/lit/ - Literature

>>2698987
>implying you need to be smart to grasp hegel
>implying that's an achievement

Kill yourself.

>>2164872
>citation

>>1087681
The original (strong) Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that language determines, or sets the boundaries of thought (linguistic determinism). Tribes with no word for "left" and "right", for example, also tend not to have a concept for it, and as a result orient themselves in comparison to the cardinal directions and have great senses of direction. The trouble was that Sapir and Whorf believed that a person's thought was fully determined by their language, and could not conceptualize anything that wasn't encoded in it, which is not supported by evidence. New jargons spring up to describe things for which there are no words, and people whose languages have no word for "blue" can still tell the difference between "blue" and "green". People still like to argue about it, though.
OP's excerpt is an example of the weak Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, or linguistic relativity. Language informs perception, but does not fully control cognition.

>>939495
>People (possibly I should use the word children?) here can't seem to differentiate between "I like this," and "This is great." There is a difference.

Just because you make that distinction doesn't mean I have to make that distinction. Don't force your values upon me. If I don't enjoy reading it, it has absolutely zero value for me as a piece of literature.