Report Blog Entry
categorizing comes naturally to all humans; it not only is the basis on which we communicate but also how we perceive and retain the world we live in. we store, recall and share information as a web of connections. and so that is exactly how we define concepts, as a collective group of qualities they possess. but that web only exists within our own minds, within our own selves. that is seen the clearest as cultural differences affecting language: the same concept being defined by a word with different connotations, with multiple words in different contexts, or by the same word as another concept in different languages. with that being said, there are differences even within the same cultural group in how a concept is defined, as it is shaped by the experiences of the definer and only a certain portion of such are shared throughout the culture.
but then, how do you define a definition? how do you define where a concept ends and another starts and how can you know if that definition will translate in the intended way in another's webs of information? when even at what point toilet paper becomes a tissue isn't universal, how can we define where life ends and death starts? how can we decide on wrong and right, the ones to be punished and those to be forgiven? where do we draw the line between acceptable differences in our ways of living and those that must be fixed?
well, we do not. unfortunately, we cannot. it is simply impossible for even a countryful of humans to agree on even a single answer unanimously, let alone the entire species. and so, naturally it becomes that the answers are decided by the definitions curated by the minds of those in power. there must be one ironclad right, one ironclad wrong for humans to continue their lives in the systematic, orderly manner that brings peace of mind. and as an entire population cannot unanimously decide on what that is to be, but also as humans yearn for a sense of control over our lives, being able to contribute in choosing a singular person whose webs of concepts we must abide by is the one and only way our mind is satiated.
at least, that is the way in which the webs for the concept of the correct life are connected within my own personal mind. i find no point in contemplating whether or not that is right, as even the concept of "right" exists only within the collective maze of our minds and is not a solid truth to be weighed. in the end, everything gains meaning in the realization that meaning itself is personal. we are capable of and responsible for manipulating the meanings we assign every concept, including the concept of meaninglessness, which directly shapes our experience of the world.
so why not go for the definitions that make living easier for yourself?
Comments
Displaying 2 of 2 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
tevo
I've felt the same for a lot of my life, how is a purely figurative idea or concept meant to be factually objective when the only way it exists is as a thought generated by our consciousness? It's like our language isn't complex enough to develop further upon the black and white categories of "right" and "wrong" which we know isn't a true representation of the actual nature of the universe. But I suppose as humans, the obsession of putting things into categories made survival much easier thousands of years ago. But now, we're developing beyond faster than we can evolve the very structure of our brains.
This kind of idea when combined with the topic of "meaning" and "purpose" is really interesting, and prevalent in the philosophical theory of Absurdism, especially with the way you concluded your post. The universe is utterly meaningless, it was never made to have meaning, as the concept of every physical thing having some kind of emotional "meaning" was a result of human emotional beliefs (which is where religion came in to fill in those gaps we could not explain). But if all we are as humans, is biological machines designed to achieve a sense of happiness, community and to continue the cycle, we might as well give ourselves our own meanings to achieve our own goals. Because that's the best we can do in a world that is meaningless, because if nothing matters, nothing matters in worrying about the fact nothing matters anyway.
the conclusion of this blog post was actually influenced by Absurdism a ton! it's nice to see that it was recognised. Albert Camus's Absurdism specifically is just something i've been mulling over ever since i read The Stranger about half a year ago, so it currently affects most if not all of my thought processes.
thank you for the contribution!
by Eda (≧▽≦); ; Report
No problem! .... it's on the list of books I want to read next lmao
by tevo; ; Report
oh that's great, it was an amazing read especially if you like analysing books!! i'd also recommend Convenience Store Woman, it has a bit of an absurdist theme too but handles it in a feminist context instead!! and also is just a really fun book to read in general!!! tbh im also just tryna get people to read my fave lol but trust me it's really good
by Eda (≧▽≦); ; Report
emblaze
i'm with you up until claiming we need one ultimate true definition. it's impossible to express the exact limits of our categorisation yes, but that just means we live in a world where people have different categories and definitions.
that sounds a bit like it'd be pure chaos but we all live in the same world and people from the same culture tend to share lots of experiences, so we can tie our categories to commonly known things. people negotiate definitions all the time, reminding or 'correcting' a friend on what a word means - by referencing other words. it's all built up on reference to other shared concepts, and our rich internal web is replicated in a communal web of ideas - an intersubjective reality.
there is no one right or wrong on a lot of definitions. think about how much people online argue over what counts as a sandwich. people have varying ideas and thats okay, at the end of the day we all have a pretty similar idea of what a sandwich is and what it means to eat it.