Language is a fickle beast. It can be used to communicate so much, yet so little. In conversation, the way something is said can completely change the message to even contradict the meaning of the words. Sometimes words are overused in too many contexts and their initial meaning is lost completely. Words such as: "that, which, like, and also". As a practice, I encourage you to explore the different ways those words are used.
In my scientific writing course, we are instructed to adamantly avoid using those words. (like, which, that, and also) They are too broad for science journals where precision of language is key. In my french literature courses, I read various french philosophers, Voltaire, Descartes, and Sartre for example, and learned about their tradition of inventing words to specifically capture their ideas. This was preferred over attempting to describe their ideas with many simpler words. Granted, I found this all very pretentious, but it has me thinking of the ways we deliberately obfuscate meaning. This ambiguity is especially apparent on the web with internet arguments in (fill in the blank) comment sections.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
So It Seems...
Meaning can be obfuscated by distancing oneself from the words they say. My title is a direct example of this. By saying "the distance it seems to create", I've avoid making any absolute claim or observation. I've made the idea external from myself, or rather, I am attempting to do so. This distance creation is used in all sorts of contexts.
In arguments, this technique is used to avoid appearing wrong. I can say that most people seem ignorant of the world around them without having to provide any substantial basis for the assertion. Additionally, I am placing the burden of proof on the contradictory argument. Truthfully, there is no reason for me to assume that I am any more or less aware of the world than other people around me. I do not have the data to confirm or deny, and the willingness to share that data is not synonymous with a lack of data. The passivity of seems also escapes the toxicity of making these assertions. If my peer agrees with my observation, out of trust or some other reason, I am also able to disclaim any responsibility in influencing his/her opinions. If they are to act on these new opinions, I can essentially hang them out to dry or claim them depending on how his/her actions make me look.
The more concerning use to me however, is when distance is created from oneself. Distance from one's emotions, experiences, and memories. Other words come to mind in addition to seems: "interesting, weird, dumb, sad, and good".
There are many meanings these words can convey. Here are some ways I have seen them used amongst my peers (I don't really want to share direct examples here as they were shared in confidence):
- That was embarrassing, or I'm humiliated
- I care a lot about...
- I think she is flirting with me.
- Anguish
- I'm hurting
- That was awesome
- I feel love toward...
- I feel positively/negatively toward..., but I don't want to be judged for it.
Source: frankiejohn.com
Additionally, there is a notion that taking this linguistic/mental step away from your person introduces an objective point of view. I don't see it that way. Being objective with yourself requires taking a step out of yourself. Looking at yourself externally. This is not the same as disowning, separating, or denying one's emotions and experiences. When they are no longer a part of you, you lose the ability to see the whole you. When I use these words, or strategies, I am inhibiting my ability to understand myself in order to avoid appearing vulnerable. Sometimes, this is worthwhile. It makes sense to suppress bleeding when swimming with sharks. However, I have contexts where I can trust the people I'm with. In these environments, there is little need to separate myself from my experiences, yet many of us will do it anyway.
I'm not sure what any of this means, or how to enact on this information. The calamity of creating distance is combatted by its apparent use. It is food for thought and something I am currently putting effort into understanding more of. I don't have any moral stances on this either. This language of distance can be seen as a form of deception. Yet, there a plenty of situations where keeping my experiences concealed keep me afloat.
Concluding Remarks
Well thanks to anyone that stuck it out this long. I hope you found this piece interesting. If you have any words or phrases you think people use to create distance, let me know in the comments below! I'm also open to counter arguments or criticisms and would like to hear them! And let me know where you think I have created distance from my words in this very posts. Until next time,
Dan S.
Good post. I agree with most. I tackled the subject in a special case of one word, " Justice"
This what I started with:
What is considered a just behavior?
From human perspective I define it as: Every human is free to do whatever he wishes with whatever he owns as long as he does not affect harmfully other creations (on his level of the creation hierarchy) in any way, shape or form.
This definition requires few other definitions: For example Ownership, Creation hierarchy and Free. If I go ahead and define every one of these concepts I will surly find out that I have used new concepts that need to be defined as will. And the circle will get exponentially so big where everyone will get lost and become confused. This is good for law makers, law enforces, lawyers, politicians, as well as sophisticated criminals
This is sort of why I dislike the Neologisms of the French. wiki on neologism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism (Something you're practicing with terms like creation heirarchy). When a lot of meaning is placed into words, it robs the speaker/writer the ability to speak and convey basic meaning. This is something George Orwell, author of 1982 and Animal Farm, rallies against in his literature.
I would say our problems, although both share the domain of language, are different. Your issue pertains to reduction of meaning (correct me if I'm wrong). Whereas, my point is how a few words and phrases, "seem" being the selected example, are often used to obfuscate meaning, usually in conversation.
So I was practicing neologism and I did not know it. For example I invented this word.
Googlization: the collaboration between corporation and government to control the masses.
That's a really fun word. I might use it on conversation now, lol. There's nothing apparently wrong with inventing words though. It's just important to make sure that you don't lose control of your speech/point to the words you invent. That's when you have to go back and define things and you can run into loops. It's something to be aware of. I.E. if you can't reframe your ideas in layman's terms, then you probably don't understand the idea.