Image by http://www.wordle.net/
We live in imprecise times.
Our desires and fears are tainted with subjectivity. There’s no right or wrong, no black or white, no real or imaginary.
When equality and freedom were reached, we opened the door to countless definitions of reality. This is not to say that we are totally free and equal, but no one can argue that we aren’t living in the most liberal moment of history (especially in the western world). Even if this freedom of speech and decision making is still incomplete, it has already changed the world enough for us to analyze the consequences.
One of the most interesting and harmful effects of this “talk first, agree later” society is the multiple, consistent and “soft” redefinition of the language. In a world where everyone owns the words, because everyone is allowed to speak their mind as they see fit, there is no longer unity in language. Sure, we all pronounce the same words, but they all mean something different to each of us.
In the past, it wasn’t just language that was ruled by a select group of people, but everyone’s fates too. Of course, the world has seen constant improvement in various aspects with many of its societal changes, but not without some negative repercussions. Nowadays, we are not only choosing what we want to do with our time but we are also free to explain why and how we are going to do it. We own not only our fate, but its definition as well.
The main problem that I see with this new mindset is that the appeal spreads. Please see that I’m using the world “appeal.” This is because what may sound good isn’t necessarily good. Maybe because of an inherent drive to “help others”, maybe because it’s a business strategy or maybe because we just want to feel good about ourselves, but we are all telling others what to do and how to do it with our own specific language. And those articulated visions spread because they are solid promises of a better future. The power of the articulate language is unmeasurable. (Side note: This is why I believe that journalism has been the most hurtful industry to the globalized intellectuality of the masses).
I hate the words in the picture. Not because I don’t want to be “happy”, whatever that means, but because of their inherent imprecision. They have become so relevant in our lives, that we shape our lifestyle and make our most important decisions going after them or avoiding them. When we pursue these, we pursue subjectivity, and when subjectivity is a goal, the ways to get there are infinite. The problem is clear: only one path will work for you, so your odds of going through the right one are minimum.
With the freedom to express ourselves constantly increasing due to changes in education and technology (to name a few), this tendency of language elasticity is only going to get stronger. I believe that the only solution is to take the time needed to define those words and goals by yourself, which is not an easy task at all. We need to stop underestimating the specific comprehension of the terminology. Any other path will be the wrong path. The word can be subjective, but the feeling of making a life-changing mistake after accepting someone else’s definitions can be very real.
In the end, the most damaging consequence of language imprecision is a world with confident but lost individuals.
The result is a proud and unsettled society.
Not a good combination.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Related articles from OwlSparks about language imprecision:
My definition of wisdom. Here is Alain de Botton’s pushing us to have our own definition of success. Here is “The Common Achievement Effect.” Here is the problem with glamorized words like “Entrepreneurship.” My theory on the biggest contradiction young people are living nowadays. My thoughts on the challenge of achieving “success” for non-profits. My criticism of our “news equal success” mentality. Yet another post on success and failure.
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Happiness and contentment are two majorly imprecise terms that I come across all the time and feel the need to define more accurately before having any kind of discussion about them.
As I think you found in your recent post about Personal Branding, it can be tricky to have any kind of discussion or debate when everyone is working from a different definition!
If we don’t talk about the same thing, we won’t get anywhere.
Wow…this is certainly an abstract post! I’m not going to pretend I completely understand what you’re getting at, but I can comment on this:
“They have become so relevant in our lives, that we shape our lifestyle and make our most important decisions going after them or avoiding them. When we pursue these, we pursue subjectivity, and when subjectivity is a goal, the ways to get there are infinite.”
There’s nothing wrong with subjectivity per se. Maybe it’s chasing other people’s subjectivity that’s the problem (this may be what you’re saying). It’s very difficult to provide black and white definitions of the above words. What makes one person happy may make another person miserable. The problem is the chasing itself. Thinking doing some activity will make you happy. Reading an article by a person filled with passion (e.g. Gary Vaynerchuk) and then thinking that he has the formula for success nailed! No…..you could do exactly what he is doing and be miserable. I think we’d all do each other great good if we learn to slow down. Learn to stop ‘chasing’ the so-called dream or fruitful life that’s somewhere out there and realize that happiness comes from being here right now in this moment. People may totally disagree with that and think it’s too new age, which is perfectly fine.
Subjectivity always depends on the people, so yes, that’s what I’m saying.
On one hand, I see that you agree with me (“you could do exactly what he is doing and be miserable”), but on the other hand you are giving us your own definition of happiness (“happiness comes from being here right now in this moment”), which I don’t share.
I do enjoy some abstract writing every now and then
I like the philosophical context of this. Then what does anything mean? What do the words I’m writing mean? In its essence, everything in the context of language is subjective then. Is there no true definition of happiness? Or better yet, does there have to be one specific, definition for it (obviously not)? I don’t want to so much define happiness as to convey my subjective opinion that people try to chase other’s opinion of what happiness is or chase some goal that will make you them more happy. I believe if you do that, true happiness will forever elude you.
Good stuff here!
“Does there have to be one specific, definition for it (obviously not)?”
Yes, it has: yours. But ok, we are debating irrelevancy here, I think we both agree that the point is to take time to define desires and goals by yourself.
This post provides quite some food for thought… and a lot of questions. I hope you don’t mind me asking some of them here, although the comment section certainly isn’t an ideal place for this.
Generally, and without making any implications: Does everything have to be precise? For example, when we talk about happiness, would you like to attain precision – and how? If you are looking for precise defintions, would that mean nominal or real definitons? Yes, I cannot but think of Aristotle: “It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.” I think there is a lot of truth in what he says.
To me, probably the most important thing in communication is transparency. Because if one is not transparent in ones rhethorics, one is probably on to bullshitting people. (Or just lazy & forgetful. I would plead for the latter in my case.)
Also I would question a little the novelty of these problems. For example “what may sound good isn’t necessarily good” – was this ever different? Also, concerning unity in language: Did we ever have this?
One last question, a little more practical: Is there something bad about goals being subjective? And one comment: I certainly don’t think there is only one path that works to attain a goal, independent of it being objective or subjective.
This is not meant to start a big argument, but I would certainly be interested in your thoughts. Would be so much better to have a discussion on this while having a coffee, though… because, yes, I also suffer from the imprecision of words.
(On a sidenote, scientists found out that it’s pure luck if people get to understand your e-mails. Generally, they will interpret your words different than you intended. Cannot find this study now, unfortunately…)
Does everything have to be precise?
- It’s the only way for me to embrace uncertainty.
Would you like to attain precision – and how?
I would, and I do it by thinking, a lot. People don’t do that. Thinking, true pondering and analysis is underrated, few people take the time needed to understand their own values and ideas.
“What may sound good isn’t necessarily good” – was this ever different?
- No, but it’s getting worse. Did we ever have a world without poverty? Based on the past, will we ever?
Is there something bad about goals being subjective?
-Don’t confuse uncertain with subjective. I think subjectivity it’s very harmful for our goals. Subjectivity depends on other people. Uncertainty depends on “luck.” I don’t want to depend on other people, but I’m ok with depending on luck.
There is no one path in the world, but there is one path for me if I analyze my present situation enough. That path may change later, but it’s still one path. Nate, who commented before you explains this very well.
We are young. If I ever go to the US, coffee will happen
Carlos, I absolutely agree with the statement that thinking is underrated. I thought a moment about putting a smiley behind this sentcence, but I won’t. Because it’s true.
I deduce from your explications that it’s more about nominal defintions of critical issues, and I’m okay with that.
I’m not sure if things are getting worse, or if documentation of it is just getting better. There are probably points to make for both perceptions. But it’s certainly helpful to strive for something better!
I re-read the part about subjectivity and Nate’s comment on it. So I agree obviously on that it’s stupid to adapt subjective goals made up by other people uncritically. One should pursue his OWN (subjective) goals, if any – and if we do so, we avoid being dependent on others. In your text I understood it as if you were against subjectivity in itself – which you are not, if I get your replies to Nate right.
As for the paths, I still think I am able to discover several paths that work for me in the majority of moments. To give an example, I can take two roads to the bus – and one is as good as the other. So I spontaneously choose the one I like on any given day. I think that this is often the case as well in bigger decisions in life, as we never have all the information we needed to make the one “perfect” decision.
So then, there’s just the coffee issue left, and while I’m not from the US, if you ever come to Colombia you’re certainly invited!