The manipulation of powerful words is a task every leader is forced to master. There are many words the common man is not able to comprehend. Which causes a variety of meanings to alter the main idea of the message being delivered. In the essay written by Aldous Huxley, titled Words and Behavior, the author expands the minds of the intellect by introducing the justification of war through the use of language effectively to inform them about the corruption being used by politicians in order to favor their voracity of ignorance.
There are many words people don’t know the meaning to, regardless of age, grade and intelligence of morality. Huxley’s words appeals to a specific group. It is evident enough to conclude the remaining of the human population …show more content…
The shifts as the audience changes interpretation. Common diction is being used when the “words” are being used in war, but when he talks about how politicians use it, then it becomes convoluted. He wrote “the language we use about war is inappropriate” meaning it is sugar coated. “Conceal reality so odious” is an outside source who confirms and clarifies the picture he’s trying to display by providing additional point of views for the argument. Huxley’s habit of engaging misinterpretations “same abstract word to describe the two dissimilar processes is profoundly misleading” to emphasis on the numerous amounts of people who collide with war itself in order to support politicians’ expectations and later answering in parenthesis “(Still more misleading, of course, is the explicit assimilation of a war)” solves a problems in clarification and theme throughout the essay by anticipating any oppositions at the same time addresses the multiple “shades” …show more content…
This is of course for their own benefit, but is it for the rest of the world? Huxley portraits his view upon stating a direct question whether war was morally correct or not. He describes the men as individuals who had been lied or used long time ago who never questioned the justification of war. With the use of real battles his arguments becomes more solid and the reader built trust to value his opinion. To have masses of bodies collide for a selfish purpose they are not clear about and to leave families empty handed causes trivial questioning whether justification of war is morally supported. Language is a strategy who emotionally connects us and can also breaks us apart from existence itself. There are many discussions regarding war, but with the power of his words, he’s able to plant the seed in their reader’s mind to start questioning the existence of such a bloody
There are many words people don’t know the meaning to, regardless of age, grade and intelligence of morality. Huxley’s words appeals to a specific group. It is evident enough to conclude the remaining of the human population …show more content…
The shifts as the audience changes interpretation. Common diction is being used when the “words” are being used in war, but when he talks about how politicians use it, then it becomes convoluted. He wrote “the language we use about war is inappropriate” meaning it is sugar coated. “Conceal reality so odious” is an outside source who confirms and clarifies the picture he’s trying to display by providing additional point of views for the argument. Huxley’s habit of engaging misinterpretations “same abstract word to describe the two dissimilar processes is profoundly misleading” to emphasis on the numerous amounts of people who collide with war itself in order to support politicians’ expectations and later answering in parenthesis “(Still more misleading, of course, is the explicit assimilation of a war)” solves a problems in clarification and theme throughout the essay by anticipating any oppositions at the same time addresses the multiple “shades” …show more content…
This is of course for their own benefit, but is it for the rest of the world? Huxley portraits his view upon stating a direct question whether war was morally correct or not. He describes the men as individuals who had been lied or used long time ago who never questioned the justification of war. With the use of real battles his arguments becomes more solid and the reader built trust to value his opinion. To have masses of bodies collide for a selfish purpose they are not clear about and to leave families empty handed causes trivial questioning whether justification of war is morally supported. Language is a strategy who emotionally connects us and can also breaks us apart from existence itself. There are many discussions regarding war, but with the power of his words, he’s able to plant the seed in their reader’s mind to start questioning the existence of such a bloody