You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Etymology and the Magic of Words
I just discovered the so-called etymological fallacy:
Etymological fallacy is the faulty argument that the "true" or "proper" meaning of a word is its oldest or original meaning.
Because the meanings of words change over time, a word's contemporary definition can't be established from its origin (or etymology). The best indicator of a word's meaning is its current use, not its derivation.
I wish I had discovered it sooner because I think it applies well to your argument here.
I know. Go look at the word oxygen. The word has a root that doesn't apply. There are a few like this. Does that mean I can't go look at the word compassion, sympathy and empathy and understand them more, by looking at the origin to understand it's true meaning? No... because I did, and wrote posts about it. Looking at the dictionary would not have provided the depth of understanding the word. I have written several posts in the past that are like weaving a story of meaning based on the etymology of the word I uncover and wrote about. It's too bad you don't want to understand what I'm talking about. You need to engage in the etymological discovery I suppose, I dunno... Have a good one.
That's a misrepresentation of my intentions, I spend far too much time trying to understand what you're talking about 🙃 You've done that before and it's not quite fair.
I know this fallacy doesn't go very far but it challenges your primary argument, that through etomology we can gain an insight into the "true" meaning of a word. This is a further point to show there is no such thing.
What I meant was, yes you read what I'm trying to say, but it only goes so far if you're trying to prove how false it is without even going to discover how etymology can provide greater insight into a word. You have to understand how it works by actually doing it, not reading me talk about etymology as an abstraction apart from an example. It starts with asking about what one word means, and then finding more words to link and create a canvas about how they are used to reference reality. I did it with words like analogy, balance, and then with wisdom and more. It develops.
So if you want to understand it then you have to engage in the process. It requires expanding imagery and symbolic correspondence. I know some hard left-brain intellectuals can't do it, so maybe you can't understand what I'm talking about. I probably wouldn't have years ago until my thinking became less rigid. You're still saying how the "true meaning" of words isn't found in etymology? It's just whatever the current convention thinks and says it is?
Not so. I've spent my time trying to show the counter position to yours is very strong, stronger I believe. But I said from the start that etymology can of course provide greater insight (into history or anthropology for example), just not into any essential (i.e. true) meaning. My contribution here is primarily a counter argument.
You'd do well to assume less about me, my experience and my brain! If I was easily insulted I'd think you were aim at that on purpose...
Since we're talking about it again, let me be specific on where I disagree with you. Some reiteration is unavoidable.
This is a particular bugbear of mine actually! You're missing some nuance here though. There is no "true" meaning and etymology does not help you discover it. Some people use anarchy to mean chaos. Some people use it to refer to a political ideology which is not chaotic. There is a dispute about this and the meaning of the word has power, because when someone hears about anarchists at a demonstration or whatever, they understand this to mean chaotic nihilists.
This does not mean one meaning is truer than the other, it means we have a dispute on the meaning, and in this case it's very political. It is in fact political real estate, which is something you're getting at in your original post.
The safest course of action is to choose the most original meaning one can find, but that will not stop others from using a more contemporary meaning. It's why I often start out arguments by defining terms of importance if I think it's necessary, or define them along the way before using them. Anarchy would be such a term, but for example I'd presume people know what I mean (I, specifically mean) by the word "forgotten" though.
Yes, in the sense that it's context based, and if the same context is not shared it's possible to have a discord. Usage is meaning.
The hook-up we're having is on the word true. You agree there is such as thing as "true", and "meaning", and "original", even an "original meaning", but you can't accept a "true meaning", because "original" can't be "true", or isn't always "true", that the original meaning isn't always the true meaning? So there is no true meaning then?
Fidelity to an original. That's from wikipedia. So I think I'm not the only one who understands truth/true to often relate to the original.
Anarchy, the original meaning, reflects the description of freedom from masters and rulers. Now anyone can indeed alter that state of being to think it means chaos, but does no masters or rulers actually mean chaos? No, the Aletheia, the revealing/disclosure of a truth, that no masters or rulers is freedom, has been hidden once more (Iethe). The understanding of that reality of no master or rulers as freedom has been removed, hidden, occulted and removed from truth expression. A reflection about reality has been erased, and now a falsity stands in it's place, that no masters or rulers means a state of chaos, disorder, murder, etc. No longer do people think of the reality of the state of being without rulers or masters as freedom, but the opposite of freedom where the most powerful get to rule and subjugate everyone else as slaves. The original understanding is gone. The original is the true meaning that reflects something true about reality, while the conventional new meaning is a false meaning with respect to the uncovering (Aletheia) of reality, of a truth: an ideal state of no masters or rulers is not chaos or evil with slavery, etc.
I'm trying to explain this more and more. I said "It's too bad you don't want to understand what I'm talking about. You need to engage in the etymological discovery I suppose, I dunno..." To me, the correspondences in symbolism isn't being linked because of the left-brain modality of thought, of not using the imagery invoked through the word symbols that convey meaning and linking them together. Sorry if that upsets you to say your behaving left-brain intellectually, I used to be more on that side of thinking until I developed more of an understanding of symbolism.
Looking at the dictionary you get one layer of meaning. Looking at the etymology and the roots, you get a more comprehensive understanding of the original true intent of the meaning of the word. They are created from root meaning for a reason, to expand and convey a derivative meaning based on that root.
The greater insights etymology provides, that you agree it does, goes to the uncovering (Aletheia, truth) of the original/true reflection of something that the word was created and imbued with the meaning of. Does it always matter? No... like I said for the word oxygen. But others words, I have found greater meaning by looking at the original roots, rather than the preformed conclusions of dictionaries that do a good job summarizing, but the etymology often has more that one can connect to.
There are roots to words, and those roots are the origins of the original/true meaning of the word. I won't keep arguing how original can be equated to true, because wiki has already mentioned it in addition to what I have tried to do to explain it. This is what I mean by left-brain thinking, you're focused and fixated on some specific rigid way of how that term can be used. Since the meaning of words can shift relative to time periods while using the same letters previously used for a word, then you think there can be no "true meaning". That is the fallacy. But you can think I'm the one in a fallacy for thinking true and original can equate and render original meaning and true meaning as valid in etymological discovery. You're not accepting what "true meaning" means because you'er fixated on how words can and do change to convey meaning, and we can invent any word to mean anything, therefore there can never be and never as any "True meaning" to any word.
Your failing to understand what "true meaning" even means in the context of what is being discussed, because your only looking at it form a left-brain rigid angle where it can only mean that one thing which contradicts how words are created arbitrarily. Btw, engaging in a left-brain way of thinking doesn't mean you can't or don't use right-brain modalities. It's a generalization of types of thinking that can exclude other modalities of consciousness, like pure logical thinking in contradictions only that can't see the interconnected correspondences and links that allow the symbolism to lay out a canvas of meaning to understand more deeply. Just as etymology allows for deeper understanding, start to see "true meaning" in a deeper way than purely from the look at "true" to mean one thing and not others, when it does have multiple applicability in our use of the word. Like many words, but "true" itself does have a true meaning, even if "original" wasn't originally part of it's meaning, it has been complemented onto "truth" based on similar symbolic correspondences that don't contradict (unlike the original meanings like anarchy that reflect a truth hidden by the false meaning of anarchy).
Your counter argument holds valid in some cases, but not for how there is no true meaning to be found through etymology. I explained how that happens in the word anarchy, which might be the strongest case to make and other words less evident about how there are indeed "true meanings" to words as they reflect reality accurately, compared to false meanings that obliterate understanding something about reality, like how no masters or rulers doesn't mean there is chaos. Most words have stayed the same, and the original true meaning is still the current conventional one more or less. But the roots of the words will show any deviance, which merits asking why the deviation was made to alter a word. In the case of anarchy, we can suspect that having people understand about a way of living that doesn't need masters or rulers to live with rules and be more free... well that's dangerous to the masters and rulers who want to keep their way of life.
Alter words and you alter the meaning they convey and alter the perception of reality. Etymological roots of words matter to uncover these deceptions. Etymology does, not always, but it does overall as the etymology of the word etymology states it, it does contain original and true meaning to words that more accurately reflect the meaning of something compared to a lesser accurate definition we now use.
Always good to converse with you, you make me verify what I'm talking about. But I can back it up, as I have. 10 years ago would I even of understood what I was talking about here even with me explaining it?... I doubt it... lol. But I think I did a good job to show how true and original are linked, and how there is true meaning in etymology itself. And unless I went through the various etymological journeys and discoveries I have gone through, I don't think I would be able to explain it this well either. I can because I have experienced the truth of how etymology helps uncover (Aletheia) the truth of what a word means.
Peace.