How Materialists Mutilate Language in the Service of Mutilating People

_{Barry Arrington

August 24, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a recent post I castigated Zachriel for his support of the practice of chopping little boys and girls into pieces and selling the pieces like meat in the marketplace. In response Popperian weighs in with this:

The problem, which Barry seem to have difficulty grasping, is that all words are ultimately undefined. As such it’s not possible to make a pure moral statement outside of a particular moral problem to solve. All we can hope to achieve is to define words well enough so that we can all understand their usage in the context of a specific problem. Yet, Barry is demanding that Zachriel somehow do otherwise as if it were possible, in practice. It’s unclear how this is a reasonable or even rational request.

Seversky adds in a different post:

Words can mean whatever we want them to mean . . .

There you have it dear readers. Words have no meaning, or conversely, they mean anything we want. George Orwell had the number of such as Popperian and Seversky in 1984. The rulers of the hyper-totalitarian government at the center of that book understood that mutilating language is a useful tool if one intends to mutilate people. Do you remember the government’s three slogans?

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

“Hear! Hear!” say Popperian and Seversky. Words have no meaning and we can pour any concept we like into any phrase. Why can’t “peace” mean “war”? No reason. No reason at all.

Orwell was doubtless influenced by earlier versions of the linguistic nihilism Popperian and Seversky are pushing. After all, when 1984 was published (1949) the camps over whose gates the famous phrase “Arbeit macht frei” was emblazoned had been closed for only four years.

With their comments Popperian and Seversky reveal their latent fascism. They say there are no binding moral principles, and even if there were there are no meaningful words with which to express such principles. But with no binding moral principles and the language to express those principles, justice itself is impossible, because justice rests on the twin pillars of language and logic. If there is no justice, there is only power. The strong prevail; the weak succumb. And the unborn are the weakest of all. Popperian and Seversky are in favor of continuing the utterly depraved and barbaric practices going on this very day at Planned Parenthood.

I attempt to call them to account for the boundless evil they advocate by asking: “Shall we chop little boys and girls into pieces?” And they respond with “What do you mean by “boy” and “girl” and “chop” and “pieces”? Those words have no meaning.”

Popperian and Seversky are liars, and their lies are dangerous, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn knew all too well when he wrote:

Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.

Comments

I invite our readers to ponder Popperian's comment at 13. It amounts to this "blah blah blah blah . . . therefore it is OK to split a little boy's face in two in order to remove his brain while his heart is still beating so that you can sell that brain like a piece of meat." You see, gentle readers, it takes a lot of blah, blah, blah to get to that conclusion. Myself, I am OK with the simple "Thou shalt not murder." But I'm not all sophisticated like Popperian. Materialists like Popperian can justify literally anything if they give it enough blah blah blah. And that is what makes them evil and dangerous. Do you think I'm exaggerating with the "literally anything"? I am not. I don't know what Popperian's views on killing born babies is. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he opposes it. His fellow materialist Peter Singer has used the exact same "blah blah blah" method Popperian uses to conclude that it is good to kill even born babies if that's what the parent wants. Popperian stops killing at birth. Singer uses Popperian's logic to keep killing after the baby is born. Like I said. Evil and dangerous. Popperian writes:
I invite Barry to explain why he thinks we would get it right the first time.
Yes, it is true. God got it right the first time with "thou shalt not murder." You can't improve on that. And it is easy to see why. Every exception to that simple rules rests on an arbitrary distinction. Popperian stops at birth. "Arbitrary!" yells Singer. Barry Arrington_{August 25, 2015
August
08
Aug
25
25
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

“Hear! Hear!” say Popperian and Seversky. Words have no meaning and we can pour any concept we like into any phrase. Why can’t “peace” mean “war”? No reason. No reason at all.
First, note how Barry is just presenting yet another dichotomy. Unless it's possible to make a purely moral statement independent of any moral problem to solve, "words have no meaning" and "peace" can mean "war". Does Barry really consider misrepresenting people the moral thing to do? Second, absent is any kind of attempt to address the that criticism presented. After all, he's preaching to the choir, who holds the very same justificationist views has he does. I wrote:
For example, Barry is suggesting that Zachriel should be able to simply start out with words like "sell", "children" and "chop up" and make moral statements based on their essence, rather than in the context of actual moral problems to solve. The problem with this is, every time we define an essence, we use many undefined terms, which would require us to define those undefined terms, etc. Nor can we simply solve this problem by stating our definitions at the start because those definitions introduce more undefined terms, etc.
Barry completely ignores this. Instead of an explanation as to how this is a reasonable or even rational request, we get an argument from undesired consequences based on a false dichotomy. It must be possible or society will come crumbling down. Furthermore, Barry still hasn't explained how he can actually have knowledge of this supposed moral essence, in practice. Apparently, rational criticism of his specific philosophical view of knowledge is evil and tantamount to fascism. How exactly? Let's break this down... Barry:
They say there are no binding moral principles, and even if there were there are no meaningful words with which to express such principles.
I say there is moral knowledge of how to solve moral problems, which genuinely grows though conjecture and criticism. I say that, while words cannot be ultimately defined, they can be defined to the degree that is sufficient to address specific moral problems. So, while there is nothing that "binds" us in the sense of an authoritative source, we are compelled by rational argument and criticism. Barry:
But with no binding moral principles and the language to express those principles, justice itself is impossible, because justice rests on the twin pillars of language and logic.
But there is a more fundamental problem, which Barry continues to ignore. Even if there were such a thing as "binding moral principles" in the sense he is implying, it's unclear how Barry could use them to solve moral problems, in practice, unless he actually possesses the knowledge of what those principles are. To do so would require an infallible way to identify an infallible source of those principles are and an infallible means to interpret it. I wrote:
For example, how does Barry Arrington infallibly distinguish his personal views on same sex marriage, abortion, etc. from this supposed infallible source of essence? The very idea that there is a infallible source requires the concept of criticism to distinguish that source from others, decide under what conditions it is infallible and how to interpret it. Again, reason and criticism always comes first. So when actually faced with a moral problem, it’s unclear how Barry has any other recourse other than to conjecture solutions to moral problems and rationally [criticize] them.
Barry has yet to explain any alternative is possible. My guess is that this will be met with another argument from undesired consequence based on yet another false dilemma. It must be true or evil will reign! Barry:
If there is no justice, there is only power. The strong prevail; the weak succumb. And the unborn are the weakest of all. Popperian and Seversky are in favor of continuing the utterly depraved and barbaric practices going on this very day at Planned Parenthood.
See above. Even if there was such a thing as "binding moral principles" it's unclear how Barry has any other recourse other than to conjecture moral solutions to moral problems and criticize them. So what compels us to accept ideas, and by "us" I'm including Barry himself, is human reasoning an problem solving: i.e. argument. This is because human reason criticism always comes first.. The problem of unplanned, unwanted and dangerous pregnancies is a moral problem for which we conjecture solutions and criticize them. We start out with a guess, then criticize those guesses. It's unclear how we can do anything else. Will we get it right the first time? No, we will not. But moral solutions to moral problems will improve though criticism of our ideas. Including those on abortion, the disposition of tissue from abortions, etc. And they will be progress not because they come from an ultimate authority but because our criticisms of those ideas will fail. What do I mean by this? When we take our ideas on board for the purpose of criticism and our criticisms fail, we will understand why they fail and why those advances actually represent progress. This is opposed to assuming they are right because they supposedly came from an ultimate source that endowed them with an ultimate essence. For example, it's possible to pass a test on a subject without actually being able to understand it. And when the same problem is encountered in a way that is different than material was originally presented, they lack the ability to apply it, in practice. However, what Barry is suggesting is that the issue of abortion should already have been completely settled and that no progress can be made on the issue. No new criticism we could devise could ever improve the ultimate moral truth of abortion, same sex marriage, etc. If anything is immoral, denying that we can make progress beyond the ideas of the past, or even our current ideas, fits that description. Again, I invite Barry to explain why he thinks we would get it right the first time, or the second time, or even the third time? How does that work, in practice?Popperian_{August 25, 2015
August
08
Aug
25
25
2015
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Materialists are often very bold with their claims - denouncing God, pouring contempt on all religion, laughing at prayer and the spiritual hopes of people, and bluntly stating there is no afterlife and no ultimate source of morality. But it's interesting that they're never bold about the most obvious consequence of all that posturing. Once someone merely says that any kind of evil can be justified under materialist-atheism, all sorts of outrage and denial will follow. Suddenly, the bold liberators who choose atheism so "they can do whatever they want", and who have no need for God or a final judgement, and who ridicule the prayers of believers ... suddenly, they become pillars of virtue and reverence and good morals. The outrage we see when we say their worldview promotes evil? It's relentless. But when you hack your way through all the emotion and noise and defensiveness -- there's no argument to be found. Materialism starts from nothing and ends with nothing. It's about the simplest and most primative concept one can encounter. There's nothing to say about it. So, we get these people who pride themselves on their intellectual achievements and they can't see the most obvious and ridiculously simple idea staring them in the face. No, I should say - they certainly do see it. That is obvious. There's no way so many materialists can respond in exactly the same way by actually not understanding the point. They don't want to look at it. And that's a good thing. At least its a sign they have some kind of conscience still. But it's dishonest. They don't want to look at the evil they are proclaiming. They want that part to just disappear. It's like abortion itself. "The problem disappeared". Now we don't talk about it. Now we pretend nothing happened. But if you've ever encountered an angry pro-abortionist and discovered he/she is suffering from guilt of the very act they're promoting, it's the same concept. When you shut your mind and heart to God, and proclaim freedom to do what you want, you proclaim the same freedom to every psycho-terrorist and child abuser and mass murderer. The same people will laugh about the reverence others have for God. But at the same time, we're supposed to have respect for their own subjective morals, which emerge from an unintelligent process that doesn't care whether anyone lives or dies.Silver Asiatic_{August 25, 2015
August
08
Aug
25
25
2015
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

It's always funny to me how people like Zachriel casually shrug off the mass slaughter of unborn children as morally relativistic, yet these same types of people will then go on to castigate anyone who questions Evolution or Global Warming as being part of an absolutely immoral 'anti-science' culture that is committing borderline child-abuse and holding back society from becoming a glorious scientific utopia.lifepsy_{August 25, 2015
August
08
Aug
25
25
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

Seversky
I say we are entitled to decide for ourselves which moral codes should bind us. -- Seversky For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. -- The devil
If there is a God Who has revealed Himself and a moral code to humanity, then we still can "decide for ourselves which moral codes should bind us" -- we have a free will -- but who are mere creatures to reject the morality of the Creator, as though we could "be as Gods," deciding for ourselves what is good and what is evil? I am not advocating robotic obedience to that which we cannot understand. Morality should have our intellectual assent. It should make sense to us. God's morality makes more sense than anything else. Man's morality apart from God always ends in Man's brutal inhumanity to Man. Yes there are passages in the Scriptures which are misinterpreted to mean that the Scriptures are advocating that which is "appallingly immoral behavior." One needs to interpret each verse of Scripture in the context of the whole. The Scriptures, from beginning to end, are about Jesus Christ, Who not only taught but also set an example of radical selflessness and sacrificial love. There is nothing that needs to be repudiated in the Scriptures when they are properly understood.harry_{August 25, 2015
August
08
Aug
25
25
2015
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

With their comments Popperian and Seversky reveal their latent fascism. They say there are no binding moral principles, and even if there were there are no meaningful words with which to express such principles. But with no binding moral principles and the language to express those principles, justice itself is impossible, because justice rests on the twin pillars of language and logic. If there is no justice, there is only power. The strong prevail; the weak succumb. And the unborn are the weakest of all. Popperian and Seversky are in favor of continuing the utterly depraved and barbaric practices going on this very day at Planned Parenthood.
No, that is blatant misrepresentation. I am on record here as opposing abortion on the grounds that I believe the right to life should cover the whole of an individual human being's existence as such, in other words, it should extend from conception to death. I would allow it where we are forced, for medical reasons, to choose between saving the mother or saving the unborn child but otherwise, no. The practice is immoral, in my view, and should be stopped. I do not hold that there are no binding moral principles. I say we are entitled to decide for ourselves which moral codes should bind us. This does not mean that abominations like the Nazis or Stalinist Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia are inevitable. Those regimes imposed their policies by the most brutal violence and certainly did not seek the opinions, let alone the consent, of those they oppressed. A better example would be a democracy like the United States which, at first, permitted and even defended slavery but later was persuaded to the view that it was immoral and subsequently banned it. For the same reason, it is not for one particular faith to try and impose its own code on the rest of us, especially when any kind of justification for that code is neither given nor, apparently, sought and especially when its own scriptures contain accounts of appallingly immoral behavior which are defended rather than being repudiated and excised from the text. Whatever else you might say about them, Lutheran churches at least have had the moral courage to repudiate the rabid anti-semitism of Martin Luther. If Christianity as a whole were to do the same with the excesses of the Old Testament it would be on much stronger moral ground. Neither did I argue that there are no meaningful words. I pointed out that the meanings of words are what we agree they should be. The evidence for the claim that words can have different meanings in different contexts and that meanings have changed over time is to be found in our dictionaries. You could argue that uncertainty is a good thing because it forces us to examine the concepts that lie behind the words which is the exact opposite of meanings being imposed by some arbitrary authority as instanced in 1984.Seversky_{August 25, 2015
August
08
Aug
25
25
2015
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Nobody who says that words have no meaning really believes it. If they did, they would stop using words and shut the {expletive} up.EvilSnack_{August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

Popperian
The problem, which Barry seem to have difficulty grasping, is that all words are ultimately undefined. As such it’s not possible to make a pure moral statement outside of a particular moral problem to solve. All we can hope to achieve is to define words well enough so that we can all understand their usage in the context of a specific problem. Yet, Barry is demanding that Zachriel somehow do otherwise as if it were possible, in practice. It’s unclear how this is a reasonable or even rational request.
Why do people write confused and convoluted paragraphs like that. We don't define words so that we can understand their usage in the context of a specific problem. We use words so that we can understand the specific problem in the context of the word. We don't understand the meaning of "rape" in the moral context of what Bill Clinton did to Juanita Broderick. We understand what Bill Clinton did to Juanita Broderick in the moral context of the word "rape." Similarly, we must first know the definition of "abortion" and its moral context in order to understand what the baby killers do and we must understand the meaning and moral context of the words "bloodthirsty" and "greedy" in order to understand why they slice babies up and sell them like chopped meat.StephenB_{August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Sean,
The correct way to put this is that all language is conventional, a point Aristotle made.
It is correct that all language is conventional, but that is not the point they were making.
But language conventions (at any point in time) are as objective as any other fact about a culture at any point in time.
That is correct, but it is not the point that either Popperian or Seversky was making.
That said, at any point in time some words have many distinct meanings; few languages (if any) are so precise as to have just one meaning per word. And of course, writers are often sloppy in their word usage. So every now and then it is necessary to clarify what you meant when you wrote something.
Can’t argue with anything there. It is not relevant to Popperian’s and Seversky’s antics. Their meaning was clear enough.
But that’s only if you’re trying to communicate, which is not usually the point of this site (UD).
Irony. Since we are the ones pushing for the existence of fixed meaning and against the bad faith abuse of language.
Here the point usually is to bash and insult. Especially when Barry participates.
If you mean that I have nothing but contempt for those who advocate for chopping little boys and girls into pieces and selling the pieces, yes, I do bash and insult. What is your (all too predictable) position on that issue, Sean?Barry Arrington_{August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

The correct way to put this is that all language is conventional, a point Aristotle made. But language conventions (at any point in time) are as objective as any other fact about a culture at any point in time. That said, at any point in time some words have many distinct meanings; few languages (if any) are so precise as to have just one meaning per word. And of course, writers are often sloppy in their word usage. So every now and then it is necessary to clarify what you meant when you wrote something. But that’s only if you’re trying to communicate, which is not usually the point of this site (UD). Here the point usually is to bash and insult. Especially when Barry participates. sean s.sean samis_{August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

The problem, which Barry seem to have difficulty grasping, is that all words are ultimately undefined.
Except, of course, the words that you're using which are clearly defined and understood ";^)Latemarch_{August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

of related note to the Evan Grant cymatics video I listed:
Sound waves precisely position nanowires - June 19. 2013 Excerpt: The smaller components become, the more difficult it is to create patterns in an economical and reproducible way, according to an interdisciplinary team of Penn State researchers who, using sound waves, can place nanowires in repeatable patterns for potential use in a variety of sensors, optoelectronics and nanoscale circuits. http://phys.org/news/2013-06-precisely-position-nanowires.html
bornagain77_{August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Words, and how a person chooses to use them, are of far more importance than many people, even many Theists, seem to realize.
Matthew 12:36-37 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
At the 17:45 minute mark of the following Near Death Experience documentary, the Life Review portion of the Near Death Experience is highlighted, with several testimonies relating how every word, deed, and action, of a person's life (all the 'information' of a person's life) is gone over in the presence of God:
Near Death Experience Documentary - commonalities of the experience - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTuMYaEB35U
Of related note, the other day an atheist, perhaps Zach or Seversky, stated that our words were merely sounds produced by chemistry and physics, or something to that effect. Implying that our words are merely 'emergent', (there's that magic word again), from a material basis and are thus of no real consequence. In response, I pointed out to him that sound has a far deeper, 'pre-chemistry', relation to the origin of reality than he realized:
Big Bang Sound Recording 'Remix' Created By Physicist - 04/04/2013 Excerpt: While you might think that because space is a vacuum the explosion of a singularity wouldn't make any sound at all, Cramer told QMI that "the Big Bang is the exception to this, because the medium that pervaded the universe in the first 100,000 years or so was far more dense than the atmosphere of the Earth." In other words, matter was so dense in the early Universe that it carried sounds waves in much the same way air does on Earth. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/04/big-bang-sound-recording-john-cramer_n_3007975.html Photons and Phonons Excerpt: You see, the primary Planck-Law (E=hf) is metaphysical and independent on the inertia distribution of the solid states.,,, Both, photon and phonon carry massequivalent energy m=E/c2=hf/c2. The matter-light interaction so is rendered electromagnetically noninertial for the photon and becomes acoustically inertial for the phonons; both however subject to Bose-Einstein stochastic wave mechanics incorporative the Planck-Law.,, Where, how and why does E=hf correctly and experimentally verifiably describe the quantum mechanics of energy propagation?,,, http://www.tonyb.freeyellow.com/id135.html Phonon Excerpt: In physics, a phonon,, represents an excited state in the quantum mechanical quantization of the modes of vibrations,, The name phonon,, translates as sound or voice because long-wavelength phonons give rise to sound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon Evan Grant: Making sound visible through cymatics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsjV1gjBMbQ
Verse and Music:
Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. Words (Official Music Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=26&v=Bf_H7Lwl0FI
Supplemental notes:
The Healing Power of Positive Words By Linda Wasmer Andrews - Jun 08, 2012 Excerpt: When researchers analyzed the autobiographies of famous deceased psychologists, they found that those who used lots of active positive words (such as lively, enthusiastic, happy) tended to outlive their other colleagues. Within this category of words, the biggest boost came from humor-related terms (such as laugh, funny, giggle), which were associated with living six years longer, on average. In contrast, passive positive words (such as peaceful, calm, relaxed) and negative words (such as worried, angry, lonely) didn’t affect longevity. http://health.yahoo.net/experts/allinyourmind/health-power-positive-words Christians happier than atheists – on Twitter - June 28 2013 Excerpt: With the help of a text analysis program, the researchers found that Christians tweet with higher frequency words reflecting positive emotions,,,, Christians, they found, are more likely to use words like “love,” “happy” and “great”; “family,” “friend” and “team.” Atheists win when it comes to using words like “bad,” “wrong,” and “awful”,,, http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/christians-happier-than-atheists-at-least-on-twitter/ Atheism and health A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5] http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health
bornagain77_{August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Pretty harsh words, BA. But since words have no meaning, I guess that's okay. Besides, it's not as if you are advocating that they be chopped up into pieces, or their face cut through with scissors so the intact brain can be removed.anthropic_{August 24, 2015
August
08
Aug
24
24
2015
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply