Language and Bewitchment (Part Four)

Words and Reality

Words and Reality

Can I point out that in this series, I am dealing with philosophy rather than facts. The points I make do not rely on the veracity of any truth claims (e.g. whether vaccines are harmful or not or whether a conspiracy theory is true or not). In this series, I am not interested in such things because I am philosophising rather than attempting to establish whether or not certain facts are true.

In what follows, I will examine the relationship between words and reality, including the ontological status of the things that words represent.

Some philosophers of language have pointed out that our intelligence can be bewitched by an assumption that because a word exists; then the thing the word represents also exists. In the Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche laments: ‘I fear we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar’ (5^th aphorism Twilight of the idols). By this, I think he means that because we have a concept ‘God’, then it is possible for us to be persuaded that He exists. If we had no concept of God, we couldn’t even discuss the matter. I’m not sure how profound an observation that is.

But it does not follow that because the word exists then the thing described by the word also exists. A unicorn²² is an obvious and overused example. In what follows, I will examine concepts such as ‘conspiracy theorist’, ‘anti-vaxxer’ and ‘denier’ to illustrate my points.

In using our language, we have a tendency to create unnecessary nouns (as George Orwell appears to have believed); especially nouns that describe or define people. In some cases, the use of these nouns can become problematic.

Of course, in other cases the use of nouns is quite justified. A rather benign example of this practice is the noun ‘dog lover’. We are a nation of dog lovers, so it is said. I am also a dog lover. But when I say this, what I mean is that I love dogs. But the ‘am’ in ‘I am also a dog lover’; suggests existence of some sort. But how justified is this claim to existence? Certainly, it does not mean that my whole existence consists in loving dogs. This is not the same thing as being a man, for example, which covers much more ground. However, even this does not amount to an exhaustive account of my being; because I am much more than a man; we are all much more than the sex we were born with.

The main question for us here is whether and when we are justified in using nouns to define someone’s existence, rather than employing adjectives. When Descartes concluded that ‘I think; therefore I am’²³ he added that he exists as a thinking being. But he did not go on to say that his being is defined by the things he thought about. Someone who loves dogs has a thought about loving dogs, but it does not follow that loving dogs therefore becomes part of their being. In the same way, thinking about unicorns can’t become part of our being either. If we believe that what we think about does become part of our being; then we have to accept the possibility that part of our being will be false; for example, if it contains thoughts of unicorns. I think this shows that what we think about cannot become part of our being and certainly our being cannot be defined by particular thoughts. Thinking about particular things is something we do rather than something we are; whereas the fact that we have the capacity for thought is part of our being.

The creation of nouns such as ‘dog lover’ is not problematic in itself and is obviously justified as a form of short hand. Ever since Ancient Greece, we have created and used nouns for professions. We tend to distinguish between those who do something as a hobby, and those who do it professionally. People who sing in the bath but nowhere else are not described as ‘singers’, whereas those who sing professionally are. The same could be said of writing or philosophising and many other activities.

This is taken a stage further when we employ acronyms as a form of shorthand. Here’s an example from Wikipedia:

‘TERF is an acronym for trans-exclusionary radical feminist. First recorded in 2008, the term originally applied to the minority of feminists espousing sentiments that other feminists considered transphobic, such as the rejection of the assertion that trans women are women, the exclusion of trans women from women's spaces, and opposition to transgender rights legislation. The meaning has since expanded to refer more broadly to people with trans-exclusionary views who may have no involvement with radical feminism. Those referred to with the word TERF typically reject the term or consider it a slur; some identify themselves as gender critical. Critics of the word TERF say that it has been used in an overly-broad fashion and in an insulting manner, alongside violent rhetoric. In academic discourse, there is no consensus on whether or not TERF constitutes a slur.’

Now imagine repeating that every time we refer to TERFs! But if I were a TERF, I don’t think I’d be smiling and clapping my hands at being labelled as such.

But in this case, the reduction of someone’s being to an acronym relating only to some beliefs they hold, is particularly inaccurate as well as annoying. But note that my being as a TERF is quite transient; it is perilously unstable. Also note that the term was created as a derogatory one in order to criticise the beliefs of certain people – or so it is claimed. The acronym TERF does not appear in any of the many dictionaries I have consulted.

It may be acceptable to use such acronyms, but we must not lose sight of the fact that they are not real in the sense that a person is real.

Another issue that this example points to is the question of who decides which terms come into existence and what motivates people to bring them into existence. In this case, the term TERF has been created as a form of name calling which has been employed to verbally bludgeon others.

We could also ask whether something entering the dictionary for the first time suddenly comes into existence? My 1991 Oxford Concise does not mention ‘conspiracy theorists’ at all - so did they exist back then? Some contemporary online dictionaries, such as the Collins, do not provide a definition of ‘conspiracy theorist’ either. It appears that many dictionaries – especially those online – introduce new words at the request of members of the public and various institutions (as well as on their own initiatives). So these latter may have political motives for doing so – or for requesting revisions of definitions, which are also granted by those who oversee the dictionaries.

One online dictionary provides the following definition for ‘conspiracy theorist’:

a person who believes that some secret but influential organisation is responsible for an event or phenomenon.

This definition is a little odd in that it does not contain the notion of conspiracy - though this may be implied. The Cambridge English online dictionary provides the following definition: ‘

the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people.

Once again there is no mention of any conspiring, but this is implied. But this dictionary also claims that conspiracy theorists can not be persuaded to change their minds on issues regardless of any evidence that suggests that they are mistaken. Note that this amounts to a moral claim that conspiracy theorists are not reasonable – and it is certainly not an accurate description of the many people I know who fall under the ‘conspiracy theorist’ definition provided here.

Merriam Webster’s online dictionary suggests that a conspiracy theory is one that:

explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.

Here we have the notion of conspirators mentioned for the first time. A conspiracy theorist, according to Webster, is someone who believes in this type of explanation. So – belief in a conspiracy, just one conspiracy, is sufficient to attract the label ‘conspiracy theorist’. People are not assumed to need much practice in this activity; it seems that ‘conspiracy theorist’ is an easy ‘job’ that requires little experience. Belief in one conspiracy is all that is needed. Well – many people believe that the Nazi Party conspired to take power in Germany during in the 1920s/ 1930s? Such people must therefore be branded ‘conspiracy theorists’. There are, of course, many more examples of conspiracies in our quite recent history. I think that there may be more ‘conspiracy theorists’ out there than Merriam Webster appreciates.

The first thing that these definitions obviously have in common is the notion of secrecy. The first definition describes these people, who operate in secrecy, as ‘influential’, but the other two describe them as ‘powerful’. But influence can be a form of power, so there is consistency in this respect.

According to these definitions, such powerful people secretly create an event or a set of circumstances; a phenomenon or a Situation.

There is not complete agreement, then, as to what actually constitutes a conspiracy theorist – which is not surprising because this is often the case with definitions. Merriam Webster’s description of anti-vaxxer illustrates this lack of agreement regarding the meaning of terms: i.e.

a person who opposes vaccines or regulations mandating for vaccination. Some self identified anti-vaxxers are vehemently against all vaccines. Some are sceptical of specific vaccines.

This is quite a wide definition which appears to embrace at least four concepts of ‘anti-vaxxer’.

Given the ambiguities in the meanings of these two terms, is it not odd that we don’t have separate words to distinguish, for example, the anti-vaxxers who oppose all vaccines in principle from those who opposes specific vaccines, or between those who agree with vaccination but not with forced vaccination? A cynical observer of all this may conclude that an anti-vaxxer is defined as someone who holds a view in connection with vaccines that the creators of definitions don’t approve of? This fits in with my notion of name calling; in other words some labels or nouns are created not in the interests of clarifying meaning or to describe something that exists, but merely to discredit views that are not approved of along with the people who hold those views.

Some dictionaries, such as the Collins online, do not provide a definition of anti-vaxxer at all. The Cambridge English describes an anti-vaxxer as:

someone who does not agree with vaccinating people (= giving them injections to prevent disease) and spread and encourages opinions against vaccines.

Remarkably, the Covid 19 ‘vaccine’ is employed as an example of something anti-vaxxers oppose. This is remarkable because the Covid ‘vaccines’ are not vaccines according to Cambridge’s own definition – because no one is claiming that these injections prevent disease.

But there is an element of menace involved in this description of anti-vaxxers, because they appear to be actively involved in seeking to create many new anti-vaxxers. The bias in the Cambridge English against anti-vaxxers is not hidden from view then. This is also evident when they attempt to place the anti-vaxxer in context with this example: ‘an anti-vaxxer changed her position when three of her children contracted whooping cough’. Thus the moral connotations only hinted at in the definition are reinforced through the example. This is simply dishonest.

But do entities such as anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists actually exist – or if they do exist, what is the nature of their ‘existence’?

With regard to God, the concept Nietzsche was concerned with above, this would appear to include qualities such as compassion; omniscience and benign omnipotence as well as a personal history that involves the creation of the world, the occasional miracle and the odd contact with His worshippers over many centuries. But being God is not simply a part-time occupation for our God; it is all that He is. This is what we would expect to encounter if we met and got to know God.

Being a mere man is similar in some respects; I cannot be a man on a part-time basis: my physicality is permanent and defines me as a male human being. But does a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or an ‘anti-vaxxer’ exist in the same sense as a man? Let’s have a look at the example of David Icke as the arch ‘conspiracy theorist’.

If anyone could justifiably be called a ‘conspiracy theorist’ then surely Icke is the prime candidate. After all, he writes books about what appear to be conspiracy theories; he lectures about these all around the world and speaks about them on his internet channels. It’s his ‘profession’ if you like. Maybe there is as much justification for calling Ike a conspiracy theorist as there is for calling someone a plumber because they have spent their whole adult life plumbing. But I am not so sure.

I respect David Icke, but I don’t agree with many of his claims, while feeling that what he says about some issues makes a lot of sense and is uttered with honesty and integrity. I have no idea whether Ike regards himself as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or not; he may simply regard himself as a writer. And maybe that would be a more accurate description of what he does. Conspiracies are things Ike writes about, just as a tap washer is something the plumber works on as a plumber. We don’t call the plumber a tap washer fixer, so maybe we should not call Ike a conspiracy theorist.

Of course, we cannot claim that ‘conspiracy theories’ are not part of Ike’s life; but are they so great and important a part of his life that the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ adequately describes his being? We should also be aware that Ike himself will probably not regard his theories as ‘conspiracy theories’.

If we accept that there are many other aspects of Icke’s being, such as his maleness, his role as a father, his career as a broadcaster and so on, then any description of his being that leaves these things out, surely does not accurately describe ‘the real’ David Icke. This would be making a mistake similar to providing a description of a man as someone who has a penis, but which leaves out all other male attributes. A man is much more than his penis and David Icke is much more than his interest in and writing about conspiracy theories. By the same token, there is much more to a plumber than the fact that his occupation involves fixing plumbing.

But why should it matter if we are being persuaded that nouns such as ‘conspiracy theorist’ or ‘denier’ have a greater claim to existence than they actually deserve? In what follows, I will attempt to answer this question.

I think most would accept that nouns are more real that adjectives. A Noun describes an entity itself while adjectives describe qualities or attributes associated with that entity. If I say of a house: it is red, the quality ‘redness’ does not exist in the sense that the house does because I could paint it blue. So whereas the colour of the house is, or could be, transitory, the house itself cannot change into a mansion for example (though it may desire this). So, there is a sense in which the house is more real than its colour. Philosophers know about such things.

Therefore, if we label someone with a noun (‘conspiracy theorist’) we endow them with a stronger sense of reality than ‘someone who believes in conspiracies’. And if we want to condemn someone labelled thus, we make sure that the label carries negative connotations such as being immoral or threatening. Those who wish to control us know all this - and I am a ‘conspiracy theorist’ by simply pointing it out.

What I have said here about ‘conspiracy theorists’ could be said in equal measure of terms such as ‘denier’ and ‘anti-vaxxer’. Of course there are no ‘real’ ‘anti-vaxxers’; just different people with many different qualities and faults, different talents and interests, who have children and maybe grandchildren they care for in addition to having views on vaccines. It is completely inadequate to reduce such people to a very dehumanised ‘anti-vaxxer’, just as it is inadequate to describe David Icke as a ‘conspiracy theorist’. I am opposed to the use of vaccines in some circumstances, but do not dismiss the possibility that under other circumstances an efficient and effective vaccine may be beneficial or even desirable. But I am no anti-vaxxer. This is simply a description of a point of view; I am not this point of view. So – insofar as anyone claims that I exist as an anti-vaxxer; they are mistaken.

One of the main contributors to the creation of false realities through the use of language is gender politics. Through this medium, many unnecessary nouns have been created (such as TERF above) and many problems have arisen out of their use. The issue of gender and gender politics is so complex that I have created an appendix in order to discuss it in depth. See Appendix Six: Gender, language and reality.²⁶

In summary; things such as ‘denier’, ‘conspiracy theorist’ and ‘anti-vaxxer’ exist only as points of view, and each category contains many different points of view within itself. These words may exist but the things they purport to represent do not. The various descriptions within the definition of ‘anti-vaxxer’ would be fine if they were being used to describe different points of view with regard to vaccines, but more is demanded of them if they are meant to be describing an entity that can be said to exist.

Having certain views opposed to vaccines is an aspect of our existence; it is not an exhaustive account of that existence. In the same way, my dislike of marzipan should not attract a description of ‘anti-marzipanist’, nor should my like of chocolate make me deserve the label ‘pro-chocolater’. Now does anyone seriously believe that the things these terms purport to describe exist in any sense? If you accept that they they do not, then you are also committed to accepting that a ‘conspiracy theorist’, a ‘denier’ and an ‘anti-vaxxer’ are things that do not exist.

I believe that nouns such as ‘denier’ are created for political purposes in order to give the impression that certain people are immoral and constitute a threat. Someone simply holding a view is not so threatening to me as someone who seeks to impose that view on me. This threat will increase if the latter is an entity that exists simply in order to do this – which is sometimes stated as part of the definitions of anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist.

But the people who claim the existence of entities that do not exist; also seek to exaggerate the numbers of these non-existent entities – as they do when they make assumptions about the beliefs of hundreds of thousands of people protesting against lockdowns and vaccine mandates. In my experience, these people are not united by unanimity of views on vaccines or conspiracies; what unites these people is a desire to maintain freedoms hard won by past generations. We should applaud them for that.

The final (short) section will examine the way in which the construction of sentences in some languages which employ subject-predicate structure can deceive us.

23René Descartes; 17^th century French rationalist philosopher. This famous quote is from Discourse on Method and the Meditations.

26For those who wish to consult a critique of gender politics, see Galileo’s Middle Finger by Alice Dreger Penguin Books (2006)