power of naming

I heard a progam about battered child syndrom on the radio the other day. the doctor that discovered (invented?) the battered child syndrome told his students that they also had met with this concept, but did not know it could be it. here we see the power of denoting. until one knows that certain symptoms can lead to the invention or rather discovery of some (new) concept, one does not understand it or does not take it seriously. the fact that children were beaten by parents is nothing new, they were beaten by them even before the invention of the word (BChS) and discovery of the fact that children had similar symptoms when they were beaten. even today we can see that until we start denoting thing around us, we do not understand them. i am wondering about whether todays lifestyle of consumerism and apparent happiness that paradoxically ultimately results in depression in many (young) people shall also once be called somehow. take for example affluence-the merger of influence and affluence. the disease from being too rich, too happy, having enough of everything and thus doing stupid things. i think that describing things is very important because it is what makes us human. words should be descriptive of the world around us, but the ultimate goal of words is prescriptive- showing us how to live. words that describe the world around us are not satisfactorily telling-until one tries and has unique experience of somethine one read about, one does not understand fully the extent of the concept. on the other hand, if we use words prescriptively, using the denotations only to define things around us – but in order to achieve some higher aim- we use them in their true and absolute meaning. this meaning is how to live well, how to lead a good life, how to be morally immaculate and pure. this is notion that is not achieavable in this world and I do not want to delve into spiritual debate about religion, but unless we use words not to describe the world around us as perfectly as possible (which is never achieveable due to the fact that the words are subjective-until one has ones unique experience-this is unfortunately not transportable to another being due to the subjective nature) and start them using in order to precribe how we sould live, then we are in the vicious circle of mistunderstanding (or incomplete understanding). words should be used in their most basic denotations and in order to come to a conclusion that everyone understands- this notion is morality. i believe that as sentient beings we are capable of universal consensus about what is moral and what not. this is something intrinsic and thus objective for everyone, not subjective as words that are used for description. through descriptive words we shall never achive an understanding about the concept of wrath , but we may achive a consensus that wrath is not benefitial for a dialogue and that we must learn how to get rid of it other ways than hurting people. we are also capable of understanding self reflexion via words that are prescriptive, rather than descriptive. we may not undestand fully what words that we hear are, or how they are meant, but once it makes sense (for example with the need to get rid of wrath in communication), we need not to experience it for the purpose of understanding it. this focus on prescriptive language rather than desriptive is essential for impoving our communication. descriptive language is and should be the necessary support for prescriptive, nevertheless, it should not take the primary role in our communication.

Advertisement