Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Relationship btw concept and connotation?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

What is the relationship between a concept and its connotation? Are words evolutionary or static?

For example, the racial slur "n*gger" used to simply mean "lazy or incompatent". Due to slavery (predominately) the word has acquired a ethnic connotation - the word almost exclusively pertains to blacks now.

Another example is of the word "savage". Same process as above. Is it just political correctness, or is it wrong to call someone either of these things, with reference to their original meaning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the relationship between a concept and its connotation?
Connotations are (some of) the non-essentials of a word. Your examples aren't the best, for technical reasons (see below). These non-essentials can include people's attitudes, for example "selfish" means "concerned primarily with one's own welfare or affairs", and the literal meaning has been corrupted through contamination with an attitude that people have about the concept (a typically negative one). Or, "faeces" is a fairly refined way of referring to the same object as "crap" or "s*it", but the connotations (emotional load) are different. "S*it" used to be the standard word to refer to the stuff, but through the same process as political-correctness tabooing, it came to be a nasty word.

As for your examples, the N word derives from Latin where it simply means "black". Any connotations about laziness is modern and come from the ethnic connotation, which is from the normal color word in Latin. "Savage" similarly derives from a Latin word meaning "forest", and "savages" are forest dwellers (who, from the Roman perspective were all savage).

I don't see any merit in applying the N word to anyone, since the etymology is pretty much lost on most people. It is nothing but a pure insult, like %$*#^ or &!%*#. It would be wrong to refer to a person who lived in the forest as a "savage", because the word does not mean "forest dweller" anymore. In the US, most savages live in big cities. You should call people who act as uncivilized savages what they are -- "savages", unless you care about not hurting their feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D

So if I gather your position correctly, you are saying that altough a words original definiton may have been one thing, its usage in a particular culture (in the end) determines its ultimate meaning (?).

Why then is it okay for, for example, Thomas Bowden to call the Native Americans savages (in "The Enemies of Christopher COlumbus") , when the word today clearly was racist connotations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I gather your position correctly, you are saying that altough a words original definiton may have been one thing, its usage in a particular culture (in the end) determines its ultimate meaning (?).
Not quite. Word meaning has to do with the referent of the word, not what attitudes people might have towards the referent. Thus what "selfish" identifies is exactly that virtue that Rand describes in VOS. This does not entail accepting the emotional baggage that comes with the word, for many people. It is true that the connotative baggage can be so strong that it effectively destroys the original meaning (as in the N word, or the K word in South Africa). When a word is always used to insult a person, then regardless of the etymology, you have to accept that the word is nothing but an insult.
Why then is it okay for, for example, Thomas Bowden to call the Native Americans savages (in "The Enemies of Christopher COlumbus") , when the word today clearly was racist connotations?
I don't take it to be at all clear that "savage" has a racist connotation. The method of the PC mentality is to hyper-inflate emotional correlations. It used to be that a cripple was a cripple, but then someone decided that they didn't like being called a cripple, possibly in response to someone yelling "Get out of the way, you damn cripple!". So it was announced that the word "cripple" always hurts the feelings of cripples, and instead you should use the alternative expression "alternatively physically enabled-American".

"Savage" is okay because it is, in fact, commonly used in its literal sense to refer to savages and savagery, regardless of race, color or ethnicity. The N word is not, because it is not ever used in a "neutral" referring way. (I'm setting aside the contemporary use of N between blacks, since I don't really understand the sociolinguistics of its use, and as a white boy I can't exactly do empirical research in that area).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Savage" is okay because it is, in fact, commonly used in its literal sense to refer to savages and savagery, regardless of race, color or ethnicity. The N word is not, because it is not ever used in a "neutral" referring way.

I don't understand how you are not contradicting yourself here. I agree with you that a concept is a referent, not what people make of.

But what makes a words "okay" or "not okay", if the distinction is made between connotation and definition? If (and I'll accept you definiton) n-gger means simply "a black person", why is it not "okay" to use it, if the definition holds up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a joke, right?
Not entirely. The two components of the statement are true. There is absolutely no chance that I could pass for a homey, so any data I might get would be seriously tainted because it was gathered by The Man. Maybe I could hire someone to do the research for me, if I wanted to know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how you are not contradicting yourself here. I agree with you that a concept is a referent, not what people make of.

But what makes a words "okay" or "not okay", if the distinction is made between connotation and definition? If (and I'll accept you definiton) n-gger means simply "a black person", why is it not "okay" to use it, if the definition holds up?

Because it would serve no rational purpose. It does not crisply and efficiently identify particular people or behaviors better than, specifically, "black" does, and if does carry this virtually universal negative connotation. If my purpose were to insult and offend people then I might want to use the word, but that is not my goal (and it is not a rational goal). Similar reasons motivate me to not use the word "s*it" in certain contexts, because I know that some people get very upset at that word (prissy little things that they are). The okayness is related both to what units I'm identifying, and what my purpose is in identifying them in the first place.

I should point out that Bowden's use of the word "savage" is inaccurate in the context of the time though accurate in the modern context -- "primitive" is more accurate, for that time. There is an implicit evaluation, which I don't object to, but the question is what standard should be used in doing a historical moral evaluation, especially when looking 400 years back in history. If you use a modern moral standard, then Columbus's actions are indefensible, but that is not reasaonable: capitalism wasn't really discovered until after Columbus. Europe was still rather savage at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should point out that Bowden's use of the word "savage" is inaccurate in the context of the time though accurate in the modern context -- "primitive" is more accurate, for that time. There is an implicit evaluation, which I don't object to, but the question is what standard should be used in doing a historical moral evaluation, especially when looking 400 years back in history. If you use a modern moral standard, then Columbus's actions are indefensible, but that is not reasaonable: capitalism wasn't really discovered until after Columbus. Europe was still rather savage at the time.

I agree in general with your comments. But I am troubled by your phrase "modern moral standard." If morals, and more specifically rights, are derived from man's nature (as Rand discusses in "The Objectivist Ethics") then rights and the principle of not initiating force would be as valid 400 years ago as they are today -- unless one believes that there has been an essential change in man's nature since then. Therefore, a distinction between modern and pre-modern morals can only be descriptive, not prescriptive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, the racial slur "n*gger" used to simply mean "lazy or incompatent".

I think you are confusing it with the word "niggard." The latter is of Scandinavian origin and its meaning is completely independent of the Black race or the black color. "Nigger," on the other hand, is a deformation of the Latin word "niger," which refers to the black color, and the nature of the deformation makes me suppose that it was always meant as an insult. All the more so because there was a non-offensive variant: "Negro."

(Today, the politically correct mainstream considers "Negro" and offense too--but then, they tend to think the same about "Black." Here in Hungary, the standard word for Blacks is "neger" ; if you want to sound PC, you say "black" ; no variants involving Africa or America exist.You might also find this blog entry by Martin Lindeskog interesting--BTW, the candies are made in my home town, Gyor!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If morals, and more specifically rights, are derived from man's nature (as Rand discusses in "The Objectivist Ethics") then rights and the principle of not initiating force would be as valid 400 years ago as they are today -- unless one believes that there has been an essential change in man's nature since then.  Therefore, a distinction between modern and pre-modern morals can only be descriptive, not prescriptive.
A negative moral evaluation has to be undertaken in a knowledge context, and should focus on the question whether the person has knowingly performed evil. This is why intentionally killing a person is evil (assuming it is not self defense) and accidentally killing a person is unfortunate. While man's nature is constant, man's knowledge of his nature is not. It is unjust and unreasonable to demand that a person know the unknown. There was no recognition of what we now understand to be man's rights at that time, so in that context, the American savages were acting properly according to what they knew, and the Spanish savages were acting properly according to what they knew. When you are presented with the knowledge that, once grasped, would prevent you from taking another person's property in the name of god and the queen, then it is immoral to continue to do so. Morality is not a priori.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it morally improper even to type the word nigger. Why the star in the word. Don't discuss a subject if don't have the balls to write it correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it morally improper even to type the word nigger. Why the star in the word. Don't discuss a subject if don't have the balls to write it correctly.

Cut the hostility, geez! Clearly, the purpose of this thread is to understand whether a rational person would even use that word in normal speech! HELLO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are confusing it with the word "niggard." The latter is of Scandinavian origin and its meaning is completely independent of the Black race or the black color. "Nigger," on the other hand, is a deformation of the Latin word "niger," which refers to the black color, and the nature of the deformation makes me suppose that it was always meant as an insult. All the more so because there was a non-offensive variant: "Negro."

Yes, I believe that I was thinking of "niggarrd" as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you [Free Thinker] are confusing it with the word "niggard."

But Free Thinker's defintiion of even that word is incorrect.

But what about that word and 'niggardly'? Some people mistakenly think that 'niggardly' is connected with 'nigger'. The problem with 'niggardly' is not with its connotations, but with what some people think its connotations are. What I just said, of course, depends on allowing that there can be a distinction between a word's connotations and what people think a word's connotations are. That's an odd distinction, but I think it's at least a plausible one.

Some people think it is racist to use 'niggardly' because even if its meaning is not racist, the fact that people are likely to mistake it for racist would deter a non-racist from using it.

[...] the Spanish savages were acting properly according to what they knew. When you are presented with the knowledge that, once grasped, would prevent you from taking another person's property in the name of god and the queen, then it is immoral to continue to do so.

Are you distinguishing between knowledge of plain facts and knowledge of moral principles? What knowledge of plain facts did the Spanish conquerors lack? If they believed the indigenous people were not in fact human, then that would be a mistaken fact, and I can see an argument for (without necessarily agreeing with it) the actions of the conquerors being a function of a lack of factual knowledge rather than an incorrect morality. But if the conquerors did know that the indigeneous peple were human, then what lack of facts did the conquerors have? Isn't the belief that one can murder and plunder for god and royalty a moral-political belief, and therefore subject to moral review, even in retrospect of centuries? Are you arguing that an action being misinformed by an incorrect moral theory excuses the action from stricture? If that's not your position, then I don't see how your remarks above are valid or I don't know what knowledge you contend the conquerors lacked.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you distinguishing between knowledge of plain facts and knowledge of moral principles?
No. It is probable that they had some kind of sub-human view; primarily what they lacked was a proper foundation for distinguishing right and wrong actions as we understand them. For example, they believed that man's nature is basically "in error" and sinful; they did not believe that there was a connection between reason and rights; they did believe that god wanted them to conquer heathen territory and take plunder for the glory of his representatives on earth (the king and queen); they did not believe in the basic equality of rights among humans (i.e. the pope had the highest rights because he was divine and infallible, kings were next as gods appointed rulers, who were to carry out god's divine will; the agents of the king were next, then citizens; whether heathen non-citizens were considered to have any rights is questionable. Rights are not self-evident. In fact, unless Columbus had some sort of epiphany and discovered that his purpose in life was not to confiscate the wealth of the New World heathens, it would have been evil of him to do anything other than what he did, since the notion of "right act" in his day and place was, essentially the opposite of what we understand now to be a right act.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you are presented with the knowledge that, once grasped, would prevent you from taking another person's property in the name of god and the queen, then it is immoral to continue to do so. Morality is not a priori.

And if you are not presented with such knowledge, then presumably you are beyond moral judgment. Accordingly, we could not regard the terrorist acts of 9/11 as immoral unless we knew that the perpetrators had been "presented with the knowledge that, once grasped," would have prevented them "from taking another person's property in the name of god."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your view is that it is evil to do what one believes is evil? So someone in Nazi Germany who lacks a proper foundation and believes it is evil to work against the practices of Nazism would be evil to work against the practices of Nazism? And if someone believes his actions are not evil, but believes his actions are selfish, then his actions are necessarily not evil?

By the way, you just argued from hypothesis (what if Columbus had an epiphany), but had resisted doing so in the atomic bomb thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cut the hostility, geez! Clearly, the purpose of this thread is to understand whether a rational person would even use that word in normal speech! HELLO!

No hostility. I just want to know why certain words are avoided like the plague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...