Defining Words:

What did the word God mean before the European Enlightenment?

This question presents us with a rationale by which to begin to approach a most difficult of problems, how to tackle with the linguistic peculiarities of a society in transition.

Before we approach the meaning of God at the time before the enlightenment, we should first ask ourselves what God meant in the time after the enlightenment.

Taking as an example, Spinoza's atheistic God, which instead of being a separate entity who created humanity in his own image, is a universal animus which fills all things in existence, we find that a modernist God must by definition at least to some extent abandon the mythological God of medieval times. Of course Spinoza's radical redefinition of God is not a universally accepted concept in the Western discourse, but instead is now one of a great melange of ideas about the relationship between divinity and reality that simultaneously and paradoxically oppose and harmonize with one another.

The even newer post modern, and neo- hedonist approaches to God, or its non existence pose us with an even larger number of competing images of reality in which a modern empirically orientated atheist aesthetic freely mingles with post philosophy and multicultural views of the now truly unintelligible concept of a supernatural being which is the reason for our collective existence and who to some extent has a hand in our destiny.

Comparing this God, which seems beyond all rational description, we may now approach the God of the Old Testament, who seems also to take on many illusory and changing forms.

This God who told Moses to name him to others as “I am,” first shows himself in the creation of all things in Genesis. After the creation of a Man and a Woman and their subsequent betrayal of his trust in the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God appears in a physical form, walking through the garden, seemingly unaware of what has transpired between Adam, Eve, and the Snake. This God, who, like a stern father, discovers his child disobeying his command, seems surprised and saddened by the fall of his progeny from the grace and innocence of the garden.

This very physical God who asserts thereafter that “Now they know the meaning of good and evil, just as us,” seems also to address a plurality, but whether it is a plurality of already existing beings aligned with his knowledge, or the audience reading the holy book is never explained clearly.

Later in Exodus, God reveals himself in a burning bush to Moses, and Moses is so frightened that he covers his head not to look upon the face of God, again, this goes unexplained.

So what is the major meaning of this God who seemingly takes on many mystical and very temporal forms? In fact, this is the principle by which I wish to approach the modern discourse of political language in the west today.

Given the lack of availability of definition of God in Genesis, Exodus, and the other main books of the old testament, we find ourselves posed clearly with the fact that the God of the ancients was not defined by our modern scientific and reductive approach to understanding the world. In effect, this God must remain a mystery to anyone not able to enter into the mindset of the people who wrote and interpreted the Bible at that time in History.

In present times, we find ourselves at a linguistic crossroads of sorts, one which poses us with the problem of making clear and accurate definitions for social concepts which are radically changed from even the realities of twenty years ago.

We also find that our discourse becomes ever more divisive as we attempt to grapple with how to define the ever growing population of “The other” in our society. This other can not only be reduced to the massive and ongoing influx of immigrants from all corners of the globe, but also extends to the ideological other who already exists within the traditional framework of our society. We find now that with means of communication as vast and open as the digital information mine of the Internet, that it is possible to communicate with people at great geographical distance from us, almost at the speed of a regular conversation in situ. This ability links not only international communications, but also inter-regional communications within our own countries. Assuming that one lives in a large and ideologically diverse country such as the United States of America, it seems to become increasingly more disconcerting to find out the reality of what people who have hitherto seemed remote to us actually believe.

I should stress that this essay does not seek to define any sense of social morality or how we should communicate with each other, but rather point out the difficulty of maintaining open and fair communications with people who's opinions and experiences we do not understand.

This inter-regional communication seems in a sense, at least in America, to be more jolting than the prospect of communicating with people as far away as England, France, China, and Pakistan. In some way, the greatest strangers of the internet are the people who live the closest to us.

When we have a discussion with a man in Shanghai, unless of course we are already from that part of the world, we will naturally maintain some degree of recognition that his world view and our world view are very different. Naturally any communication between us will be filtered through our intrinsic understanding that we have fewer points of cultural commonality than we do with our neighbours.

Having said this, when we communicate with a fellow in Mississippi from our apartment in New York, we may find his world view to be utterly foreign and retrograde. This sense of ideological alienation seems almost more extreme because he also seems so local to us. I maintain that we would not sustain the same degree of psychological trauma even when arguing with a person of genuinely foreign origin.

The great convergence of ideological shock comes not simply from holding a different world view, but in my estimation is related to a completely different regional interpretation of the meanings of words.

For instance, all Americans understand the basic concept that Racism indicates the prejudice of one “Racial” group against another, but this is the point at which one idea radically splits into many competing narratives. It almost goes without question that the word Racist has negative connotations to people in all regions of America, and that although a very limited number of people will openly admit behind closed doors that they hold a Racist world view, very few people would like to be accused of it in public. However, we now find ourselves at the point of an ideological split, because this word is interpreted differently depending on ones' particular social background.

For the average working class American in Texas, Racism maintains its late twentieth century interpretation of being an animosity between the races, but to a Phd candidate in the Social Sciences in New Jersey, Racism takes on an altogether more nuanced meaning which deals with the many potential intricate power relationships between what are viewed as dominant and non dominant ethnic groups.

These two meanings seem almost at odds with each other, since the relatively simplistic dictionary definition of Racism, which simply holds racial prejudice as being related to disdain among individual racial demographics almost does not exist within the Post Colonialist narrative of Racism as something which only moves from the elite class down to the submissive class. It is understandable then that the traditionalist approach to defining Racist behaviour is utterly incompatible with the much more broad ranging and inclusive approach taken on by present day academia,

Racism is only one word in a greater social milloux of competing definitions to define the overall social opinions of a culture. Again, we do not seek to define in this essay which approach is better, but instead, simply to point out the incongruity of definition of the same word.

Taking the narrative definition of Racism back further into history, we see it applies as a type of Scientific exploration into the abilities of the races. Seen in the light of modern day science and humanities, most of us find this Racialism (the etymological predecessor to Racism) approach to be repugnant and without merit, and yet it is the root origin of this now very complex and culturally powerful concept.

Much in the way that Descartes sought to use an empiricist approach to provide foundation for the proof of a sentient God in protest of the secular ideologies of his day, the modern advocacy community attempts to use a throwback to semi-empricism to validate its redefinition of words in order to suit the needs of an ever changing sociopolitical environment in the west and the greater world.

Because all ethical considerations are based in some degree of rationality and truth, of course there is great merit in finding new ways to describe problems which have not gone away, merely under the steam of a modern, progressive social agenda. That is to say, the older definitions of political words have become meaningless to their modern application and as a result, must be redefined in order to suit the situation of the day.

In the light of maintaining an agenda which leads to the realization of universal equality of opportunity among all people, this redefinition of words seems acceptable and perhaps to be a needed change, but there is also potential for problems which can emerge from this rebranding of old concepts.

Possibly the biggest conflict to arise from redefinition is the degree of social disagreement that it causes.

Using again, the term God as an example, we find that there is virtually no cohesive agreement between religious groups as to what God actually is. It seems today that even within independent schools of the same religion, God often has a radically different meaning, be it the independent spiritual God of the Baptists, or the Spinozian all being God of the Universalist church, there is very little agreement on this ultimate of grand theories of creation.

The key to not being bogged down in all of this confused heterodoxy in the Christian world has been the De facto acceptance of other Christians as being of the same large group, although perhaps not being of the same ideology.

The world of American politics, which in every way is as polarized as the split between Shiite and Sunni Muslims after the death of the Prophet Mohamed seems to not respect this universal acceptance of differing opinions in the same benign light as does the Christian Community of its own flock.

Because each major side of the American political debate seeks to instill a sense of cultural hegemony upon if not the whole country, at least its own followers, the words used to describe similar events must by definition take on competing meanings.

In the Liberal world view (again, another word whose original meaning has changed dramatically over the past one hundred years), suggests that there is a complex and subtle system of social oppressions which occur as a result of alienation of identity. It at least partially views the solution to this alienation to be found within the creation of social safety nets which can be used to de-alienate Americans through universal access to a minimum standard of education, health care, and social wellfare of various kinds.

The Conservative world view in turn views alienation as arising from government interference in the lives of Americans and what it believes to be the gradual degradation of traditional regional values which are important to its voter base. In effect, these two competing opinions, one collective and one individualist (although it is our opinion that in fact they are pseudo-collectivist and pseudo-individualist), must define their cultural dispute according to a radicalized language of aggression.

Because it goes far beyond the scope of this essay to go into lengths about this dispute, perhaps it is a better avenue to simply attempt to define certain concepts that both groups use and explain how they stand in stark opposition to each other, thus validating the original statement that we live in a peculiar climate in which single words may take on multiple meanings depending upon by whom they are used.

Glossary of terms:

We do not seek here to access in any exact sense definitions of these words, but rather general readings as they apply to either side of the American political conversation. These definitions are in no way meant to be comprehensive, but rather just to illustrate the often completely different readings of the same concept. In fact, we do not even seek an accurate definition for democrat and republican, but instead use them as approximations of political ideas on the left and right wings, which in reality are significantly more varied and diverse than this simple list could possible address.

Constitution:

Democrat: The original document from which American political ethos is derived. A Document declaring universal freedom to all Americans. Protection of this right by the American government.

Republican: The original document from which American political ethos is derived. A document declaring universal freedom to all Americans and protection from tyrannical government vis-a-vis freedom of rebellion.

Tax:

Democrat: the means by which the government funds all infrastructure and programs carried out by the American government. Something which may be proportionally increased or decreased depending on earnings.

Republican: the means by which government should fund infrastructure such as roads and other basic requirements of the nation. A type of theft of property.

Second Amendment:

Democrat: the right to bear arms in order to facilitate a well organized citizen militia for internal defense of the country.

Republican: the right to personal possession of fire arms for the purposes of self and community protection. A constitutional idea which recognizes the intrinsic right of Americans to rebel against tyrannical government.

Progressive:

Democrat: the political ethos of creating a fairer playing field for all Americans to be able to pursue their personal desires.

Republican: an epithet used to describe Democrats.

Conservative:

Democrat: a political theory based on upholding old fashioned and potentially antiquated social values, as well as a view of the world which presupposes free market economies to be preferable to socialized economies.

Republican: A branch of political philosophy which is meant to protect constitutional rights vis-a-vis maintenance of laws and cultural values reflective of economic and cultural self determination.

Race:

Democrat: an inaccurate means by which to define varying ethnic groups with unique cultural features.

Republican: The Races of White, Black, Hispanic, etc...

Racism:

Democrat: the inequality caused by unfair power relationships and assumptions of cultural superiority expressed by a dominant group against groups which it views as inferior.

Republican: animosity among the races, affecting all races, but especially related to the relationship between Blacks, Whites, and Hispanic people.

Gender:

Democrat: a flexible assignment of identity according to the degree to which one identifies with the concepts of “sex.”

Republican: heterogeneous male and female.

Sexism:

Democrat: a complex system of gender based alienation which places males in a privileged social position to women and “differently gendered” people. Existing on a continuum and at intersection with race.

Republican:

- problems related to misanthropy or misogyny.

- A conspiratorial concept of the left.

Conclusion:

Who is allowed to define society? What type of cultural hegemony is better for the development of a fair and equal nation? Why are the meanings of words so important to understanding the narrative of all discussions from religion to politics, morality to ethics, and beyond?

In fact, the meanings of words are transient snapshots of historical implication, each word congealing under the gaze of the current culture which seeks to use it to define itself. The concept of exact meaning of a word seems almost as intangible as defining the God of the old Testament, who may appear in human form in the garden and in absolute and blinding form as a burning bush reveals his spirit. Or is it is absolute and infinite as Spinoza's intangible ultimate universalism of an all being non God energy pervading all things?

Just as with this question, the question of the political discourse, which for the purposes of this paper we have simplified at an extreme level, we find that words never really mean one thing, and that their definition seems almost to be the cause of bi-partisan alienation among the political classes, economic classes, and ethnic classes of the United States and beyond.

Because this problem of definition is at an absolute impasse, how should we then react to others in our own society who hold words to be defined differently from our preferred usage?

How to we differentiate between ideas, concepts, and normalized usages of language?

Naturally, as a fair minded and compassionate person, I would wish to suggest some idealized and foggy conception of a middle ground in which all people may patiently engage in philosophical debate and reason, but this seems an unrealistic and perhaps overly utopian goal. Because of my own lack of understanding of the ethical problems this topic presents, I give no suggestion, but rather leave these words open to the interpretation of the reader “E Plurubus Unum.”