place we are corrupting the other person's relationship to reality and no longer look on them as a partner or equal; and in fact we " ... no longer respect the other as a human person " We have ceased to participate in dialogue or communication. Pieper states "... what happens here is speech without a partner... such speech, in contradiction to the nature of language, intends not to communicate but to manipulate.
Pieper goes on to show what this corruption of language does to "public discourse". He says that when public discourse is separated from the standard of truth, it creates an atmosphere of "proneness and vulnerability to the reign of the tyrant." This is so evident in today's political culture !!
Pieper then shows how the abuse of language spells the end of true learning and the corruption of our institutions of higher learning. In defining "academic" he says there must be "...an area of truth reserved in the midst of society where it is possible, without restrictions, to examine, investigate, discuss, and express what is true about anything ... where hidden agendas have no place..." In discussing the task of all institutions of higher learning, Pieper says that they must "... sustain and nourish ... the free interpersonal communication anchored in the truth of reality - the reality of the world around us, the reality of ourselves, and the reality of God as well." We live in a culture where our institutions of learning have become institutions of propaganda rather than places rooted in truth and reality.
In his second essay, Josef Pieper tackles the subject of knowledge and freedom as it relates to science. First of all Pieper states that knowledge must have as its object "... the whole of reality, the fundamental reasons of all that is." Here Pieper reinforces the notion that knowledge is first of all "intrinsic". He states , "We are dealing here with the intrinsic "power of cognition" as such, the power moving within all concrete experiences and insights and giving them consistency and unity, as it is oriented toward its proper object, the totality of all that is." This kind of knowledge is "alone truly free" ... He sites Aristotle who said, "free means the same here as nonpractical."; the kind of knowledge oriented toward the "fundamental reasons of the world", and thus not serving any practical use at all. "To exist, not in dependence on anything "without" but by and for reasons entirely "within" - this, Pieper says, is what human language calls "freedom".
Here Pieper relates this concept of human "freedom" to science and talks about the tendency of modern man to look at science only as a means of understanding our world for the purpose of "using" or mastering it ... for the purpose of practicality alone. Pieper, however, says that to detach science from its intrinsic or metaphysical nature is to cause science to lose its connection to freedom. Pieper states that man's "... true enrichment does not derive from the technical exploitation of nature's wealth but rather from the purely theoretical cognition of reality." Having said this, the author makes it clear that while science does indeed accept tasks belonging in the field of practicalities, at its core, there is an element that cannot be taken into service ... a purely philosophical element directed toward truth and nothing else. If one leaves out the intrinsic quality of science, he leaves out the heart of true science.
In the first essay, the author starts out by explaining the pitfalls and dangers Plato saw in the practice of the sophists of his time. These sophists were those "... highly paid and popularly applauded experts in the art of twisting words, who were able to sweet-talk something bad into something good and to turn white into black." Plato's contention with the sophists lay in their corrupting of the meaning and dignity of words. The underlying theme of Plato and Pieper is that "... words convey reality." He further explains that when we speak we do so "... in order to name and identify something that is real, to identify something for someone." When we lie or twist the meaning of words to manipulate or convey something that is less than the truth, we actually cannot participate in true "communication". We then "... withhold the other's ... portion of reality..." When this withholding of reality takes place we are corrupting the other person's relationship to reality and no longer look on them as a partner or equal; and in fact we " ... no longer respect the other as a human person " We have ceased to participate in dialogue or communication. Pieper states "... what happens here is speech without a partner... such speech, in contradiction to the nature of language, intends not to communicate but to manipulate.
Pieper goes on to show what this corruption of language does to "public discourse". He says that when public discourse is separated from the standard of truth, it creates an atmosphere of "proneness and vulnerability to the reign of the tyrant." This is so evident in today's political culture !!
Pieper then shows how the abuse of language spells the end of true learning and the corruption of our institutions of higher learning. In defining "academic" he says there must be "...an area of truth reserved in the midst of society where it is possible, without restrictions, to examine, investigate, discuss, and express what is true about anything ... where hidden agendas have no place..." In discussing the task of all institutions of higher learning, Pieper says that they must "... sustain and nourish ... the free interpersonal communication anchored in the truth of reality - the reality of the world around us, the reality of ourselves, and the reality of God as well." We live in a culture where our institutions of learning have become institutions of propaganda rather than places rooted in truth and reality.
In his second essay, Josef Pieper tackles the subject of knowledge and freedom as it relates to science. First of all Pieper states that knowledge must have as its object "... the whole of reality, the fundamental reasons of all that is." Here Pieper reinforces the notion that knowledge is first of all "intrinsic". He states , "We are dealing here with the intrinsic "power of cognition" as such, the power moving within all concrete experiences and insights and giving them consistency and unity, as it is oriented toward its proper object, the totality of all that is." This kind of knowledge is "alone truly free" ... He sites Aristotle who said, "free means the same here as nonpractical."; the kind of knowledge oriented toward the "fundamental reasons of the world", and thus not serving any practical use at all. "To exist, not in dependence on anything "without" but by and for reasons entirely "within" - this, Pieper says, is what human language calls "freedom".
Here Pieper relates this concept of human "freedom" to science and talks about the tendency of modern man to look at science only as a means of understanding our world for the purpose of "using" or mastering it ... for the purpose of practicality alone. Pieper, however, says that to detach science from its intrinsic or metaphysical nature is to cause science to lose its connection to freedom. Pieper states that man's "... true enrichment does not derive from the technical exploitation of nature's wealth but rather from the purely theoretical cognition of reality." Having said this, the author makes it clear that while science does indeed accept tasks belonging in the field of practicalities, at its core, there is an element that cannot be taken into service ... a purely philosophical element directed toward truth and nothing else. If one leaves out the intrinsic quality of science, he leaves out the heart of true science.
December 27, 2021
“The abuse of political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the word, indeed, finds in it the fertile soil in which to hide and grow and get ready, so much so that the latent potential of the totalitarian poison can be ascertained, as it were, by observing the symptom of the public abuse of language. The degradation, too, of man through man, alarmingly evident in the act as of physical violence committed by all tyrannies has its beginning, certainly much less alarmingly, at the that almost imperceptible moment when the word loses its dignity. The dignity of the word, to be sure, consists in this: through the word is accomplished what no other means can accomplish, namely, communication based on reality. Once again it becomes evident that both areas, as to be expected, are connected: the most miserable decay of human interaction, stands in direct proportion to the most devastating breakdown in orientation toward reality.”
February 11, 2022
Incredible! Especially the first half! Took many of the thoughts that I have grasped at but struggled to form and put words to them. Thoughts about words, ironically! If you aren't into heady books you won't like this at all, but if you like reading philosophy and you wonder why Joe Rogan is so popular, this book has all the answers!
September 17, 2018
"Word and language form the medium that sustains the common existence of the human spirit as such. The reality of the word in eminent ways makes existential interaction happen. And so, if the word becomes corrupted, human existence itself will not remain unaffected and untainted." (Josef Pieper)
Using the ancient debate between Plato and the Sophists as a starting point, philosopher Josef Pieper explores the relationship between language and power. Pieper's first premise is that "words convey reality," and his second that human speech is always interpersonal. If one, for instance, lies, Pieper would go so far as to suggest a lie is not communication, as it creates an asymmetric power relationship between parties, and "withhold[s] the [recipient's] share and portion of reality, to prevent his participation in reality."
As George Orwell would likely agree (I'm thinking 1984 here), who controls language controls reality. In our age of hashtags, fake news, and arguments over the words we use (e.g. pro-life v. anti-choice v. anti-abortion), this is a very real issue to contend with, and we seem to be in a world where "public discourse [has become] detached from the notions of truth and reality."
A relatively quick read (for philosophy!) the slim book also includes, in addition to the titular essay, an essay entitled "Knowledge & Freedom."
Using the ancient debate between Plato and the Sophists as a starting point, philosopher Josef Pieper explores the relationship between language and power. Pieper's first premise is that "words convey reality," and his second that human speech is always interpersonal. If one, for instance, lies, Pieper would go so far as to suggest a lie is not communication, as it creates an asymmetric power relationship between parties, and "withhold[s] the [recipient's] share and portion of reality, to prevent his participation in reality."
As George Orwell would likely agree (I'm thinking 1984 here), who controls language controls reality. In our age of hashtags, fake news, and arguments over the words we use (e.g. pro-life v. anti-choice v. anti-abortion), this is a very real issue to contend with, and we seem to be in a world where "public discourse [has become] detached from the notions of truth and reality."
A relatively quick read (for philosophy!) the slim book also includes, in addition to the titular essay, an essay entitled "Knowledge & Freedom."
July 23, 2008
This 54 page book consists of two essays, the titular one being an extended meditation of Plato's animus towards the sophists. The key idea for Pieper is a quote from The Sophist, "the sophists fabricate a fictitious reality." The irony of the pot calling the kettle black is entirely missed by Pieper, writing in a time when the democracy/communist binary guided Catholic thought, and before the "end of metaphysics", the rehabilitation of the sophists, etc. To truly appreciate this author, read instead Leisure: The Basis Of Culture or the excellent About Love.
January 26, 2015
Two thought-provoking essays on how using language to manipulate others rather than to communicate truth amounts to nothing less than a denial of the other person's humanity and status as your equal, and how perversion of language can be used by the unscrupulous to gain power over others. Pieper discusses how well established this idea is--it's in Plato, Aristotle, and the early Church fathers, and how it has been pushed aside, not only in totalitarian states, but even in our modern, pragmatic state of mind that tends to value practical results over principles.
August 13, 2018
In the main essay of the two in this short collection, Josef Pieper masterfully elaborates on Plato's view on the sophist, how their use of language as flattery destroy the meaning of communication. The adds a few threads into modern thought and our reality, but I found the Platonic aspect really well explained. The second short essay is a bit more ambiguous but it tries to show hoe knowledge and freedom can only coexist together, while if put into unfreedom knowledge itself is destroyed.
December 28, 2018
In the first essay, Pieper shows that words exist to communicate reality with a subject. The sophist is not interested in communicating with another subject, but in manipulating others as objects, abusing words to do so. In the second essay, Pieper shows that knowledge possesses freedom to the extent that it is not practical, but theoretical, and man is most free when contemplating the highest, theoretical realities.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 29, 2008
This is an excellent introduction to Josef Pieper, with some great insights on academic freedom, true human freedom, the (mis)use of language for an end, and the innate human desire to Truth. Also, it is short (can be read in an evening), well-written and well-translated from the German.
July 17, 2020
What a wild ride for an essay. I don’t know that I’ve read something so intellectually intriguing, exertive, and wonderful besides Aquinas. Chesterton and Lewis make me feel like I’m having tea with them, so despite their depth they feel less exertive. A more thorough review may come soon.
June 19, 2015
Fantastic.
Arguments is worthy of outlining and absorbing. Extremely relevant for today.
Arguments is worthy of outlining and absorbing. Extremely relevant for today.
March 6, 2018
I greatly enjoy the writings of Josef Pieper. This little book is a powerful reminder of importance of language and to be cognizant of our great privilege in communication. The message is timeless.
April 28, 2021
This one is tough for me to review, because I don't see myself as at Pieper's "level" and I felt that I was missing context on certain points or references he made - to be fair, I'd probably land around a 3.5 since it generated a lot of discussion in the Kilpatrick household, as we had some frustration with Pieper's terminology or use of terms, at least when they weren't defined.
I find a lot of value in his thesis from the second essay, that theoretical knowledge for the sake of its inherent value - not for ulterior purposes - leads to true freedom, and an idea that resonates with me as I try to come to an understanding of "what" I believe without it being self-centered. The titular essay had lines that felt frighteningly prescient of our current climate around "reality" and "truth" (but makes sense for a man who survived the Nazi regime); at other points, I felt a little exasperated ... when what we communicate about =human reality is perceived through the framework of individual minds, influenced by their individual life experiences, who defines the "truth" (he acknowledges this imperfect state in the second essay)? And I have a hard time envisioning what this university devoid of "outside" influences and uncorrupted knowledge would look like, and whether this was Pieper's anxiety about progressivism/liberalism/secularism infiltrating higher education.
May 2, 2021
I read this twice which was a good idea. 😂 This writer isn’t necessarily the clearest though his language acts like he is with his use of “obviously” and “clearly” etc.
My sense of the first essay is that sophists are dangerous because they manipulate us in a way that we are happy to accept, that this corrupts reality, and that communication ceases to function. And that a space where “truth” can be investigated uninhibited by any outside influences, like politics and money, is important.
The second essay argues that theoretical knowledge is the highest knowledge and that seeking it is true freedom. When we deny the need for theoretical knowledge for its own sake, we deny freedom, and then forget what freedom is.
It was an achievement to come to any understanding of this book, so it’s hard to then engage with it. But one of my thoughts was, this implies that there is an objective reality to be had. Or not ever to be had, as he says in the second essay, but does exist. That doesn’t seem so simple to me in my mind.
He also seems to think objectivity in knowledge and science and theoretical pursuits is actually possible, if difficult. Not sold on that!
My sense of the first essay is that sophists are dangerous because they manipulate us in a way that we are happy to accept, that this corrupts reality, and that communication ceases to function. And that a space where “truth” can be investigated uninhibited by any outside influences, like politics and money, is important.
The second essay argues that theoretical knowledge is the highest knowledge and that seeking it is true freedom. When we deny the need for theoretical knowledge for its own sake, we deny freedom, and then forget what freedom is.
It was an achievement to come to any understanding of this book, so it’s hard to then engage with it. But one of my thoughts was, this implies that there is an objective reality to be had. Or not ever to be had, as he says in the second essay, but does exist. That doesn’t seem so simple to me in my mind.
He also seems to think objectivity in knowledge and science and theoretical pursuits is actually possible, if difficult. Not sold on that!
May 1, 2021
I really wanted to understand this book, and even read it a few times, but was frustrated by my inability to feel that I have fully grasped it. I believe a large part of my frustration may be a function of not being able to discern what seems to be key points: (1) What, exactly, is the basis of morality - or is everything relative? (2) How do we accurately discern the motive of the communicator? (3) If all communication is to be based on reality what, exactly, is reality? I fully appreciated his broader concern, and his use of Sophism to flush out the issues, but I didn’t walk away with a satisfactory answer that I could offer to someone who suggests that all morality and truth is relative. I may need to read and study this book more carefully.
January 15, 2022
One of the best treatises on language and the effects of it's corruption that I've come across. Some of the wording is a bit clunky and hard to follow, but I'm assuming much of that stems from it being a translated work. Even so, I found Pieper's arguments to be fairly clear and almost undeniably true.
Read
March 16, 2025Third read [quote]:
“Still, it can hardly be denied that our language through all this [product advertisements/tv commercials, etc.] indeed progressively loses its character as communication, as it more and more tries to influence while less and less saying anything.”
First read: Pieper either deeply formed my sensibilities or he deeply speaks to my sensibilities.
“Still, it can hardly be denied that our language through all this [product advertisements/tv commercials, etc.] indeed progressively loses its character as communication, as it more and more tries to influence while less and less saying anything.”
First read: Pieper either deeply formed my sensibilities or he deeply speaks to my sensibilities.
March 23, 2023
More of a 4.5 for the English edition; having looked at the original German, I find some of the translation choices questionable. (I am good at parties.)
March 27, 2018
This is a short booklet which contains two important articles. They are more important because of how applicable they are to our contemporary world.
The first concerns how the abuse of language turns language into a destructive instrument of power. When language is used, not as communication based on reality, but as a means of manipulating other people so as to get something from them, it has become a form of violence. "The other, whom I try to influence with what he likes to hear, ceases to be my partner; he is no longer a fellow subject. Rather, he has become for me an object to be manipulated, possibly to be dominated, to be handled and controlled. (p. 22)." Manipulation, of course, takes many forms--which Pieper compares to a form of rape (forcing another to do what one wants them to do, by the way we speak and the words we use, such that they get the feeling they acted of their own free will). It is when words are used in this manner that they are corrupted. They no longer serve to portray truth, but, rather, to dominate and control. Such a use of words is contrary to the purpose of the academy, and must be preserved in the academy. Indeed, the academy is said to be one of the last defenses against the abuse of language. Today, even the academy has come under attack; and a statement that Pieper makes in this article, originally written in 1974, turns out to be prophetic, and true of today, "For the general public is being reduced to a state where people not only are unable to find out about the truth but also become unable even to search for the truth because they are satisfied with deception and trickery that have determined their convictions, satisfied with a fictitious reality created by design through the abuse of language. (p. 35)"
In the second article, Pieper discusses the relationship between freedom and knowledge. Noting that true freedom is only found in the pursuit of knowledge which is not for some other purpose (in other words, knowledge which is not practical but theoretical). The notion that knowledge is only worth pursuing if it is useful for something (practical), is to destroy freedom. Knowledge becomes enslaved to our practical purposes. When this happens, the pursuit of knowledge is no longer about truth, but about what works, what is useful, what contributes to the advancement of the group in question. But, says Pieper, true freedom is not found in enslavement to the practical needs of the group, but, rather, in the contemplation of truth. Quoting Boethius, Pieper concludes by noting that, "The human soul, in essence, enjoys its highest freedom when it remains in the contemplation of God's mind. (p. 54)"
The first concerns how the abuse of language turns language into a destructive instrument of power. When language is used, not as communication based on reality, but as a means of manipulating other people so as to get something from them, it has become a form of violence. "The other, whom I try to influence with what he likes to hear, ceases to be my partner; he is no longer a fellow subject. Rather, he has become for me an object to be manipulated, possibly to be dominated, to be handled and controlled. (p. 22)." Manipulation, of course, takes many forms--which Pieper compares to a form of rape (forcing another to do what one wants them to do, by the way we speak and the words we use, such that they get the feeling they acted of their own free will). It is when words are used in this manner that they are corrupted. They no longer serve to portray truth, but, rather, to dominate and control. Such a use of words is contrary to the purpose of the academy, and must be preserved in the academy. Indeed, the academy is said to be one of the last defenses against the abuse of language. Today, even the academy has come under attack; and a statement that Pieper makes in this article, originally written in 1974, turns out to be prophetic, and true of today, "For the general public is being reduced to a state where people not only are unable to find out about the truth but also become unable even to search for the truth because they are satisfied with deception and trickery that have determined their convictions, satisfied with a fictitious reality created by design through the abuse of language. (p. 35)"
In the second article, Pieper discusses the relationship between freedom and knowledge. Noting that true freedom is only found in the pursuit of knowledge which is not for some other purpose (in other words, knowledge which is not practical but theoretical). The notion that knowledge is only worth pursuing if it is useful for something (practical), is to destroy freedom. Knowledge becomes enslaved to our practical purposes. When this happens, the pursuit of knowledge is no longer about truth, but about what works, what is useful, what contributes to the advancement of the group in question. But, says Pieper, true freedom is not found in enslavement to the practical needs of the group, but, rather, in the contemplation of truth. Quoting Boethius, Pieper concludes by noting that, "The human soul, in essence, enjoys its highest freedom when it remains in the contemplation of God's mind. (p. 54)"
September 23, 2020
"Human words and language, accomplish a twofold purpose… First, words convey reality. We speak in order to name and identify something this is real, to identify it for someone, of course – and this points to the second aspect in question, the interpersonal character of human speech."
― Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power
“Whoever speaks to another person--not simply, we presume, in spontaneous conversation but using well-considered words, and whoever in so doing is explicitly not committed to the truth--whoever, in other words, is in this guided by something other than the truth--such a person, from that moment on, no longer considers the other as partner, as equal. In fact, he no longer respects the other as a human person. From that moment on , to be precise, all conversation ceases; all dialogue and all communication come to an end.”
― Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power
“Public discourse, the moment it becomes basically neutralized with regard to a strict standard of truth, stands by its nature ready to serve as an instrument in the hands of any ruler to pursue all kinds of power schemes.”
― Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power
“This lesson, in a nutshell, says: the abuse of political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the word, indeed finds in it the fertile soil in which to hide and grow and get ready, so much so that the latent potential of the totalitarian poison can be ascertained, as it were, by observing the symptom of the public abuse of language. The degradation, too, of man through man, alarmingly evident in the acts of physical violence committed by all tyrannies (concentration camps, torture), has its beginning, certainly much less alarmingly, at that almost imperceptible moment when the word loses its dignity.”
― Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power
― Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power
“Whoever speaks to another person--not simply, we presume, in spontaneous conversation but using well-considered words, and whoever in so doing is explicitly not committed to the truth--whoever, in other words, is in this guided by something other than the truth--such a person, from that moment on, no longer considers the other as partner, as equal. In fact, he no longer respects the other as a human person. From that moment on , to be precise, all conversation ceases; all dialogue and all communication come to an end.”
― Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power
“Public discourse, the moment it becomes basically neutralized with regard to a strict standard of truth, stands by its nature ready to serve as an instrument in the hands of any ruler to pursue all kinds of power schemes.”
― Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power
“This lesson, in a nutshell, says: the abuse of political power is fundamentally connected with the sophistic abuse of the word, indeed finds in it the fertile soil in which to hide and grow and get ready, so much so that the latent potential of the totalitarian poison can be ascertained, as it were, by observing the symptom of the public abuse of language. The degradation, too, of man through man, alarmingly evident in the acts of physical violence committed by all tyrannies (concentration camps, torture), has its beginning, certainly much less alarmingly, at that almost imperceptible moment when the word loses its dignity.”
― Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power
September 24, 2016
I read this strictly for school in my Language and Power class..it's not a bad read, but it's not something I would pick up on my own. It's essentially an essay by Pieper that discusses the problems with language when used as a tool for propaganda and persuasion.
It mentions the Sophists of Socrates' era: they were people paid to educate others in the use of rhetoric. It also talks about how flattery is lying and lies are essentially a complete lack of communication.
It's a very powerful and persuasive argument itself, on the danger of the power of persuasion (ironic, right?). It heavily emphasizes politics as a problem area.
It wasn't something I would read for fun, and it took maybe 45 minutes to read. Excellent for people in my class, or those that study Greek debate tactics...but not something I would advise to read for fun.
It mentions the Sophists of Socrates' era: they were people paid to educate others in the use of rhetoric. It also talks about how flattery is lying and lies are essentially a complete lack of communication.
It's a very powerful and persuasive argument itself, on the danger of the power of persuasion (ironic, right?). It heavily emphasizes politics as a problem area.
It wasn't something I would read for fun, and it took maybe 45 minutes to read. Excellent for people in my class, or those that study Greek debate tactics...but not something I would advise to read for fun.
April 13, 2012
He had some really insightful and thoughtful things to say about language, communication, reality and truth, and power. What struck me in particular was when he said that if you are not speaking of what is true, what is in accord with reality, then you really aren't communicating at all. And if you are speaking thusly so as to manipulate others into a certain pattern of thought or action, then you aren't respecting the dignity of that person.
These are great insights that I think everyone should hear and ponder a bit; however, the book is written in a manner which may not be inviting to all readers, as it reads more like a book on philosophy.
These are great insights that I think everyone should hear and ponder a bit; however, the book is written in a manner which may not be inviting to all readers, as it reads more like a book on philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews