[Tortured title fixed]
I have taken to objecting to linguistic torture rather emphatically and frequently. I really ought to clarify.
If people use the word: "Happiness" to mean something relatively (but not completely) specific, then any use of happiness that violates that standard general shared meaning is rhetorical cheating and bad philosophical practice.
Happiness -- Everyone agrees that happiness is: a specific (set of) emotion(s)...alternately a sense of life-satisfaction.
People do research on the topic of happiness. People from Aristotle to Buddha to Lao Tzu to Will Willkinson write on the topic of happiness...and in a very rough sense, it's pretty clear that we're all talking about the same thing (or as I believe, set of things).
Happiness is well understood to be something that we get when we get the girl...and something that we don't get when we get beaten up.
If you try to use the word "happiness" to mean anything we pursue (the theory we all pursue happiness)...we are no longer talking about happiness. We are talking about some other idea: "Squibblix: That which we all pursue". If you are talking about happiness instead of Squibblix, it's because you want some or all of the value of the word happiness to rub off on your concept of squibblix. If you don't want to steal some of the value of the happiness word without justifying your theft...you should stick with nonsense words so no one gets confused and thinks you're using stuff in an English sense. Unless, of course, you are deliberately trying to confuse people....in which case I suggest you stop.
---
Other words that suffer from this problem:
Randian "Selfishness" -- I did this badly myself for a solid 5-7 years...and since I have become extra-sensitive to bad word-usage which leads to uncareful thinking.
In normal English, "selfishness" includes active disregard for others' preferences.
The words "self-interest" or "prudence" is the word used by english-speaking people in order to indicate behaving basically smartly.
---
"Self-interest" and sometimes "selfishness" also are frequently cheated aroudn a different way.
What is the purpose of the word "self-interested"?
To distinguish between acts that are morally praiseworthy like helping your team, and acts that are not morally praiseworthy like helping yourself. The purpose of the word is to draw a useful distinction that applies to lots of life. And the word is useful in that context. If you try to use the word "self-interested" to explain a normal (non machiavellian) person's basic kindness...you're torturing the word. The existence of the term is in order to distinguish between two classes of acts...and you're now using the word to describe both sides of the divide? It's like stretching the word on the metaphorical rack. Status games around your ability to confuse intellectual opponents? Or just confusion as to the purpose of the word?
---
Libertarian -- Libertarian is a word used by an awful lot of folks to mean any of several dozen varieties of folks who want *a lot* less government. It's a very common political label, and could be assigned to folks with lots of different approaches. The key is: radical decrease in quantity of government, radical increase in amount of freedom. Folks who claim: Bob is not a libertarian because he hasn't signed the non-initiation of force maxim have lost the battle for the word.
---
Christian -- I used to, in college, hang with a bunch of evangelicals who claimed that Catholics weren't Christians. Others say the same thing about Mormons. While this term is subject to dispute....it's almost universally accepted as meaning something like: someone inside the Abrahamic tradition who accepts the divinity of Christ, and rejects the prophet-ness of Mohammed. Catholics, Mormons, Evangelicals, etc.
---
What am I missing?
---
Use words how they're used in English. If you try to change the meaning of words...it just confuses the conversation. Far better, outside of surreptitious persuasive context, to use a made-up word than to redefine an existing, and nearby word.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
I'm a fan of ordinary language myself, and I'm certainly willing to tolerate a fair bit of ambiguity in the meaning of words, but I was a bit confused by your attempt to distinguish between "selfishness", "self-interest" and "prudence". I basically follow you on the selfishness/self-interest distinction, but you lost me when you started talking about self-interest separately. If self-interest and prudence are functional synonyms then I struggle to see self-interest as being morally neutral or even condemnatory. I'm firmly in the camp that says you are of little use in a healthy realtionship, family or society if you are self-loathing. In more conventional language, "you can't love someone else if you don't love yourself." People often try to coax others into contributing to a team effort by appealing to their own "self-interest" using a rhetorical strategy that is very similar to appealing to their "patriotism" or their "generosity". It may not rank as the supreme virtue in most people's moral hierarchy, but I think most people think of it as a positive term.
That's very close to convincing me to change on happiness.
Do you not think that pursuing squibblix leads to satisfaction?
Todd,
If you're confused, then I said it poorly.
I agree with almost all of what you said...which means I need to write more clearly. Thanks for the check.
Alrenous,
I think that pursuing squibblix sometimes leads to satisfaction. I think that an awful lot of people (crazy cat ladies I know personally, for instance) pursue squibblix that makes them appear distinctly unhappy and dissatisfied, in a rather permanent fashion.
They pursue for obsessive, or moral, or obligation-centric reasons. And it doesn't make them happy or satisfied.
Do some squibblix make for satisfaction? Sure. Is there strong reason to believe that evolutionarily, most squibblix will lead to satisfaction? Yeah (well, probably...hmmm...mostly yeah). Do all squibblix lead to satisfaction? Almost certainly not, not even on EV guesses. People motivations appear to me to be more complex than that.
I find this partly a rather Platonic argument, insomuch as it treats the meanings of words as ideals which most usages of the word won't live up to; moreover, in the specific case, I think it is understood that somebody pursuing happiness doesn't necessarily achieve it, another word isn't necessary to convey the idea that what we think will make us happy frequently fails to make us happy.
Your use of Randian selfishness is also off, because Rand acknowledged the connotations were different; her goal in using the word was to change common usage, and to force conversation about the meaning of the word. Insofar as "misuse" caused confusion, it was intended to, as the purpose was to disrupt the way people think about self-interest. (Initiating cognitive dissonance is an excellent way to get people to reevaluate their ideas.)
Orphan,
1. I didn't intend strictly to argue against Rand's usage...just the usage of the thousands of people who then mis-followed in her footsteps (including myself).
2. Platonic essences? I must have communicated very badly. How about anthropologically discoverable centers?
3. And re: happiness, we need at least a 3rd word to indicate that sometimes what people are pursuing is not something they expect happiness from in any sense in which happiness is normally used.
You've tortured the spelling of 'linguistic.'
BYF,
Thanks. Fixing.
From the comments, I can see we already have a lot of communication errors. I think this showcases just how difficult the use of language is, and how doubly hard it is over the internet (how often do you communicate well with those you know without any words).
"we need at least a 3rd word to indicate that sometimes what people are pursuing is not something they expect happiness from in any sense in which happiness is normally used."
I agree, and yet I don't think the fact that it may not be what is commonly used as happiness invalidates the concept I have in my head, but can't put to words. An inability to communicate it doesn't make the concept go away.
To the meet of the post, I will address when I have a little more time.
P.S. Can we choose any word but squibblix? It is very aesthetically unpleasing to me.
Anon,
Re: squibblix. Heh. I have no attachment to nonsense words I made up in order to demonstrate a point. Your choice.
Re: your concept. I mostly agree. But it ain't my concept, so I don't know the details, and how it fits.
Squibblix does not lead to satisfaction. Pursing squibblix can result in contentment. Not a common outcome.
eli
This reminded me of Orwell & Newspeak. Partly it made me think of Newspeak's paring down of word selection, but mostly it's use of words sledgehammered onto something they don't belong on to either purposely create a mind that accepts dissonence, or to associate an emotion to a disparate idea or thing.
It also reminded me of the most common example of this I know, Anarchy as reference to a state of having no rulers, and to refer to chaos and mayhem despite much more chaos & mayhem creation from the State than those that would see it removed.
Pevinsghost,
I like the company you put me in.
I was hoping to remind folks not of what other people do...but of what they themselves might be doing. Anarchy is a great example...but I worry that we anarchists are the ones fighting the losing definitional battle. With the popular definition, and the local definition, I think one might be better off prefering the standard option.
Welcome to the blog.
Post a Comment