What do we gain when we change vocabulary?
I see that what used to be called programs or software now seem to be called applications or apps. Why? What is gained with this change of words for what seem to be the same things?
This could be irrelevant, until one notices how language in politics has rendered the definitions of words altered into something meaning, or sometimes meaning, a very different thing.
Lies are spoken and later denied in the face of evidence. We are faced with ‘facts’ challenged by opinions and denial.
It has always been a struggle, sometimes armed, between the desire to believe something that gives solace and the reality that there is absolutely no truth, no hard evidence to substantiate what offers solace. Solace is a feeling a good one and much sought after, the struggle to believe in the truth of what provides solace is a problem.
If it is not evident, what I refer to is ‘faith/religion’. That the comfort one receives in having faith cannot or should not be denied. The factual basis for the faith can be.
The stories that help build a religion are stories and cannot be considered facts as they cannot be proven. The comfort derived is not a fact of the stories it is a feeling. As so often stated lately, feelings are not facts, cannot be proven, they can be discussed though most often fruitlessly.
The insistence by some to call climate change — climate warming is a fine example of the damage changing a word/phrase can bring. “Warming” can be challenged by the feelings of winter. The facts of a changing world climate; rising temperatures, extinctions due to disappearing habitat because the climate is changing cannot be disputed. The cause might be but the fact that a major aspect of climate change is that if it is happening then these would be obvious results that can not be explained better with other theories.
When labeling a specific people the enemy we now have a generalization to confine a group. It should be obvious that there is a category called ‘breakfast cereal’ and that many breakfast cereals are loaded with ingredients that are not by definition healthy. Once one says breakfast cereals are unhealthy it is easy to avoid the complexity that perhaps some of these so labeled products are in fact healthy.
Many Caucasians break the law, more of them break the law numerically than all other races in the USA. Europeans have committed genocide more recently and globally throughout their history than other national/continental groups. These are unpleasant to consider facts.
So it is, if we apply the same labeling to other races, other countries, or to the victims of those races/countries….. MUST FIX THIS IS REALLY SLOPPY
It is easy to condemn lazy thinking.
Pause on that for a moment.
I am not a vegetarian, I have felt badly when required to kill an animal for food or clothing, I am against war in general, I am anti-religion but found that there was a case made by a Chicagoan Priest about anti-war and anti-abortion that made sense to me1, however that case did not have anything to do outside my own body and would not affect my relations with anyone else whose body is their own to do with as they please.
This, perhaps confusing, mixture of conflicting ways of being all internalized are acceptable to me to be as I am.
I have been treated in inhumane ways by other human beings, I have at times been inhumane myself. I regret having had to live through both experiences. I will never generalize about the people who treated me badly into a group of people. That does not make sense to me, the local may be global but the personal is not.
This is why it is perplexing that the words of a faith leader, one whose words are the basis of a faith can be ignored by those professing that faith. That ‘love’ for example is applicable only when chosen, by the chosen for the chosen and can be rescinded at any time for numerous reasons.
I do not understand the vigorous aggressive seeming, my way, my faith is right and I am willing to kill you to prove this.
I am referring to Christians by the way. The Islamic faiths have their own contradictions in this regard but these two and the rest of the worlds’ do too.
This is about language. The language you learn, the meanings you apply to words in that language and the damage to meaning when those definitions are altered is severe.
We might be more careful if we could understand that more fully and let those who misuse to mislead know we are not following.
So why did the change from program/software to application? What did we gain from that change? What did we lose?
1 Essentially he put it together that if you believe it is wrong to kill another human being, war, capital punishment, etc that abortion is also wrong. I being male have no ability to experience an abortion and I have a lot of resistance to population growth, but I might not be able to have an abortion if I could become pregnant.