We could invent another billion description words I'm sure, but does a thought really change the description word of something?
When someone asks, "what are you?" it's generally a question of "what do you value" or more specifically, "what do you prioritize".
Although, yes, we are all "human", we as individuals do tend to gravitate towards "like minded people", and some sort of categorization can facilitate this tendency.
In different times a man or women could be all of those words, when he or she was a kid, he thought of himself to be atheist, after that he became a theist, in later years became a deist. this is why I prefer the term "thinking man".
Well stated. I agree that we are all somewhat fluid in our "self identification schema". Another way of expressing your terminology might be "skeptical-free-thinker" (scientist).
We are all just 1 thing alone and that's "Human". What we do or think is irrelevant, that description word should never change.
As humans we always build on our three basic impulses (1) protect yourself (2) protect your family (3) protect your property.
That being said, you are a logiczombie.
I do appreciate your question. All too often we tend to dismiss people's right to "self-identification" and simply leap to our own conclusions (without realizing how much we'd hate it if someone did the same to us).
That's the best part and highly misunderstood in modern times. 🤠
How would you explain it?
The process of thought, a process of evolution, thought.
A process of logic?
Ok, let's say it different, if we haven't even figured out the first word yet, fully. How can we apply even more labels which we hardly understand?
It can take a man years to study just 1 of those words correctly.
Words are fluid.
Words only have "meaning" in context.
Imagine that each person is a universe unto themselves.
Each person is a country unto themselves.
Each person speaks a unique language.
Each person has their own dictionary.
For example, in modern day India, there are over 19,569 spoken languages (sometimes called "dialects" but many people consider most of these "dialects" incomprehensible).
Just dial this down to the individual.
Each and every person learns words slightly differently than others.
If you want to communicate effectively, you must be sensitive to the subtle linguistic variations specific to that person.
Watch about 4 minutes to get the idea,
So I'm saying we make it less fluid so we understand some basic things first. When you build a building and your missing the proper foundation, what happens?
Foundational concepts are similar for all languages. The abstractions we take for granted today were all built upon concrete real-world objects. For example, in ancient Chinese the word most often translated as "good" is actually a combination of two pictograms (hieroglyphics), (1) the symbol for sheep, and (2) the symbol for fat, which is also often translated as "succulent" or "delicious".
Our modern term "good" seems sterile and almost meaningless when we forget the original concepts upon which they are built.
Foundational concepts are also difficult to detect because MOST people don't even know they have PRIMARY AXIOMS.
Most of our lives we are speaking to people we learned our language from, and so, quite naturally, we find it easy to communicate with them. The language itself contains (implicit) PRIMARY AXIOMS, but even the people who taught it to us usually don't even recognize this.
And so, our linguistic tool-box of word-tools is (often unintentionally) deceptively limited.
Our word-tools only lend themselves to building limited conceptual frameworks (thought castles).
The funny thing is, we often simply think that our word-tools are the ONLY word-tools (we don't miss the tools we've never even heard of, it's difficult to imagine something if you never even knew it existed in the first place).
We know there are "other languages" but we just imagine that these other people use different labels for the same set of tools.
This is not exactly the case.
Let me give you an example of something what I call "Confusion words"
Biggest example: Left & Right They subdivided every factor into just 2 groups
As 1000 different people what confusion words means, you will get 1 thousand different answers. Non Existent, just somebodies viewpoint, maybe smart in a a way, but is it accurate?.
Otherwise you might end up with Idiocracy......................
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
Yes, "confusion words" are a problem.
HOWevEr, "confusion words" can be exposed for what they are (and dissolved and dispelled) when people identify PRIMARY AXIOMS.
Fake words or terms yes? It's no good if the market reach isn't total.
Looking for a language 99%+ of everybody understands, I don't care how basic it may sound :)
Now, look out for this sound/pattern of somebodies voice in the next few days. Oei Oei Oei. :D hahahahahaha What does that mean? It has 3 highpoints like crypto?
I do like English by the way, like's keep it English 🤣
yeah....... but what's the good of all of that if 99% doesn't understand you and it's inaccurate, incomplete and overly complicated?
It forces you to pay close attention.
Each conversation is like an explorer entering uncharted territory.
What looks safe might be deadly. What looks deadly might be safe.
You can't expect the inhabitants to understand you perfectly or value all the same things you do.
well stated.
And honestly, everytime somebody in the US invents or promotes some kind of new term that kinda feels right, but isn't, we feel a wave of this in Europe.
Intravert and Extravert, Man spreading or what ever the latest stupid trend is, like pronouns and 6 genders next. Or how about this one "Banning the word Man" And you get people thinking weird things man, He is a that, she is a that, they are "Whatever".................... Idiocracy.
Slow down please. Let's make it good, not best of the best of the of the best, because in this guest, you lose it.
Now don't get me started of all the fake terms in the DSM database and our medical world. A lot of real ones too. But a percentage of the words used are non existent, so it concludes to being WRONG. You probably know what DSM is too :)
"Back to the drawing board"
Lol, i didnt see this was the atheism community. Imagine if atheism was a part of something. :D
I agree there are a lot of "weasel words".
But part of the "problem" is we've forgotten that people have a right to be idiots.
Individual Sovereignty = freedom of religion
Freedom of religion = a right to be an idiot and believe idiotic things
Respecting someone's right to be an idiot, and treating (respecting) their idiotic belief as you would (hopefully) treat any idiotic religion is the first step to COMMUNICATION.
You don't tell a christian that "jesus is fake" (actually "jesus is unfalsifiable"). That's not going to work.
You might ask a christian, "how would you fix the problems of the world?" and then listen.
I know this is going to be difficult to believe, but they will actually have some GOOD IDEAS.
That's COMMON GROUND. You can try and build on that, and sort of ignore the "other stuff" as best you can.
Build on the COMMON GROUND and try to expand it out, chart it out, map it out as far as you can.
Kinda like this guy,