-1

It's my experience that language gets more objective the older one gets. For example, instead of "talking" one uses the expression "vocalize" or instead of saying "I'm happy" the expression "I'm in a positive mood" is used. Or instead of saying "I enjoyed playing along" the expression used (the thing said) is something like "It was fulfilling to participate". Or instead of "reason" one uses "argument". Or instead of "feeling", "a state of" is used. Having the same form is translated into being homeomorphic (or anthropomorphic if something has the form of people). Why is this? Is it to conform to the culture of science?

Let me state that I'm not defending a naive realism. A realist can be as contra naive as you like. Why should using "happy" imply being naive? I'm addressing the question of why objective language replaces subjective language. Why saying "being in a positive state" while "feeling good" can also be said? Why is the change towards objectivity and not towards subjectivity (or at least equally divided as we have two brain sides)?

Another good example would be the change of names of animals and plants into their Latin of Greek names. Why is this done? Why objectify these names. Why not keep their original names?

Just Some Old Man
  • 779
  • 1
  • 7
  • 19
Deschele Schilder
  • 1
  • 7
  • 18
  • 3
    What do you mean with "more objective"? More precise? Showing an "improved knowledge"? Also your driving ability will improve with practice... – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jun 22 '21 at 09:26
  • No, I don't mean improved knowledge. I mean increased objectivity. – Deschele Schilder Jun 22 '21 at 09:31
  • Increased objectivity is quite evaluative. What happens is that you are better trained in understanding and using intricate semantic differences. In this sense, it may be that one acquires the ability to more precisely describe what we think is "actually" happening. The question is needlessly taking sides in how this has to be understood though, ie. you show a clear stance towards naive realism. Please clarify whether you ask about an improvement in eloquence, in the truth of the description, or in specificity, specifically (sic!). You confuse specificity with "grades" of truth, IMHO. – Philip Klöcking Jun 22 '21 at 09:43
  • @PhilipKlockning I think the examples speak for themselves. Your use of language is exactly what I had in mind...:) – Deschele Schilder Jun 22 '21 at 09:58
  • 1
    I wonder if you've seen these 2 versions from George Orwell. One is good ol King James. The other... (Fill in the blanks!) Full version https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ – Rushi Jun 22 '21 at 12:37
  • @Rusi-picking-up Hi! The translation into modern English (in the first link) is e very good example of what I mean! – Deschele Schilder Jun 22 '21 at 13:58
  • Is that his critic on modern English of the worst sort? – Deschele Schilder Jun 22 '21 at 14:03
  • 1
    I think what you're asking here is more of a sociological questions than a philosophical one. It seems that what you mean by "objectified expressions" are the expressions often used by social norms of high class (or in your words "culture of science"; though it is hardly restricted to the Academy). Also in my experience there are many older people who still use expressions like "talking" and "I'm happy" rather than "vocalize" and "I'm in a positive mood" :) – Yechiam Weiss Jun 22 '21 at 15:02
  • I dunno. I'm not asking about sociological pressures. Obviously they are involved (it looks much better and sophisticated and it testifies to a kind of intelligence). I'm rather asking why it is so much better to use it (and in the eyes or ears of the beholder your statue will rise). So not the sociology behind it but the philosophy behind it. – Deschele Schilder Jun 22 '21 at 15:14
  • @YechaimWeiss. There luckily older people who say this. But I have never heard a young person say that he/she was vocalizing. Why is such an expression learned in the first place? In books on human behavior one can read these kind of expressions often. Why not write talking? – Deschele Schilder Jun 22 '21 at 15:38
  • "Vocalize" is not more objective than "talk". What it is is more general. It includes singing, humming, grunting, and it includes sounds made by animals. People use it for generality, not for objectivity. What happens when you get older is that your vocabulary expands. Also, your understanding expands so you can see more distinctions and variations than you used to see, and you use your expanded vocabulary to express these distinctions. – David Gudeman Jun 22 '21 at 23:12
  • @DavideGudeman It is more general but also more objective. Vocalize is all together. Generalization is more or less the same as objectifying as you take away the subject. A person cant speak and sing at the same time – Deschele Schilder Jun 22 '21 at 23:43

1 Answers1

1

Sounds like as you've got older you are more fixated on sounding clever. The better way to be would be being sensitive to your audience, latin names among horticulturalists or professionals where it matters & is useful, common names among non-gardeners or newbies.

Code switching is a sign of intelligence & social dexterity. Swearing, and competence with varieties of text speak, have been linked to greater rather than less verbal dexterity, for instance .

Avoid unnecessary jargon, just because you know it. Try to broaden rather than narrow your range of expression, & not get stuck in fixed modes.

CriglCragl
  • 21,494
  • 4
  • 27
  • 67
  • Especially the first part seems very true. Indeed like-minded should use like talk, like taxanomists use all these fantastic Greeck and Latin names. Though I would have loved it if my mother told me that she had bought a whatever its name in Latin is plant.:) – Deschele Schilder Jun 27 '21 at 21:42