However, not all forms of thought require language to be utilized from a fundamental level. One example of this is logic, or abstract reason, which uses language only as a preparatory tool. The simplest form of logic is in the form of “if…then” statements, organized in a conditional clause and a clause following it dependant upon the conditional. Language is only used in this case in order to receive information necessary to establish a condition, but the process of logic from then on does not require language. It becomes an abstract analysis of information through systematic determination, a wordless phenomenon of elimination and deduction exclusive and instinctive to sentience. Language in this case does not play an fundamental nor an essential part in the analytical process of logic, but becomes only a prerequisite as a Way of Knowing; to gather the information to be logically processed.
Language does not limit our thoughts inherently; it is used as a tool to do so, but by itself has no such capability. ‘Newspeak’ from George Orwell’s 1984 is an example of how language may be used as a device to direct or limit thinking. The government present within the plot of the book eliminates certain meanings of words in order to stop the people from thinking about them. For instance, the concept of individual freedom is nonexistent in ‘Newspeak’, as the government has eliminated all aspects of being ‘free’ (politically and religiously), except the physical connotation of the word. By eliminating certain meanings of words and some words entirely, the government is using language as a tool to impose a different type of thinking on the people. If people are prohibited to use words except the given limited set, their thinking will duly be affected. The way language limits thought in this example is not due to its inherent nature, but it was the government itself; the language merely acted as an effective tool.
Even though we work with a finite set of words, when we are not prohibited to use other words, we modify or create words to suit our needs, showing that language does not limit our thinking due to its intrinsic nature. Often in scientific discoveries, the discovered particle or concept do not have names, but because we are not confined to use only a limited set of words, we can come up with new words to describe the discovery. This effectively shows an example of how language in its basic nature does not affect our thinking, but it is rather the other way around – language constantly modified to suit our intellectual needs. Shakespeare as well shows an example of how thought affects language, and not the other way around. This famous English playwright coined various terms, such as “assassination” to add to language words with specific connotations as necessary. As these examples show, language does not limit our thinking, but rather our thoughts affect and limit language.
Language is an intellectual tool devised by humans, and as such, it is not the tool that extends the creator’s mind, it is the creator using the tool to extend his or her own mental capacity. Discussion is an obvious example of how language and its use of communication can bring about advancement in our process of thinking and in his or her intellect. Through discussion we share our knowledge with others, and we also receive knowledge from others, all through language, and in this way we are exposed to alternate viewpoints, concepts, and beliefs, which all will work to extend the boundaries of our knowledge and duly develop a more intellectual and advanced process of thinking. The aspect of language that allows for progress and development of more advanced thinking is not due to an inherent nature of language, but rather due to our ability to utilize language as a tool.
Similar to how a discussion can extend our thinking, propaganda uses language to have an affect on minds as well. Most overt as a part of a totalitarian government, propaganda uses language to direct people’s minds, but again, it is the people who are ultimately directing the people’s thinking, not language itself. Hitler, for instance, used massive amounts of propaganda to influence people’s thinking, with particular emphasis towards the Jewish race. In such propaganda he not only employed written language by describing them as “parasites” and “bacillus”, but he also portrayed illustrated body language to establish a bias towards them. The propaganda of course greatly aided his anti-Semitist policies, by inculcating and setting root in the German people a spiteful view towards the Jewish race. Language as shown is a powerful tool to direct people’s thinking, but as stated repeatedly, it has no inherent nature that directs or otherwise affects an individual’s thoughts.
Language is the symbol of the intellectual achievement exclusive to mankind, and is also an extremely powerful tool not as a means of communication, but also as a device to influence others. As is evident, language plays an important part of our thinking process, although not all processes (such as logic or abstract reasoning) require a fundamental integration of language beyond the translation of language into knowledge. The effects of languages on a person’s way of thinking are not – as shown through the various examples – products of a fundamental property of language, but are a result of a society, a government, or just a group of people using language as a tool to influence others. Language is the most brilliant achievement of our specie’s intellect, and as such, the latter is the master of the former.