Comments on: Why Love Is Vague

By: James Andrix

James Andrix — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:37:16 +0000

“Can’t help it”

Used to apply to actions from epileptic seizures to quick decisions to sexual behavior to addictions to regular habits.

If we were specific it would sometimes no longer fill in the social space where an excuse would go.

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:39:46 +0000

“Why not instead use a variety of more precise words that convey more detailed meaning?”

I do. With certain people. Very few people, actually.

Kind of OT, but I’m reminded of a Star Trek: TNG episode where Data described what friendship was to him. I don’t recall exactly what he said, but it was something about how his interactions with a person become an expected part of his functioning and become integrated into his programming to the extent that, when he doesn’t interact with that person for awhile, his functioning is less optimal, unless he adjusts his programming to reverse that integration. Or something. Anyway, even if it wasn’t completely sensible, it was awfully cute.

By: Robert

Robert — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:28:57 +0000

“Right” perhaps.

Using a vague notion of rights makes an idea seem more sensible than it is.

I have a right to healthcare. vs The world would be better if nobody ever had to pay for any healthcare they wanted.

The former sounds bold and principled while the details of the second make it more vulnerable to criticism.

By: nazgulnarsil

nazgulnarsil — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:35:13 +0000

legitimacy. is legitimacy bottom up or top down? Is an act granted legitimacy by the people who have authority over the one doing the act, or is it granted by the people whom the act affects?
“I was just doing my job”
“The people support our revolution”

By: Jim Gannon

Jim Gannon — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:07:58 +0000

Brits have the usage of “fancy” as in “I fancy her” to mean that I am interested in you romantically/sexually. We Yanks are stuck with the word “like” which ambiguously means either platonicly or romantically. Can anyone think of a term in the American dialect that would substitute in the phrase “I fancy her”?

By: Mick P.

Mick P. — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:42:55 +0000

HA, I think there is an entire sub-area of philosophy that studies this. I just googled it and it appears to be called fallacies of vagueness.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/vaguenes.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/

By: Mikko

Mikko — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:25:10 +0000

Racist/sexist/chauvinist etc.

By: Hopefully Anonymous

Hopefully Anonymous — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:18:15 +0000

“I suspect we are also purposely vague with many of the other words we use, but I haven’t spend much time trying to think of other examples.”

I think you’re moving in a very fruitful direction with this. Like you’ve pointed out, a good place to start with a topic is an introductory textbook. I suspect this topic has been investigated in depth by linguists and other topic experts/researchers.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:01:52 +0000

Aleuts are Eskimoes but not Inuit and dislike when people refer to them as such. Similarly, the Bushmen/Hottentots don’t like being called “San”.

By: Manon de Gaillande

Manon de Gaillande — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:00:34 +0000

I noticed most people don’t know their own feelings in much detail. Their knowledge of their feelings is more precise than mere “love”, but would be insufficient to use a wider range of verbs.

Deception and self-deception have already been suggested, and I concur.

There is a social norm in favor of “love”, and a social norm in favor of some feelings of romantical love (as well as other types of love, but it’s off-topic): children are shown extremely strong, purely romantic, altruistic, passionate and tender attachment described as “love” in stories to be taught the norm; but what adults describe as “love”, with a norm in favor of it, is either infatuation or a weaker attachment based on affection and habit.