Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China is a non-fiction book by psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton on the psychology of brainwashing and mind control. Lifton's research for the book began in 1953 with a series of interviews with American servicemen who had been held captive during the Korean War. In addition to interviews with 25 Americans, Lifton also interviewed 15 Chinese who had fled their homeland after having been subjected to indoctrination in Chinese universities. The book was first published in 1961 by Norton in New York.[1] The 1989 reprint edition was published by University of North Carolina Press.[2] Lifton is a Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York. Main points[edit] In the book, Lifton outlines the "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform": Milieu Control. Thought-terminating cliché[edit] Lifton said:[4][5] Examples[edit] General examples “Think of the children”
Philosophy of mind A phrenological mapping[1] of the brain – phrenology was among the first attempts to correlate mental functions with specific parts of the brain Philosophy of mind is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness, and their relationship to the physical body, particularly the brain. The mind–body problem, i.e. the relationship of the mind to the body, is commonly seen as one key issue in philosophy of mind, although there are other issues concerning the nature of the mind that do not involve its relation to the physical body, such as how consciousness is possible and the nature of particular mental states.[2][3][4] Mind–body problem[edit] Our perceptual experiences depend on stimuli that arrive at our various sensory organs from the external world, and these stimuli cause changes in our mental states, ultimately causing us to feel a sensation, which may be pleasant or unpleasant. Arguments for dualism[edit]
Semantic theory of truth In the philosophy of language, a theory of truth holding that truth is a property of sentences A semantic theory of truth is a theory of truth in the philosophy of language which holds that truth is a property of sentences.[1] Origin[edit] The semantic conception of truth, which is related in different ways to both the correspondence and deflationary conceptions, is due to work by Polish logician Alfred Tarski. Tarski's theory of truth[edit] To formulate linguistic theories[2] without semantic paradoxes such as the liar paradox, it is generally necessary to distinguish the language that one is talking about (the object language) from the language that one is using to do the talking (the metalanguage). Tarski's material adequacy condition, also known as Convention T, holds that any viable theory of truth must entail, for every sentence "P", a sentence of the following form (known as "form (T)"): (1) "P" is true if, and only if, P. For example, Kripke's theory of truth[edit] See also[edit]
Linguistics In the early 20th century Ferdinand de Saussure distinguished between the notions of langue and parole in his formulation of structural linguistics. According to him, parole is the specific utterance of speech, whereas langue refers to an abstract phenomenon that theoretically defines the principles and system of rules that govern a language.[9] This distinction resembles the one made by Noam Chomsky between competence and performance, where competence is individual's ideal knowledge of a language, while performance is the specific way in which it is used.[10] In classical Indian philosophy of language, the Sanskrit philosophers like Patanjali and Katyayana had distinguished between sphota (light) and dhvani (sound). In the late 20th century, French philosopher Jacques Derrida distinguished between the notions of speech and writing.[11] Nomenclature[edit] Variation and Universality[edit] Lexicon[edit] The lexicon is a catalogue of words and terms that are stored in a speaker's mind.
Linguistic relativity The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects the ways in which its respective speakers conceptualize their world, i.e. their world view, or otherwise influences their cognitive processes. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is often defined to include two versions: Strong version: that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categoriesWeak version: that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behaviour. The term "Sapir–Whorf hypothesis" is a misnomer, because Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf never co-authored anything, and never stated their ideas in terms of a hypothesis. Definitional issues and debates[edit] The concept of linguistic relativity holds that cognitive processes, such as thought and experience, may be influenced by the categories and patterns of the language a person speaks. History[edit]
Axiology History[edit] Between the 5th and 6th century B.C., it was important in Greece to be knowledgeable if you were to be successful. Philosophers began to recognize that differences existed between the laws and morality of society. Socrates held the belief that knowledge had a vital connection to virtue, making morality and democracy closely intertwined. Socrates' student, Plato furthered the belief by establishing virtues which should be followed by all. With the fall of the government, values became individual, causing skeptic schools of thought to flourish, ultimately shaping a pagan philosophy that is thought to have influenced and shaped Christianity. Axiological Issues in Communication Studies[edit] Communication theorists seek to contribute to mutual intelligence about the anatomy and operation of human communication. Those who take a conventional scientific approach believe that research must be free of values in order to be valid. See also[edit] References[edit] Further reading[edit]
Recursive definition Four stages in the construction of a Koch snowflake. As with many other fractals, the stages are obtained via a recursive definition. (n + 1)! = (n + 1)·n!. The recursion theorem states that such a definition indeed defines a function that is unique. An inductive definition of a set describes the elements in a set in terms of other elements in the set. 1 is in N.If an element n is in N then n + 1 is in N.N is the intersection of all sets satisfying (1) and (2). There are many sets that satisfy (1) and (2) – for example, the set {1, 1.649, 2, 2.649, 3, 3.649, ...} satisfies the definition. Properties of recursively defined functions and sets can often be proved by an induction principle that follows the recursive definition. Form of recursive definitions[edit] Most recursive definitions have two foundations: a base case (basis) and an inductive clause. Principle of recursive definition[edit] Let A be a set and let a0 be an element of A. such that Examples of recursive definitions[edit]
Language A mural in Teotihuacan, Mexico (c. 2nd century) depicting a person emitting a speech scroll from his mouth, symbolizing speech Language is the human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, and a language is any specific example of such a system. The scientific study of language is called linguistics. Languages evolve and diversify over time, and the history of their evolution can be reconstructed by comparing modern languages to determine which traits their ancestral languages must have had in order for the later developmental stages to occur. Definitions[edit] As an object of linguistic study, "language" has two primary meanings: an abstract concept, and a specific linguistic system, e.g. Mental faculty, organ or instinct[edit] One definition sees language primarily as the mental faculty that allows humans to undertake linguistic behaviour: to learn languages and to produce and understand utterances. Formal symbolic system[edit] Tool for communication[edit]
Logocracy Logocracy is the rule of—or government by—words. It is derived from the Greek λόγος (logos) - "word" and from κράτος (kratos) - to "govern". The term can be used either positively, ironically or negatively. Historical examples[edit] "unknown to these people themselves, their government is a pure unadulterated LOGOCRACY or government of words. The Soviet Union was described by Nobel Prize winner Czesław Miłosz,[3] as a logocracy.[4] It was for example, according to Christine D. Totalitarianism, according to political theorist Hannah Arendt, can be considered a logocracy, since in it ideas are no longer important, just how they are expressed.[8] Academic Yahya Michot has referred to Sunni Islam as a "popular" or "laic logocracy", in that it is government by the word of the Koran.[9] See also[edit] Videocracy - the power of the image, an important modern extension to logocracy but also a potential opposing force.[10]Political Correctness - rule of correct terminology.[11] References[edit]
Epistemology Branch of philosophy concerning knowledge In these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as "What do people know?", "What does it mean to say that people know something?" Etymology[edit] The etymology of the word epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek epistēmē, meaning "knowledge, understanding, skill, scientific knowledge",[7][note 1] and the English suffix -ology, meaning "the science or discipline of (what is indicated by the first element)".[9] The word "epistemology" first appeared in 1847, in a review in New York's Eclectic Magazine : The title of one of the principal works of Fichte is 'Wissenschaftslehre,' which, after the analogy of technology ... we render epistemology.[10] The word was first used to present a philosophy in English by Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier in 1854. This section of the science is properly termed the Epistemology—the doctrine or theory of knowing, just as ontology is the science of being... Knowledge[edit]
true English[edit] Etymology[edit] From Middle English trewe, from Old English trīewe, (Mercian) trēowe (“trusty, faithful”), from Proto-Germanic *triwwiz (compare Saterland Frisian trjou (“honest”), Dutch getrouw and trouw, German treu, Norwegian and Swedish trygg (“safe, secure’”), from pre-Germanic *drewh₂yos, from Proto-Indo-European *drewh₂- (“steady, firm”) (compare Irish dearbh (“sure”), Old Prussian druwis (“faith”), Ancient Greek δροόν (droón, “firm”)), extension of *dóru (“tree”). More at tree. For the semantic development, compare Latin robustus (“tough”) from robur (“red oak”). Pronunciation[edit] (UK) IPA(key): /tɹuː/(US) enPR: trōō IPA(key): /tɹu/, [t͡ʃɹu](archaic) IPA(key): /tɹjuː/, /tɹɪw/Rhymes: -uː Adjective[edit] true (comparative truer or more true, superlative truest or most true) Antonyms[edit] Derived terms[edit] Related terms[edit] truth Translations[edit] The translations below need to be checked and inserted above into the appropriate translation tables, removing any numbers.
Communication In the realm of biology in general, communication often occurs through visual, auditory, or biochemical means. Human communication is unique for its extensive use of language. Non-human communication is studied in the field of biosemiotics. Nonverbal communication[edit] Verbal communication[edit] Effective verbal or spoken communication is dependent on a number of factors and cannot be fully isolated from other important interpersonal skills such as non-verbal communication, listening skills and clarification. Written communication and its historical development[edit] Over time the forms of and ideas about communication have evolved through the continuing progression of technology. The progression of written communication can be divided into three "information communication revolutions":[3] Communication is thus a process by which meaning is assigned and conveyed in an attempt to create shared understanding. Business communication[edit] Effective communication[edit] Physical barriers.
Language and thought A variety of different authors, theories and fields purport influences between language and thought. Many point out the seemingly common-sense realization that upon introspection we seem to think in the language we speak. A number of writers and theorists have extrapolated upon this idea. Scientific hypotheses[edit] Examples[edit] Counting[edit] Different cultures use numbers in different ways. Perhaps the most different counting system from that of modern Western civilisation is the “one-two-many” system used by the Pirahã people. Orientation[edit] Color[edit] Language may influence color processing. Other schools of thought[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] Jump up ^ Gordon, P., (2004).
Ontology Philosophical study of being and existence When used as a countable noun, the words ontology and ontologies refer not to the science of being but to theories within the science of being. Ontological theories can be divided into various types according to their theoretical commitments. Etymology[edit] onto- (Greek: ὄν, on;[note 1] GEN. ὄντος, ontos, 'being' or 'that which is') and -logia (-λογία, 'logical discourse').[3][4] While the etymology is Greek, the oldest extant records of the word itself is a Neo-Latin form ontologia, which appeared in 1606 in the Ogdoas Scholastica by Jacob Lorhard (Lorhardus), and in 1613 in the Lexicon philosophicum by Rudolf Göckel (Goclenius). The first occurrence in English of ontology, as recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary,[5] came in 1664 through Archelogia philosophica nova... by Gideon Harvey.[6] The word was first used, in its Latin form, by philosophers, and based on the Latin roots (and in turn on the Greek ones). Overview[edit] Identity[edit] D.