Thread:User talk:Armondikov/Atheist "identity"/reply (61)

You are generally better at saying what I was thinking. what you intend to do is critical. It's why loaded language exists. The intent of the speaker is to create images, create associations, and knowingly create false impressions. It's not a failure on the part of language or of the speaker. Sadly, it's actually a success.

Again, I have had philo classes over the course of my life, but am not really skilled in being a philosopher - in thinking that way. I think about language as a functional tool, not as a hindrance to communication. I generally assume that most people own their ideas, and the attempts to communicate them are usually successes. even if what they are trying to communicate includes being intentionally manipulative.

I also approach this having taught classes for years, on somewhat complex ideas about language and religion. at no time in those classes did i have to say "ok, you are confused about the word religion, so I need to use a different word". I walked in, explained my position, then expanded. So again, the idea that language or particular words hinder real understanding or indepth exploration of whatever topic you wish to explore seems counter intuitive to everything I've seen or done.

Are you going to have problems when talking about atheism with a die-hard christian fundi? Yes. But I disagree that the fail point (or fix point) is teh word choice. It is the willingness of the other party to use agreed upon meanings. And in that context, it does not matter if you choose different words or not - if he or she chooses not to hear you, they simply will not hear you.