-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?

12
  • 3
    What do you mean with "more objective"? More precise? Showing an "improved knowledge"? Also your driving ability will improve with practice... Jun 22 at 9:26
  • No, I don't mean improved knowledge. I mean increased objectivity. Jun 22 at 9:31
  • 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 at 9:43
  • 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 orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/… Jun 22 at 12:37
  • 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" :) Jun 22 at 15:02
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.

1
  • 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.:) Jun 27 at 21:42

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.