**I'm one of those kids that spent first grade with his nose in a dictionary after finishing my work early. **
There’s been something bugging me for a bit. It seems these days that our world is more malleable than it used to be. This, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad. For instance, the gender roles that have been etched in stone since time began are not as useful as they once were. Notice, I say gender, not sex. I speak of the idea that a family where mom wins bread and dad keeps house is somehow upside down.
But, beyond that, there is an idea that all concepts are fluid and able to be redefined to meet the current situation. This makes me crazy. Yes, you can believe what you want to believe in each given situation. That’s your prerogative. I don’t like labels, so I tend to side with a variety of groups depending on the cause, I get that. But, when it comes to describing these actions, it seems that too many are ready to throw out the dictionary! Here’s what I mean.
I have had several conversations lately where a person wanted to peg me as belonging to one group or another, but when a perfectly accurate term is used to describe their own stated position, they balk. Turns out the term that describes them has baggage they don’t want to carry, so instead of either finding a new term, or changing their position to one that is more palatable to their sensitivity, they inform me that I can no longer apply the traditional definition of the word.
What word? Well, here’s a short list of words I find commonly redefined to make the wearer feel more comfortable with who they see themselves as being. “Self identification” I think the term is.
Socialist
Conservative
Equal
Democratic
Liberty
Fair
Capitalism
Entitlement
Fascist
Rights
Christian
I think you get the idea, I won’t bore you with the definitions. Worried you are not using them correctly? Just type “define” and the word into the device you are reading this on and you can find out. It’s really not hard.
Why does it matter? Well, we are fighting over not just the future of our nation, but more and more what happens to us happens globally. Maybe it’s just me. See, before I went to first grade, I asked my mother, a teacher, to teach me to read. We started when I was four. Once I had the basics down, I noticed there were a lot of words I didn’t quite understand, so my dad suggested I learn to use a dictionary. I took to it like a fish to water.
In first grade I was the kid who always finished work early and then got bored. So, I took to opening the dictionary that stood at the back of the room to a random page and reading.
We don’t agree on much, it seems, in this modern world of ours. We fight over whether the government should be bigger or smaller, whether or not we should be forced to accept medical treatments, whether we need a wall, the list goes on.
Here’s the thing, way back in about 750 BC the idea of self governance came into vogue in this little thing called the Roman Empire. They were the originators of an idea that made this possible, called parliamentary procedure. It allowed them to debate fiercely, without resulting to duels. It made sure that the minority still had a voice and that all sides could be given an equal hearing. It’s far from perfect, but it beats a fight to the death any day.
This concept, that a law could supersede passion has allowed some marvelous things to happen. It made compromise something that did not have to happen at the end of a sword. It made it possible for us to share our viewpoint in a forum that also forces us to at least pretend to listen to our opponent. It’s a good thing and it deserves respect.
So, what does that have to do with my aversion to mushy definitions? When words can be used in new ways and the new meaning (frequently, it seems lately, diametrically opposed to the original definition) it becomes impossible to engage in peaceful discussions. You can never really fully comprehend your opponent, if they allow definitions to shift, or even force them to.
It doesn’t just effect the current conversation either, oh no. Someone coming into a conversation with the new definition in mind now wields power over all of history. How? They can no co-opt the precedents of history. By applying their new definition, they can cast new, unwarranted, light on actions of the past and define their own current actions based on this new, artificial understanding.
Now, I do understand that definition comes from usage, and not the other way around. I know that words meanings change over time, but what we are witnessing is more than that IMO. So, what do I propose? Well, first of all, you’ll find me reminding people, as pedantic as it sounds, that words do have meanings. There is a word for almost anything. They can choose the right word, but often, as I said, the baggage of that word makes them uncomfortable.
So, what’s a person to do? I don’t know that there is anything to be done about it. But, understanding that this is a thing, that this happens all the time, may help. When you feel confused, ask the person what they mean by that term. If you want to be a dork like me, correct them if you want. (it hasn’t done much good, but it makes me feel better)
I like to colour outside the lines and refuse to stick to one lane. The more they try to pin me down the more I zig zag.
Always Nice To Feel Better
For Sure!!
Good Points Here!
thanks, glad you liked it.
Language is "alive", sometimes I even feel how does the meaning of words changes.
Well, words change with usage. The problem we have right now, is that the definitions are being altered, and then the change in usage has become demanded.
"When you feel confused, ask the person what they mean by that term. "
Yup. Some people are so arrogant and think they are so "smart" because they appeal to some piece of paper to license them to knowledge (PhD), and deny other valid definitions if we just look at the words closer to see what they mean, and how they can reflect reality in multiple ways.
Words have this power. Words can have dual meaning that sometimes oppose, I have found this in my etymological research.
For some people, if they don't like how someone uses words, to reflect an aspect of reality that they are not used to hearing the word used for, or to define it more precisely and more clearly, in one instance they say "Just because it has been used as such in the language it doesn't mean it is so," as to deny how the word reflects reality because they don't want to be corrected in their own limited definition of a word; and then in another instance where the definition can apply to something else in reality, they want to simply say that a broader use is invalid because they don't understand how the meaning can convey more than one aspect of reality.
Words are tricky that way. Sure, use a dictionary and etymology to point out he original meaning of a word as it was first intended to be used, but also look at how the word can mean more than that original meaning now, because words do change meaning according to the conventions of them being used by people.
Take care. Peace.
Language is always changing. But, when you insist that your new definition supersedes the old, even in places where the new usage could not have been intended, something different is going on.
I agree. I see much confusion about word meaning. I study language, symbols and reality myself: Occulting and Encrypting Reality through Word Magic - Language and Reality Pt.3, Symbols, Reality, Knowledge, Belief and Attachment.
My point was that yes use the etymology, as I often do. But in doing so, you can see how words have changed meaning, and how multiple levels of meaning can exist in words. I am not advocating simply redefining words at our whim to choose to alter our perception of reality for a specific agenda.
This is the point behind "newspeak" in Orwell's 1984, to obfuscate and confuse the meaning of reality and limit the degree of conception we can invoke from it, thereby limiting consciousness and keeping it under control, mind control.
Precisely. He made an astute observation that we see playing out, almost without filter at the present time.
@markrmorrisjr, @krnel,
This quote seemed so appropriate for this discussion:
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone,
'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll
it's mostly this relativism crap. people use it because they want to be liars and don't want to be accountable. there is the evolution of language and, then there is manipulation to achieve an end. the difference between, the formation of dialects vs. george orwell's newspeak. what we are experiencing in America today is newspeak. a lot of new usages are introduced through entertainment or media in general. bad now means good. look at how the word, civilian, now is not used to apply to government and the police. the reality is the only people who are not civilians are military. this is used to control. look up the logical fallacies, learn them, use them. a constitutional republic is NOT a democracy. we are being lied to.
Well, words are defined by usage, but when the definition change comes before the switch in usage, that's where the problem lies.
@markrmorrisjr, I've witnessed conversations that devolved into arguments because the fundamental definitions for the concepts that people were trying to discuss weren't clearly defined and all over the place....What would really help is the ability to recognize when someone is deliberately trying to manipulate the use of the language in order to foster confusion and create a smokescreen for the deception they're trying to perpetrate.
"the beginning of wisdom is definition of terms." Socrates. the Trivium Method is the best method for recognizing error or deception. learning the logical fallacies is a start.
And then, there's also recognizing when those conversations don't matter and you are dealing with a particular subset of idiot. LOL
I see what you mean how language affects history.
Good list, and I could add a few! I think of 'liberal' which meant something different once. Now, one must say "Classical" liberal to describe someone who thinks, for example, that everybody can have all the guns they want.
I just posted about some of this linguistic programming going on.
Well @therealpaul, I certainly was not trying to create the definitive lexicon of redefined terms and both ends of the political spectrum definitely engage in this. It would take a lot more than one post to really delve into it.
I thought of 'liberal' first mainly because it is so commonly mis-used, I usually stay clear of those polarizing topics myself
Yeah, I'm not afraid of polarizing, but I'm a pure libertarian, minarchist/anarchist, so I rarely have a dog in the fight and I like pissing them off and making them think! LOL
Yep I'm probably an anarchist (you know, funny mustache and explosions)
Another one, to my way of thinking, is "hero" that word used to mean someone who did something above and beyond their job, not just everyone who put on a uniform to serve the state.
that does water down the word. I think the problem is that the average person doesn't know how to find a similar word to convey their meaning.
There is a story that when Queen Victoria was commissioning the Victoria Cross she would not allow the medal to be for "bravery" because she felt any who went into battle were brave. The medal bears the words "For Valour". She had the capacity to find a word that fit her meaning rather than co-opting another.
"Never enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed person".
Not all people have the vocabulary you possess. Many, myself included, are limited to the words which come to mind at any moment in time. It can be a narrow set. I believe this then forces a redefinition of a known and familiar word to fit the situation and the intent of the user. This can enhance or soil the standing meaning.
Conversely, as one identifies with a word, but is limited in options, they must change the definition to fit their self-image instead of finding a more accurate choice.
Yeah, I don't think the leaders of the ruling political parties in America, being the recipients of advanced degrees from some of the most prestigious universities in the world, are saddled with this lack of options you describe.
Academics provide education, not necessarily the aptitude to apply knowledge, tact, or intellect wisely.
We're talking about vocabulary and you insinuated that perhaps the people I was referring had vocabularies that were somehow lacking, but if you look at the terms I was referring to, they're not that complicated.
Well life and time is ever evolving . With the passage of time, language need to elolve too, with many new words being added to the dictionary. Words such as wifi, sms etc were non existence previously
Yes, but in those cases, the usage begins to change gradually. When the insistence of a specific new definition comes before that usage shift, there is a fundamental shift in how language is being used.
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about linkback bot v0.3
Upvote if you want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts. Flag if otherwise. Built by @ontofractal