Abused language

[avevale_intelligencer]

Implicit in the existence of language is the possibility of its misuse. As soon as you can say the sky is blue, you can also say it's green, red or ulfire, that it's an inverted bowl or the skull of a dead giant, that it once knocked you out in a dark alley and pinched your lunch money, or that it smells of elderberries. There is no language, as Gödel amusingly pointed out, that you can't lie in. And yet we have to trust them, languages I mean, because they're all we have.

Some bits of language have been abused so badly and for so long that they have become themselves a tool of abuse. Their meaning is routinely twisted out of shape so often that even when they represent truth, it's tempting not to believe them. And yet we have to trust them, because they're all we have.

Take the sentence "It's not as simple as that." (Note: this is not to reawaken old arguments or get at anyone who has used the phrase to me in another context. I'm not that oblique. These are genuine new thoughts arising.) Often, of course, it's entirely true. Many things in life, even some that appear very simple, are in fact horribly complicated and hard to resolve, and only a child or an idiot (all right, a bigger idiot) would refuse to accept that. When someone on the radio says that our education system is failing seventy-five per cent of pupils, who are leaving school at sixteen barely able to read or write, I may think "well, that's because they're given a choice about learning," but I know there are more complex issues involved.

But equally, it would be idle to deny that some things are that simple. My mother and father are dead. If I buy an apple from a shop, supermarket or market stall, that apple is mine. There is no objective, communicable proof of the existence of deity. Taking another person's life is wrong on a level that no justification by law or moral code can reach. In a democracy, the party or individual who gets the vote of the majority, however that may be specifically defined, wins the election and is the legitimate government of that society*. None of these statements need much qualification.

But how many times have we heard the phrase "it's not as simple as that" or one of its variants used by some politician or alleged expert to obfuscate, to muddy the waters, to buy time while the speaker desperately seeks an excuse for something that is, in fact, perfectly simple and clear? And if s/he can use tone and emphasis to plant the implication that the other person is oversimplifying, is either naïve, stupid or dishonest, and that s/he, the speaker, is better informed and/or more intelligent that either the other person or anyone listening, then s/he might just get away with it. Which is why, whenever anyone says "it's not as simple as that," my hackles rise, because I have heard that poor phrase abused too many times, heard it crying hopelessly in the night too many times, to be taken in when it comes up to me in a short dress and a painted smile and asks me if I want a good time.

Language abuse. It's worse than you think.


*(Never been too sure why other countries defer the transfer of power for days, weeks or months after the result of the election is known. It seems like asking for trouble to me. But then, I'm iggerant.)

Comments

[billroper]

In the case of the U.S., one of the reasons was that we're a bit spread out as compared to England and it took a while for all of the results to be compiled, disseminated, and the new government to assemble. The transition date was originally in March, but we've moved it back to January as communications have improved. I suppose we could move it back further yet, but we currently use the time between the election and the transfer of power to allow the new administration to assemble their working team.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Good point. I hadn't considered that.

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

None of these statements need much qualification.

I think some of them need lots of qualification. And the things that really are simple, for instance that your mother and father are (presumably!) dead, aren't the kinds of things that are argued about.

Usually, when something is at all contraversial, it's because it's a difficult issue with lots of right on both sides, and so it *isn't* simple. In fact, I can't remember having heard 'it's not as simple as that' and not agreed to some extent. I find 'It's perfectly simple' a much more objectionable phrase.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

It is just as open to misuse as the other one. I find it less objectionable because it's easier to refute. But neither phrase is objectionable in itself.

I'm finding, as I get older, that I'm less flexible on some things than I used to be. I'm persuaded that this is a natural process of ossification of the brain, and am accordingly keeping an eye on it. If it reaches any ideas that I might need to qualify at any point, I shall seek help...but from where I stand, the arguable statements above are actually fairly unequivocal.

I'm okay with people disagreeing with them, though. Especially the one about objective proof of deity. If anyone has some, I want to know.

Some reasons why some of these things are less than simple (off the top of my head)

[(Anonymous)]

The apple: what if the stallholder stole it?

Existence of deity: agreed - the reason why this one is less than simple is that some people don't have enough intelligence/knowledge to work through the arguments properly. But there are also some issues around how the word 'deity' is defined. I'm pretty sure there are some arguably valid definitions of deity (perhaps something like 'the sum total of human thought, feeling and endeavour') that could be provable.

Taking another person's life is wrong: what about to save another person's life? More than one person? How do you define a 'person'? When do foetuses/babies/children turn into people? Does it happen at a single moment or as a gradual process? Can a non-human be a person?

Democracy: "however" the majority is defined? What about societies that exclude a large percentage of the populace from the vote? If women don't have the vote, and wish to overthrow Party A (oppressive to women, won over the majority of the male electorate by a small majority, would clearly not have won if women had the vote), do they really not have democratic grounds for doing so?

Re: Some reasons why some of these things are less than simple (off the top of my head)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

These are ways of clouding the issue rather than genuine challenges to the statements I made.

If the stallholder stole the apple, that's the stallholder's problem: the apple is still going to get eaten, and I challenge anyone to recover it after that.

You can define "deity" as meaning "a small fish named Osbert" and prove its existence that way, but that isn't the kind of definition to which I am referring.

All those arguments in favour of taking another person's life are peripheral to the essential wrongness of the act, which is unaffected by any justification. If you take A's life to save B, that implies that A was about to take B's life: is one action right and the other wrong? No. Yours may, in your view, be necessary, and you may receive the plaudits of the populace, a large cash sum and B's hand in marriage as a result. Doesn't, and never will, make it right. That's my answer, anyway.

The statement about democracy contained no moral judgment on the specific nature of the rules of any given democracy. If I say "in a running race, the person who reaches the end of the course first is the winner," this is true whether the race is restricted to men only, under 15s or people with blond hair. However the rules of a given society define the criteria for winning an election, the person or party that fulfils those criteria wins that election.

It is always possible to introduce complication into any matter under discussion. The key word being "introduce."

[soren-nyrond.livejournal.com]

Isn't it to allow time for all the "W"s to be removed from the West Wing word-processor keyboards ?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

So, from the Est Ing of the Hite House...

[thnidu.livejournal.com]

Implicit in the existence of language is the possibility of its misuse. As soon as you can say the sky is blue, you can also say it's green, red or ulfire, that it's an inverted bowl or the skull of a dead giant, that it once knocked you out in a dark alley and pinched your lunch money, or that it smells of elderberries.

"Misuse."
"Lying."
"Fiction."
"Fantasy."

... Where were we? And where did all that fine white sand come from?