Words Mean Things

Civilization is defined as "an advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions", but I think that there is much more to this definition than meets the eye.

We are often asked to keep our discussions "civil", but what does it really mean?

Civility necessarily implies a certain rational decorum, so I'm not sure you could have an "uncivil" discussion, as the word "uncivil" would seem to imply a lack of decorum and rationality.

Is civilization, as the above definition asserts, really just the accumulation of those things, or do those things appear because of civilization? I posit that it is the latter, and I hope to make it clear why I believe so as this essay progresses.

When I was in my twenties, from time to time I'd find myself watching congressional debates on C-SPAN. It always amused and confused me when I'd hear Democrats address Republicans (or vice versa) as "my esteemed colleague". Why on earth would they call each other that when it seemed so obvious that they hated each other? The short answer is that in spite of their philosophical differences, they both recognized the need for decorum, for civility, for courtesy.

The fact that they recognize that courtesy is necessary for rational discourse should be telling to us all. It certainly flew over my head at the time, but as I get older, I realize how important that this notion is for our very existence.

It has been asserted by more than one philosopher that in the area of human relations, there are only two methods of dealing with each other: rational discussion, and violence. Courtesy helps to grease the wheels of discourse. To engage in discourtesy is to invite it in kind. Worse, it paves the way for violence because no two parties are going to be contented by simply hurling insults at each other for any period of time.

What, then, is courtesy? It is part and parcel of effective, peaceful communications for one thing. As I said previously, without it, we would quickly devolve to violence. While only a sophist would argue that "violence never solves anything", rational people recognize that violence should be a last resort, and that all forms of courteous, rational communications should be exhausted before being abandoned.

This further begs the question of what constitutes "effective communication"? For starters (and quite obviously), we must be fluent in the language that we are using. Not merely a mastery of the syntax, but an understanding of the meanings and implications of ALL of the words that we use is imperative. Even further, it is incumbent upon the speaker to use language that cannot be mistaken for anything else by his intended audience. It sounds rather straightforward and intuitive, axiomatic even, but unfortunately, it is also far too infrequent for my liking.

Too many people (most notably politicians) are dependant upon the opposite - ambiguity. For example, what is it that our "leaders" mean when they say, "this is a Christian nation"? This sounds like a fairly straightforward statement, except for the fact that you probably couldn't get 3 Christians to agree on what is exactly meant by "Christianity". Does it mean what the Antiochean Orthodox Church says, or the Latin Rite Church (Roman Catholic), or the Presbyterian Church, or the Mormons? It's a perfectly ambiguous statement, which can mean anything to anyone. Classically, this is known as demagoguery (from Greek meaning "people leader"). This tactic is employed intentionally by our so-called leaders (democrats as well as republicans). Demagogues will sound very appealing, perhaps even wise, but what they are really doing is lying to you, trying to make you feel good about absolutely nothing.

Similarly, you will frequently hear democrats espouse certain ideas because "it's for the children", or "it's for the environment" or "it's for the poor". The obvious implication is that anyone who takes a position contrary to the apologist is a barbarian because only barbarians want to see children starving, our waterways full of benzene and our poor out panhandling. These people are simply exercising sophistry.

Three of the most influential philosophers in Western history (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) derided demagoguery, a practice developed by another philosopher named Protagoras. It was Protagoras that developed the branch of philosophy that is known as sophistry. In fact, in The Republic, both Plato and Socrates go to great lengths to warn of the dangers of the sophists.

To illustrate the danger of sophistry, we'll examine one of the earliest known court cases where two sophists battled each other. One of Protagoras' students had agreed to pay Protagoras for his instruction once he (the student) had won his first case in Athenian court. Time goes by, and this exceptional student has yet to win his first case. Protagoras comes upon the brilliant idea that he will sue his former student. If Protagoras should win, the court would award him damages, to be paid by his former student. If Protagoras should lose, then his student has won his first court case and will still have to pay him. The student argued that he didn't have the money, and if he lost, he still wouldn't have the money. If he won the argument, then he didn't owe Protagoras anything because obviously, Protagoras wasn't as good at sophistry as he claimed to be, and thus he couldn't be as good of a teacher as he claimed to be.

Protagoras' most famous quote is "Man is the measure of all things." That is to say that there are no absolutes, only what one man can persuade another man to believe. This is at the heart of sophistry (and thus demagoguery). The practical application of this philosophy eventually arrives at the conclusion that justice is that which serves the strong and tramples the weak.