The History of Language:

[Marty McFly]

Who decides the meaning of words?

how do words evolve?

and why are some words used so incorrectly? (for ex: why does the word 'selfsh' have such bad publicity?)

Ok, so let's start with some words that really annoy me:

selfish:

1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

selfless: having little or no concern for oneself, esp. with regard to fame, position, money, etc.; unselfish.

selfish, for some reason, is branded as a bad thing, while selfless is known to be a good thing.

ok, here's my problem: If I am selfish, then I will be concerned about my self. now, what do most people think of themselves? most people think they are good, noble, ethical.... that is the "self".

so! if you are selfish, you will act upon what is good for you.

what is good for you?

if you are in a burning building, and there are children in the next room, will you run out or save the kids? if you are selfish, and will want to do what is good for yOU, you will save the kids, because if not, you will be feeling guilty for the rest of your life. no selfish person wants that!

if your relligion or your king or your boss, is telling you to jump ten times, and you do it, are you selfish? no, because you get no benifit from the jumping (apart from, maybe, losing some weight)

if you feel like jumping, and you jump are you selfish? yes, because you wanted to do something and did it.

if your relligion or king or boss or some other higher authority tells you to do something against your feelings, like kill someone. if you do it, are you selfish? no. are you selfless? yes. because, not only are you getting no benefit out of the killing, you are going to live a guilty life, you will not sleep at night, you will hate yourself.

if you have a choice to live and let your son die, or die and save your son, and you choose to die to save your son, are you selfish? yes! you cannot live without your son, or rather you would not be able to live with yourself if you would let your son die. so if you choose to die, you are indeed selfish.

Sensitive:

1.) Responsive to physical stimuli

2.) Being susceptible to the attitudes, feelings, or circumstances of others

3.) Able to feel or perceive

4.) Hurting

how is Being susceptible to the attitudes, feelings OF OTHERS etc. get to "hurting"?

in a literal sense, sensitive means preceive throught the senses, right?

so since you don't inhibit "other's" body, how can the word sensitive apply?! (unless you are voldemort and are able to posses others)

and if the word means only precieving through one's senses - or - hurting oneself, why is it a good thing?

"sensitive" in literal meaning it's someone who has precption through the senses. so why so people say that they are "sensitive", and think it's a positive thing?

do they mean sensitive in an emotional way? if so, then who are they sensitive towards? themselves right? because if they would be sensitive towards others they wouldn't be insulting anyone. I, for one, do not understand "sensitivity" at all. I have never in my life been insulted. how come? I must be very insensitive.

[DavidOdden]

Who decides the meaning of words?

I'll take that. Do you wanna put forth a debatable claim? Edited January 12, 2007 by DavidOdden

[Marty McFly]

I'll take that. Do you wanna put forth a debatable claim?

what's a debatable claim?

[Maarten]

Well, not to answer for David, but it's probably helpful if you concretely state what your position is, say in one or two lines. If someone does not agree with your view then they can start a debate about the claims you have made. At the moment it's kind of difficult to tell what exactly your position is, which would not make for a very productive debate.

[DavidOdden]

Yeah, what Maarten said. In a debate, there's an assertion, like "Taxes should be raised to feed the ignorant", "God is a goat", or "Saving a loved one is a selfless act". Since you're proposing, you get to cook up the wording. If we have an agreed-upon topic, you make your case, I respond, back and forth until we resolve the debate or determine that we're at an impasse. I don't know what you want to propose, but it might be something like "Words have no objective meaning" (which is the antithesis of the Ojectivist position, so ideal for the forum since I'll defend the position that words do have an objective meaning). But it really depends on exactly what you intended to debate.

[Marty McFly]

OK, my possition is this: people often use words in the wrong context; for example, selfish. I had a long debate with a friend about the word. she said that when someone cheats, steals, ruins someone else's life, he is selfish.

I protested, that although he might or might not be selfish, this is not the correct word to describe the guy. I told her that if she calls every bad person "selfish" she will be giving that word a very bad publicity.

TO tell you the truth, I'm not sure if this thread even belongs in the debate thread, because I want to argue the validity of many uses of many words, not just one. yiks! how do I move a thread?

(actually I would want to use a debate like this on weather there is a creator to the world, and if the "big bang" makes any sense - knowing that there is a good place to debate these things without being banned from the forums)

[The Wrath]

I've argued this before, and I'll do it again here. The definition of a word is subjective. It is subject to its common use. The same is true of grammar. Look at my thread in the History subform, about 18th/19th century English. Rules have changed...not because some governing body of the English language decreed that they should change, but because certain practices fall out of use and are replaced by new ones.

"Selfish" does not (and never has, as far as I can tell) meant "rational self-interest." Why? Because that isn't how most people use it. In fact, pretty much no one besides Objectivists uses it that way. The same is true of "sacrifice." To most of the English-speaking world, it is a sacrifice to die for a love one. Why? Because you are giving up a precious value (your life) for someone else. It doesn't matter if you would rather die than to live without them...most people consider it a sacrifice, even though, in the end, you are doing it to avoid causing pain to yourself.

This is one of the errors that I believe Rand made. It isn't a philosophical error, but a practical one. I also consider this to be a huge factor in the reason why Objectivism is not more popular amongst common people. People hear "selfishness is good" and immediately they think of the grasping, greedy type of selfishness in which everyone says "me first," cheats, and steps on other people, in order to get what they want. In here, we know that isn't what she meant. But I believe she made a crucial error in redefining words in ways that contradict their colloquial definitions. It would have been exponentially easier just to say "rational self-interest." Whenever I talk about Objectivism to people who aren't acquainted with it, I use this term. Why? Because it's easier to say "rational self-interest" than it is to say "selfish," and then proceed to redefine what it means.

In his recent book, Richard Dawkins expresses regret that many great scientists have used the word "God" in their writings when, in fact, they did not believe God. The most obvious example is Einstein's famous quote, "God does not play with dice." His regret is based on the fact that, after reading such quotes, religious people often try to claim men like Einstein as one of their own. In fact, Einstein was not making a statement about "God" as is thought of by Christians. He used the word "God" as a substitute for the laws of nature. This is confusing for obvious reasons.

I believe that Rand's definitions of "selfish" and "sacrifice" are wrong. It causes confusion and is a huge reason why her philosophy is not more accepted than it is.

[DavidOdden]

TO tell you the truth, I'm not sure if this thread even belongs in the debate thread, because I want to argue the validity of many uses of many words, not just one. yiks! how do I move a thread?

I think you are right, especially given your example. One reason why it's not a good debate topic (that people use words the wrong way) is because it so undebateably true . It's certainly not something I would disagree with. I don't think it's necessary to move this, and instead, you could make a post for general discussion in a regular forum, e.g. Epistemology.

[Seeker]

I disagree that Rand was mistaken in her choices of words. She was not only a philosopher but also a novelist, an artist of words, and chose words precisely for their effect. A slight turn of meaning, a varying shade of intent to grab the reader is a question of artistry. Philosophically, Rand had good reason for redefining many words, that so many words had been given the wrong meaning in the first place or commonly misused was ample reason to use them in a new way. What better way could there be of giving altruism the slap it deserves than by discussing the virtue of selfishness? It prepares the miseducated person for the change in thinking that will be necessary. It's a down payment on changing countless mistaken premises. If you can't accept that selfishness means rational self-interest, how will you ever accept that environmentalism is based on myths, that socialism hurts those it is meant to help, that the ethics you were taught since being a child are all wrong, etc.? The point is, it gets you thinking and wakes up your brain to consider that the proper meaning of some words isn't what common parlance says. That's all to the good. I'm glad that Rand used words as she did, because of her personal artistry as well as the impact her words made philosophically.

[DavidOdden]

The definition of a word is subjective.

Are you feverish that you carry to elevate this window? It could be elastic to putt whether in the bending rabbit you can elongate this platform, without digging so heavy as to polish all beavers, not just lungs, ropes and meringues. Or is it flowingly that you don't grate the weasel of the harpoon "subjective"?

"Selfish" does not (and never has, as far as I can tell) meant "rational self-interest."

Why do you plunge this across? Do you multiply a meadow where Rand painted that this is the tail of the hyrax?

[Cogito]

Are you feverish that you carry to elevate this window? It could be elastic to putt whether in the bending rabbit you can elongate this platform, without digging so heavy as to polish all beavers, not just lungs, ropes and meringues. Or is it flowingly that you don't grate the weasel of the harpoon "subjective"?

Why do you plunge this across? Do you multiply a meadow where Rand painted that this is the tail of the hyrax?

As amusing as all that was... Could you explain what you actually meant?

[The Wrath]

Are you feverish that you carry to elevate this window? It could be elastic to putt whether in the bending rabbit you can elongate this platform, without digging so heavy as to polish all beavers, not just lungs, ropes and meringues. Or is it flowingly that you don't grate the weasel of the harpoon "subjective"?Why do you plunge this across? Do you multiply a meadow where Rand painted that this is the tail of the hyrax?

This is a pretty poor attempt at reductio ad absurdum, considering that I went on to say that definitions are subject to popular usage. I highly doubt that anyone alive would have used these words to say...whatever it is you were trying to say.

[DavidOdden]

This is a pretty poor attempt at reductio ad absurdum, considering that I went on to say that definitions are subject to popular usage. I highly doubt that anyone alive would have used these words to say...whatever it is you were trying to say.

So in other words, you're not planning on sticking to your claim that meaning is subjective? That was the world shortest debate, as far as I know -- you just capitulated and granted that words do have objective meaning.

[B. Royce]

The word "selfish" is a great litmus-test word. Those people who have courage will use and say it proudly, disregarding what other people's evaluations of them will be. If those other people have a knee-jerk reaction to the word and choose not to independently think, too bad for them. They will never be on your side, and not because of their reaction to the word "selfish", but because they fear independent thought.

It is the idea of sacrifice which is man's oldest enemy. Thousands of years ago a man was expected to sacrifice his best bull or cow to the gods (which meant to roast it, then divide the meat up among his neighbors and fellow villagers). The message then was to surrender a value. "No, don't keep your bull for yourself; would you be selfish?" Until sacrifice is seen for what it is in the culture at large, civilization will continue down the same stupid, selfless, self-sacrificial road.

[The Wrath]

Philosophically, Rand had good reason for redefining many words, that so many words had been given the wrong meaning in the first place or commonly misused was ample reason to use them in a new way.

There is no such thing as a word that has been given the wrong meaning. When Adam named the animals in the Garden of Eden, he called a certain animal "cow." If he had called it "parakeet," he would have been just as right. Why? Because he was the one that got to choose what they were called. Words are just conglomerations of vocal sounds and have no inherent meaning. Why do you feel the need to use the word "selfish" in a way that no one else uses it and that, to my knowledge, no one else (besides Objectivists) has ever used it in the history of the English language? By saying that everyone but Objectivists uses the wrong definition of the word "selfish," you are essentially saying that the definitions of words have some transcendental existence that exists independent of human usage. Sounds a bit Platonic, if you ask me. If "selfish" had indeed been used throughout history as meaning "rational self-interest" and "sourdough" had been used as meaning "willing to step on others," then you would be perfectly justified in using "selfish" in the Objectivist philosophy. As it stands, however, it's quite silly to redefine words with meanings that they have never had and are just confusing to the vast majority of people who read them.

What better way could there be of giving altruism the slap it deserves than by discussing the virtue of selfishness?

Because if the word "selfishness" is properly defined, it is not a virtue. In fact, it is a vice. A better slap to altruism would be to use the phrase "rational self-interest," since doing so wouldn't turn off as many potential readers.

If you can't accept that selfishness means rational self-interest, how will you ever accept that environmentalism is based on myths, that socialism hurts those it is meant to help...

The fact that environmentalism and socialism are evil practices has nothing to do with their definitions. Environmentalism is defined as the belief that we need to take care of the environment. Socialism is defined as the redistribution of society's wealth. Evil though these practices are, "evil" is not and should not be part of the definition. Definitions are supposed to be things that people on both sides of a debate can agree on. Socialists and capitalists alike will agree with that definition of socialism, but will argue opposite ways about the practice itself. As an objectivist, if you are debating someone on the virtue of selfishness, you are using a wholly different definition than practically anyone you talk to. If there is no common definition, there can be no debate, unless you qualifiy what you mean by the word every time you use it.

The point is, it gets you thinking and wakes up your brain to consider that the proper meaning of some words isn't what common parlance says.

Then what is it? The way it was originally defined? Either way, you haven't got a leg to stand on with your definition of "selfish." The only way you can defend your definition is by saying that the proper definition of a word is defined by Ayn Rand. If this is true with "selfish," why is it not true with other words?

If you need more examples of how definitions are subject to common usage, look at the word "niggar." It used to be perfectly acceptable for a white man to call a black man "niggar." My grandfather can tell you stories of being able to walk up to a black man and say "how's it going, niggar?" Try doing that now and you might get your throat cut. The word's usage has changed. Why? Because people started using it in a derrogatory way.

So in other words, you're not planning on sticking to your claim that meaning is subjective? That was the world shortest debate, as far as I know -- you just capitulated and granted that words do have objective meaning.

I did nothing of the sort. I maintain that definitions are subjective, but are subjective to popular use, not individual use. Your definitions of those words were wrong, because that isn't how anyone else alive uses them.

In a sense, that is objective, in that anyone who uses a definition that goes against the rest of the English-speaking world is wrong. But the point is that proper definitions change according to popular use.

[DavidOdden]

In a sense, that is objective, in that anyone who uses a definition that goes against the rest of the English-speaking world is wrong.

Then why did you say something so egregiously false as that meaning is subjective? Do you think that "objective" means "immutable" or "intrinsic"? Really, I strongly urge you to learn what "subjective" and "objective" mean. This is particularly important for a forum that deals with Objectivism.

[The Wrath]

Regardless, you know the point I was trying to get across.

[Seeker]

In a sense, that is objective, in that anyone who uses a definition that goes against the rest of the English-speaking world is wrong. But the point is that proper definitions change according to popular use.

But this approach begs the question of what the meaning in a given context ought to be. It forces everyone to surrender to the words, and therefore the ideas, of the mob. It gives away the argument at the outset. Note that Rand emphatically did not go against popular usage willy-nilly, but did so selectively, with intent of a certain effect. She knew which words were worth fighting for. "Selfish" is a case in point, because the popular usage attaches to a false dichotomy between selflessness and vice. The new definition no longer attaches to an incorrect concept.

I take your point to be that the proper usage and meaning of words is contextual. I believe that Objectivism agrees on that point. The proper meaning in a given context is not necessarily whatever the mob says it is, however. If anything, it is the function of intellectuals to guide the mob, not vice versa, including by using certain terms in an unpopular way when necessary - by defining, not just using, the terms of the debate. This requires courage and is not easy. If in your debates it becomes counterproductive to use the word "selfish" in the given way, then you are free to use "rational self-interest" instead in that context. Rand's purpose and methods are not necessarily yours, in the context you have defined. On the other hand, I have pointed to certain virtues of "selfishness" - it grabs attention, it makes people think, etc. so you may be well-advised to use it in a way proper for an intellectual setting the terms of a debate.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Moose, you're making a bunch of different confusions and package-dealing, which is what the traditional usage of the word "selfish" is supposed to do.

Concepts refer to concretes, to entities and their actions, atrributes, relationships, etc. A concept has to refer to something that exists. The word, the sound, is the symbolic concrete given to a concept as a tag in order to make the vast sum of concretes which concepts subsume available to man's perception.

The term "selfish" in the traditional usage subsumes under it a number of concrete actions and relationships, etc. The traditional usage includes under it: lying, cheating, stealing, begging, being lazy, breaking promises, murdering, and a whole other host of objectively immoral things. But even in the traditional usage, these concretes are not essential to their definition of "selfish." The essential concrete which makes selfishness selfishness, in the traditional usage, is the fact that the selfish actor was not thinking about the benefit of others. That is why the former list of concretes are even included in the concept, not because the selfish actor is thinking of himself(he's not, he is thinking of no one's interests) but because the selfish actor is NOT thinking about others, he is NOT being selfless. Superficially, the holder of the traditional usage of "selfish" will think that lying and stealing and such are in one's selfish interest, but again these beliefs are secondary and non-essential. The essential consideration, in regards to selfishness, is whether or not the actor was intending the benefit of others. Observe how it is NOT selfish to lie, steal, murder, beg, cheat, etc if you intend the benefit of others, it is actually moral to do so. So what we have here as a result of the tradtional definition of "Selfish" is a false alternative between "seeking others' interests(whatever actions that might entail" and "not seeking others' interests(whatever actions that might entail.)" And thats where the package dealing comes in: any action that is not intended to be in the interest of someone other than the actor is "selfish" whether those actions are lying, or telling the truth, stealing, or producing, murdering, or killing in self defense. The traditional definition of selfish enshrines intention and ignores reality and actual practical consequences, thus it becomes selfish to seek one's own destruction if it benefits no one else, or selfish to seek to live when your death would be a benefit to another. It ignores the fact that there are some people who actually seek their "rational(actual) self interest." This is conceptual chaos and does not serve to condense the material of man's knowledge, but undermine's it.

In reality, those who seek no one's interests are "nihilists" not egoists. In reality, one's own benefit does not necessitate the harm of others, and definately not one's own harm. In reality, those whose entire justification for any of their actions (even those that benefit himself in the short term) is the interests of others are altruists, whose actions necessarily must be in the nature of long term self-sacrifice if not short term suicide.

The traditional usage concedes, in essenatials, that the definition of "selfishness" is "not thinking about others in the primary sense, as a justification of your own existence" this is true. A rational egoist does not consider the benefit of others as a primary, and will only consider the benefit of others as a means to his own benefit, his own benfit is his first consideration. He is essentially "selfish", in their essenatial definition. What Objectivism does, in regard to the rest of the non-essential concretes associated with the term is apply the law of Identity and do away with the contradictions. Since contradictions can not exist, the Objectivist definition is the only consistent and REAL definition, a concept which actually points to reality.

[The Wrath]

While it may grab some people's attention and make them more interested, the vast majority will be repulsed when they hear selfishness described as a good thing.

You can't equate using popular definitions with "giving in to the mob." If you do, then you give in to the mob every time you open your mouth. That's how language evolves...through popular usage. Every word in your vocabulary has been determined by how it is used in common speech. It is uncommonly silly to think that your definition of "selfish" is correct when it contradicts 99.99% of the English-speaking world.

Now, I have a question for you. Forgetting for a moment about the word "selfish," what do you think is the proper way of determining a word's definition?

[The Wrath]

The term "selfish" in the traditional usage subsumes under it a number of concrete actions and relationships, etc. The traditional usage includes under it: lying, cheating, stealing, begging, being lazy, breaking promises, murdering, and a whole other host of objectively immoral things. But even in the traditional usage, these concretes are not essential to their definition of "selfish." The essential concrete which makes selfishness selfishness, in the traditional usage, is the fact that the selfish actor was not thinking about the benefit of others. That is why the former list of concretes are even included in the concept, not because the selfish actor is thinking of himself(he's not, he is thinking of no one's interests) but because the selfish actor is NOT thinking about others, he is NOT being selfless. Superficially, the holder of the traditional usage of "selfish" will think that lying and stealing and such are in one's selfish interest, but again these beliefs are secondary and non-essential. The essential consideration, in regards to selfishness, is whether or not the actor was intending the benefit of others. Observe how it is NOT selfish to lie, steal, murder, beg, cheat, etc if you intend the benefit of others, it is actually moral to do so. So what we have here as a result of the tradtional definition of "Selfish" is a false alternative between "seeking others' interests(whatever actions that might entail" and "not seeking others' interests(whatever actions that might entail.)" And thats where the package dealing comes in: any action that is not intended to be in the interest of someone other than the actor is "selfish" whether those actions are lying, or telling the truth, stealing, or producing, murdering, or killing in self defense. The traditional definition of selfish enshrines intention and ignores reality and actual practical consequences, thus it becomes selfish to seek one's own destruction if it benefits no one else, or selfish to seek to live when your death would be a benefit to another. It ignores the fact that there are some people who actually seek their "rational(actual) self interest." This is conceptual chaos and does not serve to condense the material of man's knowledge, but undermine's it.

Ah. Now this is something I have not thought of before. You're saying that the word selfish attaches murder, swindling, etc. to acting in ways that benefit onesself (physically and hedonistically, at the very least). Well, that makes sense and it is, so far, the only reasonable defense I have seen of Rand's redefinition of selfishness. But I still think that this misses the root of the issue, which is that there is no metaphysical or transcendental reason why words have to mean one thing, as opposed to another.

The colloquial definition of "selfish" may very well be a package deal, including things like murder and theft. But it is, nevertheless, the word's definition. Many words in our language use package deals, but we don't redefine them all. If you wish to separate the "self-interest" part of the word from all of the unethical parts of the word, why not just create a new word or string together several existing ones? "Self-interested" is the obvious choice. Few people would "equate self-interest" with pillage and rape. Whether you create a new word or string together existing ones, either option is easier and less confusing than redefining an existing word to mean something very different than what most people are used to.

[DavidOdden]

Regardless, you know the point I was trying to get across.

No, not really. What you said was sufficiently contradictory that I don't know what you really "meant". But for every possible interpretation I've come up with, I would say that you are wrong. You are wrong about the subjectivity of meaning, you are wrong about the actual meaning of "selfish", you are wrong about the meaning of "meaning", and you are wrong about whether Rand should have used the word "selfish" the way she does. In short, you're wrong. Is there any particular part of your claim that you think is sufficiently right that you can defend that claim?

[The Wrath]

You know damn well what I'm saying, so quit pretending that you don't.

If you can explain to me why Rand's definition of "selfish" is the correct one, then I assume you can explain to me why "cow" can validly be defined as "an animal with gills and fins that swims in the ocean."

[DavidOdden]

If you can explain to me why Rand's definition of "selfish" is the correct one, then I assume you can explain to me why "cow" can validly be defined as "an animal with gills and fins that swims in the ocean."

Look the word up in the dictionary. Get a decent one, and more than one. Try the OED and Webster's, and the minimum. That will tell you about the definition of "selfish". Then find Rand's definition of selfish. Compare the two, and tell me in what way you think they are in conflict. You know damn well what I'm talking about, so stop pretending you don't get it. If you can show me the evidence that Rand has redefined "selfish", I will explain all about sea cows.

[The Wrath]

To be quite frank, I don't care what the dictionary says. Rule #1 of online debates is to never refer your opponent to the dictionary definition of anything. As I said before, there is no governing body of the English language that hands down decrees. Words are best defined according to common usage. Common usage of the word "selfish" is in contrast to Rand's definition of it. If the dictionary definition is in contrast to common usage, then it too is wrong.