Comments on: Thomas Becket and the meaning of Words http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/12/21/thomas-becket-and-the-meaning-of-words/ Blogging on Philosophy and Politics Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:09:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Thomas Becket and the meaning of Words http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/12/21/thomas-becket-and-the-meaning-of-words/comment-page-1/#comment-452 Thomas Becket and the meaning of Words Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:18:04 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/12/21/thomas-becket-and-the-meaning-of-words/#comment-452 [...] Thomas Becket and the meaning of Words In the last couple of posts we have had a very interesting debate about fundamentalism and the language of intolerance. This has also been supplementary to a number of posts that we have written on free speech and offence. … [...] [...] Thomas Becket and the meaning of Words In the last couple of posts we have had a very interesting debate about fundamentalism and the language of intolerance. This has also been supplementary to a number of posts that we have written on free speech and offence. … [...]

]]> By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/12/21/thomas-becket-and-the-meaning-of-words/comment-page-1/#comment-451 El Sordo Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:03:16 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2007/12/21/thomas-becket-and-the-meaning-of-words/#comment-451 In the context of fundamentalism I should reassure the reader that: the language of disagreement (i), the language of intolerance (ii), and the language of violence (iii), are not all the same thing. To disagree is not to be intolerant or violent, however it is a progression. The language of violence has as its implicit constituents the languages of intolerance and disagreement. Thus if we wish to maintain the integrity of the language of disagreement we have to be cautious regarding the content and context of the language used. A fundamentalist may speak all three languages, the languages of disagreement, intolerance and violence. Or indeed they may speak only disagreement. But the definition of fundamentalism (broad or narrow) implies a degree of intolerance as to be a fundamentalist is to adopt a fundamental position or proposition that you will not modify or moderate in any circumstances. Thus when I say that I am a libertarian it is implicitly implied that I am intolerant of totalitarianism, and as a fundamental point (a libertarian cannot be a totalitarian also) then I am in that sense a fundamentalist. Ironically, the definition of fundamentalism that I have prescribed is fundamentalist itself. There is (as far as I can intepret) no other definition of fundamentalism that is appropriate or correct. Thus we see that there is an exception to the general meaning=use rule and that is in analytical language where its meaning is explicitly contained within its definition. So a tolerant intolerance is logically impossible, an open minded fundamentalist is a contradiction. This exception to the meaning=use rule is important and vital for us when statements lack all ambiguity and take the form of an analytical statement. So if Henry II commands "go kill Becket" the meaning is found in the words themselves. This is the only sort of meaning that AC1 seems to be willing to admit to, but besides the exceptions where it is valid in more general circumstances it is too narrow to be useful or pragmatic and all manner of injustices and intolerances could be hidden within ambigous language and permitted to continue without criticism. In the context of fundamentalism I should reassure the reader that:
the language of disagreement (i),
the language of intolerance (ii),
and the language of violence (iii),
are not all the same thing.
To disagree is not to be intolerant or violent, however it is a progression. The language of violence has as its implicit constituents the languages of intolerance and disagreement.
Thus if we wish to maintain the integrity of the language of disagreement we have to be cautious regarding the content and context of the language used.

A fundamentalist may speak all three languages, the languages of disagreement, intolerance and violence. Or indeed they may speak only disagreement.
But the definition of fundamentalism (broad or narrow) implies a degree of intolerance as to be a fundamentalist is to adopt a fundamental position or proposition that you will not modify or moderate in any circumstances.
Thus when I say that I am a libertarian it is implicitly implied that I am intolerant of totalitarianism, and as a fundamental point (a libertarian cannot be a totalitarian also) then I am in that sense a fundamentalist.

Ironically, the definition of fundamentalism that I have prescribed is fundamentalist itself. There is (as far as I can intepret) no other definition of fundamentalism that is appropriate or correct.
Thus we see that there is an exception to the general meaning=use rule and that is in analytical language where its meaning is explicitly contained within its definition.
So a tolerant intolerance is logically impossible, an open minded fundamentalist is a contradiction.
This exception to the meaning=use rule is important and vital for us when statements lack all ambiguity and take the form of an analytical statement.
So if Henry II commands “go kill Becket” the meaning is found in the words themselves.
This is the only sort of meaning that AC1 seems to be willing to admit to, but besides the exceptions where it is valid in more general circumstances it is too narrow to be useful or pragmatic and all manner of injustices and intolerances could be hidden within ambigous language and permitted to continue without criticism.

]]>