English Words mixing Contexts

Judaka

English has a list of words that I believe cause many problems, because of both how they can be applied in similar, but different contexts. Concepts such as intelligence, willpower, procrastination, laziness, toughness, and kindness are some that get muddled by this problem. Using intelligence as an example, we can describe actions, ideas, concepts and systems as being intelligent or stupid. We can also say that it is intelligent to have an intelligent idea or develop a smart system and that it is stupid for one to have a stupid idea or believe in something illogical or nonsensical.

For example, if a criminal commits a crime that has no chance to work, we could say that the crime itself is stupid, the act of committing the crime was stupid, and the person who committed the crime was stupid.

The problem is that by invoking this concept of intelligence in this way, the focus is naturally shifted to the intelligence of the criminal. However, there are all kinds of reasons why someone might do something stupid, such as desperation, forgetfulness, arrogance, recklessness, pride, anger, sadness and the list goes on. Intelligence should be the solution to stupidity, but it isn't.

The public conceptualization of intelligence has been impacted by this issue. Public figures, for example, who we should all be able to agree are intelligent, will yet have stupid ideas, say stupid things, and do stupid things and the debate shifts to whether or not figures such as these are or aren't intelligent.

Similarly, the word lazy can be used to describe actions, concepts, ideas and so on, and yet, doing something considered lazy isn't necessarily caused by laziness.

Sometimes being lazy and doing something considered lazy are connected, and sometimes they're not. It should be intuitive that the solution to stop being lazy is to overcome one's laziness, but acts & ideas considered lazy aren't considered so because they're necessarily caused by laziness. It's instead a judgement against that particular activity.

For example, spending hours camped on the couch watching TV might be considered lazy and it may not be relevant to bring up that this act was done regularly by hardworking people. Since it's the act that's being called lazy, and not the people doing it. Yet it would still be natural to say that a person doing this was being lazy.

I frequently observe this connection being made, and the results can be disastrous. It's just incredibly confusing, and I think the public perception of many such concepts has been destroyed as a result. But I wonder if others think the same or if I'm blowing this out of proportion.

To be clear, my argument is that this causes "many problems" and some very serious ones. and I've tried to outline what I meant by that. I'm not saying one can't word themselves carefully as to be clear on what they mean, or that this is a totally unsolvable problem or anything like that.

Vera Mont

Using intelligence as an example, we can describe actions, ideas, concepts and systems as being intelligent or stupid. — Judaka

We can, but it's always a matter of opinion.
The word, however, is more interesting than that. Intelligence, in the context of biological classification, is a quality of complex animal brains, which sets these aside from simpler, non-reasoning organisms.
In human psychology, it is a measurable trait that can be studied and compared.
In the humanities, it can be subdivided into areas of application: technical, tactical, verbal, conceptual and emotional intelligence.
In military parlance, intelligence is information collected through surveillance; in clandestine operations, intelligence refers both to the agency that organizes the activities of spies and to the fruit of their labours.

I'm not saying one can't word themselves carefully as to be clear on what they mean, or that this is a totally unsolvable problem or anything like that. — Judaka

It's a good reminder to use words with as much precision as one is able to, and to choose the appropriate term for the context in which one is commenting.
And also, incidentally, to distinguish between opinion and fact.
(Edited to eliminate errors in typing that could lead to misunderstanding.)

unenlightened

Concepts such as intelligence, willpower, procrastination, laziness, toughness, and kindness are some that get muddled by this problem. Using intelligence as an example, we can describe actions, ideas, concepts and systems as being intelligent or stupid. We can also say that it is intelligent to have an intelligent idea or develop a smart system and that it is stupid for one to have a stupid idea or believe in something illogical or nonsensical. — Judaka

English is a dog's dinner of bits of all sorts of languages, and it's a complete mess. You have my admiration and sympathy using it as a second language and trying to philosophise in it.

But in relation to the problem you articulate here, I am so used to saying and thinking such things as 'stupid is as stupid does', that is to say that I detect that someone is stupid if they consistently do stupid things and say stupid things, and if they are not consistent, then when they do, I say they are being stupid — and that's a tense subtlety that is hard to parse — anyway, I am so used to all this, that I wonder if you can convey to me how sensible languages deal with all this?

Baden

I wonder if you can convey to me how sensible languages deal with all this? — unenlightened

Seems more of a cultural issue, doesn't it? Language will naturally morph to fill the gaps of cultural functioning and the process is quite efficient. Besides which every cloud has a silver lining and every silver lining a cloud. Elsewhere @BC was lauding English for its flexibility. Now, @Judaka is bemoaning it for same.

Vera Mont

English is a dog's dinner of bits of all sorts of languages, and it's a complete mess. You have my admiration and sympathy using it as a second language and trying to philosophise in it. — unenlightened

It's not a complete mess! It's an amalgam. It's grown so big and rich that you can express in it just about anything a conscious entity is capable of thinking and feeling, with a fair margin of redundancy. Most people use only 1-2% of the available vocabulary; even the most erudite people only use only about 5-6% - but not all the same set, because English affords specialized sub-languages for different fields of study and endeavour.
And it has internal logic. As

↪unenlightened

pointed out, you can intuit quite a lot of that logic by simply paying attention to good writers and speakers use grammar, which of three or four synonyms they choose, how they employ word-order to convey nuances of meaning. It can also be learned; the rules make sense. It was a second language for me, too - fortunately, at a young age - and an unending delight of discoveries.

unenlightened

I wonder if you can convey to me how sensible languages deal with all this?
— unenlightened

Seems more of a cultural issue, doesn't it? Language will naturally morph to fill the gaps of cultural functioning and the process is quite efficient. — Baden

When i lived in France I found it easier to understand the formal language of the bureaucracy than the idiomatic argot of the streets, but conversely, the more relaxed and fully articulated accent of the South was easier than the half swallowed machine-gun of Parisian French. The formal language with words like 'convey' and 'sensible', is recognisably the same old French and Latinate derivations, whereas the Norse, Germanic, and Anglo-Saxon aspects did not connect.

More cultural than what? Our Norman conquerors gave us the names of the meat – 'mutton' and 'beef', whereas the live animals retained their other already hybrid names , 'cow', 'cattle', 'kine' 'ewe', 'sheep'. English is class-ridden to the extent of abandoning relationships completely on the basis of pronunciation of 'potato', as the song has it. The amalgamation has not quite happened in a thousand years, because the efficiency of the language adaptation is directed in other directions.

Vera Mont

And then there are the regional and colonial variants. In any case, it works adequately for everything I need to communicate....

Hanover

↪Judaka

Your thesis seems to be that the structure of the language imposes judgment, when it seems more likely that the language is representing the already existing judgment.

That is, I call the crime and the criminal stupid because I think criminals are indeed stupid. It's not that I a priori separated the crime from the criminal but my language forced me into a judgment that changed my opinion.

It's likely what you're noticing is an English speaking world that is more ethically judgmental than your native culture, in that the act is not separated from the actor as you're used to. That's not a language problem, as it's simple enough to draw that distinction if you need to. The problem as you see it is that most English speakers instinctively buy into the idea that stupid is as stupid does.

Vera Mont

The problem as you see it is that most English speakers instinctively buy into the idea that stupid is as stupid does. — Hanover

And, as is often the case, instinct prevails. As Forrest Gump's mother would tell him: you should not judge a person by his IQ score, but by his actions.

Judaka

↪Hanover

↪unenlightened

I can understand how my use of "English" could give off the impression that I'm approaching this topic as a non-native speaker who thinks English has a unique problem, but I'm not. I'm a native English speaker. I'm not fluent in Japanese but I know enough to say that it has the same feature and I assume all or most languages do. In Japanese, words meaning wise, intelligent, and lazy - can all be applied to people, ideas, plans, systems and so on. There are some differences but the general idea is the same.

↪Hanover

Your thesis seems to be that the structure of the language imposes judgment, when it seems more likely that the language is representing the already existing judgment. — Hanover

I don't think that the structure of language imposes judgement, that's too strong of a word.

That is, I call the crime and the criminal stupid because I think criminals are indeed stupid. It's not that I a priori separated the crime from the criminal but my language forced me into a judgment that changed my opinion. — Hanover

I made a thread about selective word use some months ago, where because we hate criminals, we're going to use negative language to describe them, regardless of whether it fits or not. Our motivation to insult the criminal, and to promote law-abiding behaviour is the top priority. I wonder if you are calling the criminal stupid in this way and that if I presented you with a criminal, for example, someone jailed for protesting the war in Ukraine, then you'd perhaps shower that individual with praise instead.

I'm 100% sure that's not a language issue though.

The problem as you see it is that most English speakers instinctively buy into the idea that stupid is as stupid does. — Hanover

That's definitely part of it. An intelligent person might do something stupid for a variety of reasons, such as lack of information, lack of experience, lack of judgement, emotional influences or mental illness. Making good decisions isn't solely a product of intelligence. Experience, character, wisdom, skills, education and many other factors are involved.

The role played by language is that it seems intuitive for stupid acts to be done by stupid people, and perception is created by the word "stupid" being applicable to both acts and people with the exact same meaning. When in reality, it's not possible for an act and a person to be stupid in the same way or for the same reasons, and a stupid act isn't one done due to a lack of intelligence.

↪unenlightened

anyway, I am so used to all this, that I wonder if you can convey to me how sensible languages deal with all this? — unenlightened

As I said, English is my first language, sorry to disappoint, I don't know if any language is completely without this problem, but I'm doubtful.

Judaka

↪Vera Mont

I'm okay with intelligence having many applications in different contexts. What bothers me here is that calling an idea or person intelligent is intended to mean the same thing, but it also can't mean the same thing. A human being's intelligence has to do with their brain, whereas an idea being intelligent has to do with its logic, accuracy or a host of other characteristics one might choose to focus on.

The ability to produce intelligent ideas is a sign of intelligence - but whether an idea is intelligent is determined by a different set of criteria. Isn't that misleading? Some ways of determining an idea to be intelligent might work to predict a person's intelligence, but they don't have to. The existence of intelligence might be a pre-requisite for an intelligent idea or it might not be.

It's smart to bring water when going on a long walk, but an idiot could bring one and a genius could forget. If one forgets to bring their water bottle when going on a long walk, it's actually stupid to blame intelligence. The solution to this problem definitely isn't an increase in IQ. But it's not always that obvious, and this creates confusion. I'm not insisting this is always the case, but can you think of examples where maybe it has confused and misled people, or am I overblowing the issue?

Vera Mont

What bothers me here is that calling an idea or person intelligent is intended to mean the same thing, but it also can't mean the same thing. — Judaka

Only, that's not a question of context; that's a question of judgment.

A human being's intelligence has to do with their brain, whereas an idea being intelligent has to do with its logic, accuracy or a host of other characteristics one might choose to focus on. — Judaka

So? All cognitive function has to do with the brain. How people use logic, intelligence, creativity, pattern-recognition (the accuracy of data has nothing to do with intelligence: it's external), etc. are functions of personality. The nature and makeup of personality is a much bigger topic than can be discussed in this context. But how somebody judges somebody else's use of their brain is certainly not determined by the structure of language.

But it's not always that obvious, and this creates confusion. — Judaka

I suspect you're creating confusion where none exists. We all know that lapses of memory have no connection to intelligence; we all know that stupid people are capable of making sound decisions and that clever people are equally capable of making disastrous ones. None of that is down to English or its usage.

unenlightened

As I said, English is my first language, sorry to disappoint, I don't know if any language is completely without this problem, but I'm doubtful. — Judaka

Oh, sorry, I was hoping you had some insight from otherness. Now I'm not sure you are saying anything very definite about language as such, but more about our human propensity for prejudice.

javi2541997

↪Judaka

Good and substantial OP. My bad that I discovered it eleven days later.

I think the problem of mixing up the meaning of words and context happens in every language. At least, our languages come from Latin, so it is easier to get rid of confusion. There is an important "wave" of people who want to change the lexicon of words because of this. I was even using Google Translate for a second to write this post, and Google said: This translation contains gender meanings, use the correct form to avoid confusions. Interesting, indeed.

On the other hand, the chance of mixing contexts is more possible in languages based on ideogram, such as Japanese and Chinese. Both languages have the same script. For example: "moon" is written "月" but in Chinese is said "yuè", and in Japanese "Tsuki". Furthermore of the meaning of the word, the context plays a big role here because "月" also means month, classifier of the month.

Is there any language that is universally accepted so doesn't depend on context at all? Maybe the metrical system is free of context. International System of Units, establishes universal names and symbols to avoid mixing contexts. For example: Second (s); metre (m); kilogram (k); etc... I think these words really represent a "concept" in science. What do you think?

Alexander Hine

I think it may be more than simply words misread out of context but whole idioms of speech.

Which is why a philosopher must be bold enough to radically challenge common clichés.

Judaka

↪Alexander Hine

You're right. In hindsight, I should've anticipated more people paying more attention to my title than my OP, I lazily wrote some random title without considering it too much.

English Words mixing Contexts

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions