WORDS. Words do not have meaning, words only have usages. Words are human cultural constructs, used in an attempt to model reality, which we generally inherit and which were made by former generations, who often had very different models of reality to ours. Believing that words have meaning is merely to make a god out of inherited human culture, which is why they so often fail.
Words are at best, poor second hand tools, ill suited to the purpose to which they are used, using them to model reality being like, trying to build a butterfly out of house bricks. And the myth that they have wisdom and meaning, built into them, is no better than the belief that there is wisdom and meaning imparted to us by a literal god though holy books. The biggest mistake you can make, having thrown out a belief in god, is to set up human culture as an alternative god instead.
Atheist for example. (Only for example.) Is a very badly used word in many cases, since most, so called, atheists, are actually what you could call 'asupernaturalists' or 'anti-suprernaturalists', since they do not believe in anything supernatural, nor any, none theist religions, like Buddhism, Spiritualism or Animism either. So that it could well be that when we call ourselves atheist, we a conceding to theist imperialism, trying to pretend that only theist religion, (god belief ) matters, and that other religions are second rate.
So that words distort the way we see the world even making us play our opponent game. Every time you use atheist, you may be helping, in a very small way true, to promote the other theist agenda, that theist religion, is somehow more important, natural, and serious than none theist religions like Buddhism or Animism, because it alone deserves an 'anti' word.
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.We don't merely use words for fun. We use them to convey meaning. We are stuck with words, like it or not. As imperfect a tool they may be for conveying meaning and having that meaning understood as we intend, we are left with no preferable alternatives.
MikeInBatonRouge
Level 8
June 22, 2021
2
Yes I quite agree.
Semantics. Words do, indeed have meaning, a meaning which is derived through inferences people make based on the observed usage of the words. It is subjective to be sure, but it is still meaning.
Perhaps you meant no absolute meaning?
The purpose of words, certainly imperfectly executed, is to convey meaning. The main reason it seems that they can't seem to stick to an absolute meaning is human psychology and our dogged insistance on changing language usage repeatedly. So they do convey meaning, just not reliably.
As for your comments on the word "atheist" and potential impact its usage may have on public regard for non-theistic religions, interesting point. I presume atheists who care little for ideas of Buddhism or Animism may also not care if the impact is detrimental.
I consider myself an agnostic atheist, but you hinted at the central reason I am ambivalent about the term; that is, it is a label based squarely on what a so-named person is not, rather than what we are. "Secular humanist" seems so much more positive.
MikeInBatonRouge
Level 8
June 22, 2021
2
I did mean absolute meanings, my word "usages" being the same thing as, 'none absolute meanings'. But the fact that I need to define my meaning of usages further, kind of proves my point. That you can not in fact use any word and assume its meaning, without defining that meaning on that occasion. And that believing words have absolute meanings is the same as believing in gods.
@Fernapple inflexibility in any perspective is generally a dubious thing. Might as well be a fundamentalist atheist. One of my favorite bumper stickers (used to have one) is "Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and you don't either!"
To your point about no absolute meaning in words, a thesaurus is a curious thing to me. Look up a word, see a handful of alternative terms. Then look up one of those alternatives. Usually(though not always) the list of synonyms for that word will be slightly different than the list for the first. That is because definitions are close but not identical or complete between synonyms. Connotation and nuance gets bulldozed by absolutists. Individual words often have several definitions and usages. You certainly learn that when trying to learn a foreign language.
Of course words have meanings.
Definition: noun
-
the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear:
We need a better definition of her responsibilities. -
the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries. An online dictionary resource, such as Dictionary.com, can give users direct, immediate access to the definitions of a term, allowing them to compare definitions from various dictionaries and stay up to date with an ever-expanding vocabulary.
-
the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined:
His biceps have great muscle definition. -
Optics. sharpness of the image formed by an optical system.
-
Radio and Television. the accuracy of sound or picture reproduction.
Source: dictionary.com.
LiterateHiker
Level 9
June 22, 2021
0
Ah, spoken like a true religious believer. Your holy books are a perfect guide to everything in life, but you have to ask yourself if the worship of dictionaries, is in any way different from the worship of bibles.
No words do not have meaning, words only have usages. Words are human cultural constructs, used in an attempt to model reality, which we generally inherit and which were made by former generations who often had very different models of reality to ours.
To make good and worthwhile use of sceptical thinking, it is not enough merely to abandon literal belief in the sky fairy. Which is only a tiny part of the worlds culturally recieved folly, and probably far from being the worst or most dangerous part. It is needful to apply a sceptical view to all of human culture, including, art, tradition, litrature and yes language, plus any other of the numerous psuedo-gods that human culture creates and sets up.
It is usualy thought that, in about the fifth century BCE, the classical world first produced philosophy. Why ? Was not the recieved cultural knowledge of the classical world enough, did not Zeus and the oracle at Delphi have good enough answers ? Of course you know the answer. Which is that, it was obvious by then, that unregulated and inherited human culture was not a good source of knowledge and wisdom, it was needful at the very least to invent philosophy to bring the rules of logic found in mathematics to bare on the problems. And when once that did not prove alone to be enough, the enlightenment invented Natural Philosphy, now called science, to add extra measures and safeguards, such as the experimental method. None of that would have been needed had it not been plainly seen that recieved cultural information, was failing to give good answers or provide a good model of the world. And what was one of the first errors to be recognized, by philosophy, it was that of linguistic sophistry.
@Fernapple usage of a dictionary as a reference is not religious. Dictionary repeated revisions to reflect changing usage is commonly accepted. It is merely a reference tool, no holy text we claim to be somehow eternal truth. (Possible exceptions in the case of academie francaise; they take themselves far too seriously, lol)
@Fernapple I wonder what a "pseudo-god" is, given we don't believe in the reality of deity, and "pseudo-" means sham or false or spurious. That makes "god" and "pseudo-god" the same thing. Gotta love redundancy!
@MikeInBatonRouge If you use a dictionary for reference, then no it is not religious. But if you use it as a source of truth beyond the "usages" of words, which perhaps you would not do, but a lot of people do, then yes it does become a religion.
@MikeInBatonRouge An exact example proving my point. What word would you use for something which acts in the role of a god, but does not have many of the properties usually associated with a god, such as mind and thought ? I do not know one, maybe you do, my vocabulary is not vast, but the fact that common English does not provide such a term, and forces me to invent one. A bad one with redundancy, as you say. Is exactly the point that the failings of the inherited language, affects the way we model reality, in a detrimental way. Especially if we believe in absolute meanings.
And moreover lead to failings of thought, such as the common falacy,of believing that you can define god into existence, often found in the religious.
@Fernapple Idol? Demigod?
@MikeInBatonRouge Yep good ideas, but I still think that pseudo-god suits the purpose better.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.