Potentially illegible thoughts on language via skype chat

Courtesy of Eric, who is a Good Person With Whom to Talk About Things.

mlstartz says: so, if we start to use 'ambition' to mean 'making a lot of money in conventional career paths'
mlstartz says: or whatever
mlstartz says: then we talk about ambition being bad
mlstartz says: and we sweep both what ambition originally meant and the new meaning under that judgment
mlstartz says: and we lose the nuance of what the word maybe should mean
mlstartz says: and we don't have a different word to replace it with, so we actually stop talking about those concepts
mlstartz says: I think this is a huge factor in the nuance we've lost in american politics
mlstartz says: by mis-using the words liberal and conservative

eric.schoettle says: so I agree, language is messy
eric.schoettle says: and thinking about our inability to say things because of twisted words both scares me and rings true
eric.schoettle says: but I think it also fundamentally misconstrues language
eric.schoettle says: Language is the epitome of a social construct. It only means what we think it means.
eric.schoettle says: as ideas about things like "making a lot of money through conventional means" change, then so do the words surrounding that

mlstartz says: but that doesn't mean that we have to be consciously governed by the popular will in defining it

eric.schoettle says: now, yes, if we could cleanly fix some things down into particular concepts, it would be great
eric.schoettle says: define theings like in physics, and it's all so much clearer

mlstartz says: just because most people have lots nuance around the concept of ambition
mlstartz says: doesn't mean we have to

eric.schoettle says: but see, that's exactly where I disagree
eric.schoettle says: if we want to expect a different concept to be understood when we use a word, then we don't communicate

mlstartz says: but I think we underestimate the extent to which popular understandings are shaped by conscious attempts at redefintion

eric.schoettle says: and worse, we isolate our communication to our community, that already knows what we're talking about anyway

mlstartz says: but it's possible to be a shaper of language, is what I'm saying
mlstartz says: not just go with the flow

eric.schoettle says: we do, for particular conversations, for particular groups, get to define things, as we make our point
eric.schoettle says: but if you fight to make a word something else, because somebody else defined it purposefully somehow that doesn't work for you
eric.schoettle says: then aren't you fighting over language?

mlstartz says: yeah
mlstartz says: I'm sort of in favor of fighting over langauge
mlstartz says: because when you fight over language
mlstartz says: at the very least you come out with a better taxonomy of concepts
mlstartz says: if not actual agreement on semantics

eric.schoettle says: it's almost impossible to kill an idea by language

mlstartz says: I disagree

eric.schoettle says: hmm

mlstartz says: I think that the concept of liberalism is dead in America
mlstartz says: not in fact
mlstartz says: but as an idea

eric.schoettle says: so I can see it in an acaemic sense, for sure
eric.schoettle says: but if obama wants to express a progressive agenda, well, he doesn't even need to use the word
eric.schoettle says: and that word, well, it's a revitalized word that's being used to deal with changes in what some words mean, as well as political philosophies

mlstartz says: but I think some of the democratic party's struggles to build a strong electoral coalition come from a lack of clarity around the differences between left, liberal, progressive, etc
mlstartz says: we've started to use these words interchangeably
mlstartz says: so we don't understand when people we would describe with one of these words don't act like a voting bloc
mlstartz says: for instance, I think a huge part of Obama's success in revving up the previously politically alienated young, educated, and wealthy comes from his appeal to liberals

eric.schoettle says: I really don't know what you mean by liberals
eric.schoettle says: and sure, I'm not a social scientist
eric.schoettle says: but I'm not an uninterested dunce, either.

mlstartz says: so, when I say liberal, I mean it in something closer to the sense in which the rest of the world still uses it
mlstartz says: and the sense of the roots of the word -- someone who is liberal with something eg. time money acceptance
mlstartz says: and liberals in most of the world like social pluralism and often markets

eric.schoettle says: ok, so where's the key difference from the use of the word here?
eric.schoettle says: b/c I thought you meant it in a more libertarian way, but being generous with money seems to be fiscally liberal, in the U.S. sense

mlstartz says: liberals = pluralism, markets, acceptance of change

eric.schoettle says: define pluralism

mlstartz says: mmmm. again inexactly = individually defined values coexisting communally
mlstartz says: so, like having coexisting religious practices, political communities, languages, etc
mlstartz says: and having a political and economic system that operates with this sort of diversity intact
mlstartz says: rather than acting as a homogenizing or improving force

eric.schoettle says: can improving be non-homogonizing

mlstartz says: mmm, yes
mlstartz says: I guess i meant 'improving' in the sense of bringing everyone toward a socially-defined idea of betterment
mlstartz says: which progressives, at least historically, are into while liberals often arent
mlstartz says: progressives = social improvement, often community-defined values, charity
mlstartz says: early progressives in the US did women's rights and labor laws
mlstartz says: early US progressives also did prohibition
mlstartz says: and mental institutions and orphanages

eric.schoettle says: are you a liberal or a progressive?

mlstartz says: liberal
mlstartz says: but I often agree with progressive politics in practice, see?
mlstartz says: there are major areas of overlap
mlstartz says: which is why leftists, liberals, and progressives have often made a successful electoral coalition
mlstartz says: but they have different reasons for reaching the same policy conclusions
mlstartz says: and when we forget that, we often forget why they form a coalition, and then forget how to predict when and why that coalition might not hold
mlstartz says: so for instance
mlstartz says: as a very rough statement that wouldn't always hold true
mlstartz says: progressives and liberals would almost certainly agree on women's voting right
mlstartz says: might or might not agree on particular labor laws
mlstartz says: and would almost certainly not agree about prohibition
mlstartz says: (or modern equivalents -- sin taxes, smoking bans, etc)

eric.schoettle says: so, ok, I want to go back to the language thing
eric.schoettle says: it's an irreconciable conflict between intellectual clarity and communication with the world
eric.schoettle says: it doesn't necessarily make sense to buck the flow of the masses of people using the word
eric.schoettle says: when instead, you can just appropriate a new term with the meaning you like
eric.schoettle says: and because it's new, it gets the definition you want it to have
eric.schoettle says: if the idea grows, the word will with it, and there's no problem

mlstartz says: words do have a life and history that are hard to replace

eric.schoettle says: you've got to change it in accordance with the way the world works
eric.schoettle says: hence the revival of "progressive"