Concepts can vary from specific to abstract, and it makes sense to have more concepts, at varying levels of abstraction, on topics we care more about. Hence the myth that Eskimos have more words for snow.
"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.
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"
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"?
"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.
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.
Koine Greek had four words that meant love: phileo (friendship), eros (sex), storge (familial), and agape (unconditional). C.S. Lewis wrote about them in "The Four Loves".
I second frelkins comment. English lets us be precise when we want to be.
"much evidence in the general population of self-awareness such as would enable persons to express their emotional states to others with precision"
This is why people read poetry and gives books of poetry to others. Editions of Rumi have achieved bestseller status, while the cognoscenti display their affections by sending Deluy's Carnal Love around. People long to express their emotions, but society rarely trains them to do so.
vague is also a pleasant way to practice self-deception, more particularly, to project an emotional state and imagine that it is requited"
As noted above, Orwell takes on vague language as both deception and self-deception. Language clearly dresses thought, so we are sure that vague language indicates vague thinking.
Perhaps from an ev perspective, such vagueness allowed us greater social cohesion by disguising disagreement and creating a feeling of more and stronger alliances. However in our current environment, this seems to backfire on us more and more. As societies grow larger, we need more precision to manage expectations and create firmer social structures.
Have romantic ideals and expressions of affection changed over the course of time and do they varied amongst human cultures? I think it's quite clear that they have. Anecdotally, I have not observed much evidence in the general population of self-awareness such as would enable persons to express their emotional states to others with precision. Even in cases where such self-awareness is present, what would be the adaptive rationale of more precise expressions of internally perceived emotional states? Keeping the notions vague is also a pleasant way to practice self-deception, more particularly, to project an emotional state and imagine that it is requited.
Perhaps there is also some tacit recognition that talk is relatively cheap; actions speak louder than words. Much of what actually defines relationships is probably not verbalized.
One question, as mentioned, is whether some sort of inter-subjective understanding of the word (and the experience) is had. That is, whether the threshold for love for each party, however it might be conceived pre-interaction, is met. Then there is a different "love" that emerges between the two parties once they've been together, and again when they grow, and again, in different circumstances. At times, "I love you" can be fundamentally sincere but simultaneously used to defuse a situation, or to keep a solid working definition on the relationship when one party doubts its legitimacy or strength. But overall, I think the word is highly situational, and that's what we're missing when we try to type out the definition. I'm not sure we can cover for the situational aspect by becoming more precise, but we could try... and do try, hopefully, when separated.
A lot of great (concise, thoughtful, informative) comments here! If the comments were only great in being well-worded, passionate, or high-status, I might only have said the vague word "great" to save commentators from embarrassment. :)
"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.
"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.
"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.
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"
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"?
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...
http://plato.stanford.edu/e...
Racist/sexist/chauvinist etc.
"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.
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".
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.
Koine Greek had four words that meant love: phileo (friendship), eros (sex), storge (familial), and agape (unconditional). C.S. Lewis wrote about them in "The Four Loves".
I second frelkins comment. English lets us be precise when we want to be.
Hey Mr. Hanson- Inuit, not Eskimo.
@Alan
"much evidence in the general population of self-awareness such as would enable persons to express their emotional states to others with precision"
This is why people read poetry and gives books of poetry to others. Editions of Rumi have achieved bestseller status, while the cognoscenti display their affections by sending Deluy's Carnal Love around. People long to express their emotions, but society rarely trains them to do so.
vague is also a pleasant way to practice self-deception, more particularly, to project an emotional state and imagine that it is requited"
As noted above, Orwell takes on vague language as both deception and self-deception. Language clearly dresses thought, so we are sure that vague language indicates vague thinking.
Perhaps from an ev perspective, such vagueness allowed us greater social cohesion by disguising disagreement and creating a feeling of more and stronger alliances. However in our current environment, this seems to backfire on us more and more. As societies grow larger, we need more precision to manage expectations and create firmer social structures.
Have romantic ideals and expressions of affection changed over the course of time and do they varied amongst human cultures? I think it's quite clear that they have. Anecdotally, I have not observed much evidence in the general population of self-awareness such as would enable persons to express their emotional states to others with precision. Even in cases where such self-awareness is present, what would be the adaptive rationale of more precise expressions of internally perceived emotional states? Keeping the notions vague is also a pleasant way to practice self-deception, more particularly, to project an emotional state and imagine that it is requited.
Perhaps there is also some tacit recognition that talk is relatively cheap; actions speak louder than words. Much of what actually defines relationships is probably not verbalized.
One question, as mentioned, is whether some sort of inter-subjective understanding of the word (and the experience) is had. That is, whether the threshold for love for each party, however it might be conceived pre-interaction, is met. Then there is a different "love" that emerges between the two parties once they've been together, and again when they grow, and again, in different circumstances. At times, "I love you" can be fundamentally sincere but simultaneously used to defuse a situation, or to keep a solid working definition on the relationship when one party doubts its legitimacy or strength. But overall, I think the word is highly situational, and that's what we're missing when we try to type out the definition. I'm not sure we can cover for the situational aspect by becoming more precise, but we could try... and do try, hopefully, when separated.
A lot of great (concise, thoughtful, informative) comments here! If the comments were only great in being well-worded, passionate, or high-status, I might only have said the vague word "great" to save commentators from embarrassment. :)