What do you mean?
In the last post I wrote about restrictions of speech. The debate on this idea continues. There are legitimate restrictions on speech and there are not. I do not intend to judge either in this post but wish to point out that restrictions placed upon speech are the result of the influence of a cultural moral conscience. The current post-modern trend sets up a vaporous type of obstacle to free speech by applying pragmatic moral relativity in the realm of language and reason.
Words mean things, words contain information describing or defining things, words form ideas and explain ever larger concepts and realities. Noah Webster placed such a great importance upon the accurate dissemination of the meaning of words that he spent most of his lifetime studying their origin and creating an incredible volume of definitions in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. He recognized that a standard of meaning had to be maintained in order to have civilized and reasonable discourse.
"The authority of individuals is always liable to be called in question-but the unanimous consent of a nation, and a fixed principle interwoven with the very construction of a language coeval and co-extensive with it, are like the common laws of the land, or the immutable rules of morality, the propriety of which every man, however refractory, is forced to acknowledge, and to which most men will readily submit." Noah Webster
Yes, I had to consult the dictionary to understand what Noah was saying. "Coeval" means of the same age or era and "coextensive" means to the same extent. "Immutable" means unchanging and "refractory" means obstinate in opposition. Noah's dictionary is a wonderful guide yet somehow we have tossed aside its enlightening qualities and replaced it with a cultural language that has become most refractory to the immutable laws of morality.
In the rush to embrace relativity in all areas of life, the post-modern has imposed relativity upon the meaning of words and ideas. They take on a new meaning and are used in otherwise reasonable debate to malign, vilify and or discredit the opponent.When confronted with words that imply disagreement or critical analysis of ideas post-moderns describe the same as words of hate, intolerance and bigotry. Rather than engage the debate with reason from a shared language and or perspective (if any )the post-modern resorts to name calling and labeling and selective reasoning.If disagreement means hate then all of us on both sides of the disagreeable camp suffer from the same malady.
What is it that stirs up the reaction of the pragmatic relativist? Is it the fact some people use an immutable standard by which to reason? Is it because some people have an immutable standard by which to determine right from wrong? Why is that they gladly use this standard when it is convenient in propping an argument and condemn it when it is applied consistently to derail their argument?
In a telling example of selective reasoning, atheist in Olympia, Washington, were upset that a sign they had recently posted was stolen. The sign read in part that
"there are no gods....religion is but a myth...that hardens hearts and enslaves minds"
News reports indicated that a spokesman said a temporary sign would be posted with the addendum "thou shalt not steal" attached to it. In an atheist world without God why would stealing be an issue? Ask any godless leader like Hitler or Stalin or Lenin if they felt remorse for the lives they extinguished?
Being consistently honest we must determine to reason from one standard or another, we cannot reason from both according to our current passions and or desires. Consistency in reasoning simply would not be consistent with pragmatic moral relativity. Or would it?
Words mean things, words contain information describing or defining things, words form ideas and explain ever larger concepts and realities. Noah Webster placed such a great importance upon the accurate dissemination of the meaning of words that he spent most of his lifetime studying their origin and creating an incredible volume of definitions in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. He recognized that a standard of meaning had to be maintained in order to have civilized and reasonable discourse.
"The authority of individuals is always liable to be called in question-but the unanimous consent of a nation, and a fixed principle interwoven with the very construction of a language coeval and co-extensive with it, are like the common laws of the land, or the immutable rules of morality, the propriety of which every man, however refractory, is forced to acknowledge, and to which most men will readily submit." Noah Webster
Yes, I had to consult the dictionary to understand what Noah was saying. "Coeval" means of the same age or era and "coextensive" means to the same extent. "Immutable" means unchanging and "refractory" means obstinate in opposition. Noah's dictionary is a wonderful guide yet somehow we have tossed aside its enlightening qualities and replaced it with a cultural language that has become most refractory to the immutable laws of morality.
In the rush to embrace relativity in all areas of life, the post-modern has imposed relativity upon the meaning of words and ideas. They take on a new meaning and are used in otherwise reasonable debate to malign, vilify and or discredit the opponent.When confronted with words that imply disagreement or critical analysis of ideas post-moderns describe the same as words of hate, intolerance and bigotry. Rather than engage the debate with reason from a shared language and or perspective (if any )the post-modern resorts to name calling and labeling and selective reasoning.If disagreement means hate then all of us on both sides of the disagreeable camp suffer from the same malady.
What is it that stirs up the reaction of the pragmatic relativist? Is it the fact some people use an immutable standard by which to reason? Is it because some people have an immutable standard by which to determine right from wrong? Why is that they gladly use this standard when it is convenient in propping an argument and condemn it when it is applied consistently to derail their argument?
In a telling example of selective reasoning, atheist in Olympia, Washington, were upset that a sign they had recently posted was stolen. The sign read in part that
"there are no gods....religion is but a myth...that hardens hearts and enslaves minds"
News reports indicated that a spokesman said a temporary sign would be posted with the addendum "thou shalt not steal" attached to it. In an atheist world without God why would stealing be an issue? Ask any godless leader like Hitler or Stalin or Lenin if they felt remorse for the lives they extinguished?
Being consistently honest we must determine to reason from one standard or another, we cannot reason from both according to our current passions and or desires. Consistency in reasoning simply would not be consistent with pragmatic moral relativity. Or would it?
Comments
As to words mattering, isn't it a wonder that today, as we listen to the rhetoric of a campaign, that then turns into the rhetoric of Presidential tome, we find more often than not, that we do not believe a word being said.
I'm adding you to my blogroll.