English is a horribly inconsistent language. It has tremendously difficult rules with plenty of exceptions. It is a bad situation made worse by the fact that it has been split into two main variants: US, and UK. Each of these have their own distinct rules and tendencies. There isn't much for absolutes, in any rule. Spelling is not phonetic. There are words that are spelt weird, or at least not spelt according to the rules.
English is definitely not the ideal language for business use. It desperately needs to be improved. It becomes a barrier for people trying to conduct business if they were not taught it as a child. It may not be the worst language, but it is far from being the best language. It is, however, the language which is the most alive. New words are constantly being added to allow for the description and explanation of more complex technologies.
All of this leaves us in a horrible catch 22. English is a horrible language for learning, because it obeys no rules, but the business and technology worlds are so invested in English that it cannot be superseded by a superior language. There is no better language to use, if only because there is no business case for doing so. Many companies would refuse, because their people would need additional training in order to learn the new language.
So what is our world to do? International languages have been proposed before, with Esperanto being one of the best known. But the concept has never worked, it has always ended in failure! So what can be done? The only rules for English is that you have to use it. Not everyone speaks English, so they must learn it. There is no consistency in our language. We have to be able to communicate.
Monday 26 November 2012
Thursday 8 November 2012
Political Truth
What is truth to politicians? What is truth in politics? Well, truth is truth, and while some would consider truth to be relative, in most cases it is not. In science, it is a given that there is only one truth. Either a statement is correct, or it is not. Either we evolved from single cell organisms, or we did not. Either someone is dead, or they are not. There are millions of examples of truth that do not depend on your point of view, and are not relative to your experiences. In fact, there are very few statements that are true in a relative way. If it is a quantifiable, verifiable statement of fact, then it can be tested, and there can only be one outcome.
Politicians, though, would have it otherwise. They would bend their words so that you cannot quantify and verify them. They would state things so that they cannot be tested, but prove that their opponents are either lying or deluded. We saw plenty of that in the recent US presidential campaign. For the years leading up to the election, each side was constantly trying to belittle and disprove their opponents. A massive smear campaign, with little in the way of solid facts. Each side trying to blame everything bad on their opponents, and taking credit for everything good.
They certainly are willing to overemphasize the mistakes and unintended consequences of their opponents actions. I will not identify anything specific, but it is easy enough to find blame cast by one side for anything related to the other side by even the slimmest connection.
It reminds me of one particular scene in Star Wars, Episode V. Luke is speaking with Obi Wan's ghost. Initially, Obi Wan told Luke his father was killed by Darth Vader. Now, anybody familiar with the story knows that Luke father was Darth Vader, and Obi Wan was speaking allegorically. Darth Vader was the evil side of Anakin Skywalker, whereas Obi Wan was more accurately referring to the good side of Anakin Skywalker, which had been overtaken by Darth Vader. So Obi Wan may have considered him dead, but by any objective view, Luke's father was still alive. Of course, if you feel that truth is relative, then Obi Wan was speaking truth, from his point of view. But if what Obi Wan said was false, then truth is not relative. However, those are the types of statements that are commonly made by politicians.
So is it acceptable for them to make such statements? Do we accept their truths? Or in reality, are they telling us lies, and we are just choosing the lesser of two evils? You must decide what you will choose to believe, but that will not make falsehoods true. Truth will out, as they say, and sooner or later, our system of career politicians will destroy itself. Look to the recent US election. People say that Obama's campaign is one of the most negative campaigns ever seen. With most of it as exaggeration, he will be despised by many, especially as accuracy takes over. And yet that type of campaign, which has proven to be successful, will only become more common. It is a self destroying type of cycle. And while they may call it truth, and some others may call it truth, it will never be seen as wise. It will never be valuable.
Politicians, though, would have it otherwise. They would bend their words so that you cannot quantify and verify them. They would state things so that they cannot be tested, but prove that their opponents are either lying or deluded. We saw plenty of that in the recent US presidential campaign. For the years leading up to the election, each side was constantly trying to belittle and disprove their opponents. A massive smear campaign, with little in the way of solid facts. Each side trying to blame everything bad on their opponents, and taking credit for everything good.
They certainly are willing to overemphasize the mistakes and unintended consequences of their opponents actions. I will not identify anything specific, but it is easy enough to find blame cast by one side for anything related to the other side by even the slimmest connection.
It reminds me of one particular scene in Star Wars, Episode V. Luke is speaking with Obi Wan's ghost. Initially, Obi Wan told Luke his father was killed by Darth Vader. Now, anybody familiar with the story knows that Luke father was Darth Vader, and Obi Wan was speaking allegorically. Darth Vader was the evil side of Anakin Skywalker, whereas Obi Wan was more accurately referring to the good side of Anakin Skywalker, which had been overtaken by Darth Vader. So Obi Wan may have considered him dead, but by any objective view, Luke's father was still alive. Of course, if you feel that truth is relative, then Obi Wan was speaking truth, from his point of view. But if what Obi Wan said was false, then truth is not relative. However, those are the types of statements that are commonly made by politicians.
So is it acceptable for them to make such statements? Do we accept their truths? Or in reality, are they telling us lies, and we are just choosing the lesser of two evils? You must decide what you will choose to believe, but that will not make falsehoods true. Truth will out, as they say, and sooner or later, our system of career politicians will destroy itself. Look to the recent US election. People say that Obama's campaign is one of the most negative campaigns ever seen. With most of it as exaggeration, he will be despised by many, especially as accuracy takes over. And yet that type of campaign, which has proven to be successful, will only become more common. It is a self destroying type of cycle. And while they may call it truth, and some others may call it truth, it will never be seen as wise. It will never be valuable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)