Language actually does both. Yes, language describes the world, but it also shapes the way you think, and therefore shapes the way you interpret the world. Your interpretations of the events around you will always be filtered through the lens of your ideology, whatever that may be. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I would say it's unavoidable. We simply cannot help but judge things against the background of our own experience and knowledge. There is no such thing as a truly non-partisan position. Everyone is partisan. The only question is to whom. Once we recognize our own internal cognitive biases, we can begin to change out our ideological lenses and see how the world appears to us when we view things through a different lens, from a different perspective. None of the lenses are perfect, and they all create some level of distortion, but they are the only means by which we can view anything. Therefore, if we want to obtain the highest degree of accuracy possible, we must have multiple lenses in our toolkit, and be willing to change them out with each other to obtain multiple perspectives. Insisting on using just one lens only blinds us to the bigger picture.
____________________________________________________
"Our brain is mapping the world. Often that map is distorted, but it's a map with constant immediate sensory input."
— E. O. Wilson

"A FEW YEARS AGO the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved goldfish bowls. The measure’s sponsor explained the measure in part by saying that it is cruel to keep a fish in a bowl with curved sides because, gazing out, the fish would have a distorted view of reality. But how do we know we have the true, undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves also be inside some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous lens? The goldfish’s picture of reality is different from ours, but can we be sure it is less real?"
— Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow, "The Grand Design"

"In the history of science we have discovered a sequence of better and better theories or models, from Plato to the classical theory of Newton to modern quantum theories. It is natural to ask: Will this sequence eventually reach an end point, an ultimate theory of the universe, that will include all forces and predict every observation we can make, or will we continue forever finding better theories, but never one that cannot be improved upon? We do not yet have a definitive answer to this question...
— Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow, "The Grand Design," p.8

http://www.philosophylounge.com/perceive...
http://content.time.com/time/arts/articl...
____________________________________________________

Ayn Rand may have rejected Anarchism on an emotional level, but her ideology is nevertheless build on the same logical foundation as Anarchism — that is, Anarchism and Objectivism are both built on the idea that it is possible for men to unite without coercion under a binding legal order for peaceful cooperation. They both reject coercive social organizations, and repudiate coercion as a social technique. Ayn Rand said some very nasty things about Anarchism, but she never specified how her ideal utopia (Galt's Gulch) was any different from the ideal utopia of an Anarchist. In fact, her descriptions of Galt's Gulch which she provides in Atlas Shrugged cannot be called anything else except the descriptions of an Anarchist society. Ayn Rand may have vehemently repudiated Anarchism, but her own ideology points in the same direction. And ultimately it is direction, not intention, that determines destination.

I believe we've had this debate before, haven't we? I've been thinking over why we had so much trouble reaching a consensus the last time we had this debate, and I think I've figured it out. See, the last time we discussed this topic, I believe you were opperating on the premise that the terms "Non-Aggression Principle" and "Non-Initiation Principle" referred to two different concepts, when in fact they are actually two different labels for the same concept. Here's the definition provided by Ludwig von Mises Institute:
____________________________________________________
Principle of non-aggression

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_...
____________________________________________________

This is why you and I couldn't understand each other last time. We were each operating under different definitions of the same terminology. THAT'S how language shapes the way we perceive the world. So you see, Noam Chomsky's stance on language is really not so far off the truth after all.