Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 11/11/2008 07:28 PM: > When somebody says, "I think we ought to keep close to the defnition" they > are making a claim for the immutability of language, which, of course, is a > fairly silly claim. > > These sorts of arguments remind me of original intent arguments with > respect to the supreme court. The argument is not, of course, whether we > are going to change our understanding of the constitution but how swiftly > we are going to change it. > > The argument about whether we are comfortable to have gay couples live > amongst us in our communities like any other couples and the argument about > whether to call these arrangements "marriages" is a sign of magical > thinking. Now I grant you that magical thinking often WORKS, but it still > is magical thinking.
I don't think arguments about the definition of "marriage" are a sign of magical thinking at all. Rather, it's a sign that the people doing the arguing are literate (and at least one half are literal). Literacy is a good thing and we should encourage it. The literate nature of the people on this list is the cause of the arguments about the surprising efficacy of mathematics. A mathematical proof is precisely an argument about definitions. Likewise, math, being a language, changes over time, albeit more slowly than natural language. To take your claim to its logical conclusion, that would mean mathematical proofs are evidence of magical thinking. (Indeed, non-platonists _do_ accuse platonists of magical thinking. And some very deep, considerate thinkers have even claimed that all positivist rhetoric is tautological. ;-) So claiming that these arguments that are based on definitions is a sign of magical thinking is either wrong or idealistic and impractical.... like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The bare truth is that it is _very_ good to have right-wingers making definitional/legal distinctions in this way, because that means that they can _read_. Granted, they may not think very clearly. It's like when a child begins arguing about how their teacher teaches algebra. They may be wrong in their rhetoric; but at least they're literate enough to lay out their rhetoric. The more sophisticated truth is that the presence of these legal/definitional arguments in the household is evidence that we peons are actually getting involved in the rhetoric laid down by our legislators. I.e. law, once solely accessible to the very rich and very intelligent, is now becoming accessible to the masses. And that's a good thing, even if we still need to protect ourselves from premature populism. And the most sophisticated truth is that the people making legal/definitional arguments are seeking _precision_ in their language and their societal code. And that's a very good thing. Again, granted, precision is not a panacea; but it's evidence that people are seeking better, more expressive language with which to express the human condition. It is progressive. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
