On 1/1/07, Mark Lause <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Solidarity!
Isn't "solidarity" one of those "words that mean different things to different people rather than [to] things"? Hasn't it "been so used for so many different purposes that [it] no longer [has] any elasticity"? Look, there are NO important, multisyllabic, words for which the meaning isn't contested. There are no important words which have meanings independent of the context of their use. There are no abstract forms out there that correspond to the epiphenomenal concepts we use. Rather, the meanings of terms are conventions, created by people and usually varying across space and time. We should always define them, however, to make it clear what _we_ mean. The point is to communicate with other people. This means using terms that vaguely or clearly correspond to the general usage. If we use terms that don't exactly correspond to the general usage (e.g., "socialism") we have to be clear what the difference is between our definition and the common one. -- Jim Devine / "Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it, because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." -- Stephen Colbert.
