In class on Wednesday Professor
Schwartz talked about how things are only what they are because we say it. She
gave the example of a tree. She said that tree isn’t a tree, it’s not even an
object. At this point she looked over at me and said, “I lost K.C.” It wasn’t
that I was lost, I just didn’t agree, but I couldn’t think of how to frame my
argument. And we all know fighting behind the veil of the internet is much
easier, so here I go. I have always been a science/math person, so I like things
to be logical and to have one clear answer. The definition of an object is a
material that can be seen and touched. We have created this definition and
placed certain things into this category. I understand that we have created
this term object and nothing has actually changed just because we called it an
object. It’s a man made term, I get that. But doesn’t calling something by a certain
name make it just that. We have created this definition, and that tree falls
under that definition, making it an object. A book is a book because that’s
what we call it, my name is K.C. because that’s what I say it is, and If I Die in a Combat Zone is a memoir
because O’Brien says it is. I can see how you could say all these things are
arbitrarily assigned, but if we don’t believe people when they assign something
a name, then how would we define anything? I don’t know if this makes sense,
but to me, a tree is a tree.
I think your post is really interesting. I have also always been a science/math person and these types of mind-boggling perspectives on things have always bothered me. I think it is true that to some extent we have to believe in others and trust others. If we didn't trust anyone or anything, we could not function or communicate in our society. This reminded me a lot of what I discussed in my high school ethical dilemmas class. People in society usually believe that most people tell the truth. Our else we would not have rules or a functioning society. If we all lied to each other, we would never understand anything about each other. So, basically, I like the arbitrary naming of things because I think a tree is a tree too.
ReplyDeleteAfter initially convincing myself that I understood Prof. Schwartz's point that day in class, reading your blogpost confused me all over again. I agree with what you said and the chaos and confusion that would ensue were people to suddenly have doubt in the terms they had previously assigned to objects, but I also think it is confusing to think about what a certain object would be were it never assigned a specific name. Who was it that initially labeled or categorized that object as a particular object, and who gave them the authority to do so?
ReplyDeleteI think that everyone wants there to be a definitive answer to lots of problems, which makes arbitrary things really aggravating. I find myself going in circles about these types of questions and I inevitably ask myself the same question every time: does it matter? A tree is a tree cause we say it is, and if we cannot accept that, where do the questions stop?
ReplyDeleteThat discussion in class reminded me so much of this book by Andrew Clements, called "Frindle". I read this book a long time ago in elementary school, but the ideas are still very apparent, as observed in Wednesday's class. This boy goes to school one day, and questions why certain objects are given certain names. He does this to intentionally annoy his "mean" teacher. This causes him to go home and write a report about why a pen should be referred to as a "frindle". His classmates, thinking it is funny, start calling a pen a frindle. Eventually, the word gains national attention. Because it was so long ago, I forgot much of the book. I will admit I looked on Wikipedia for the ending. It ends with the child in his adulthood. He is rich, because he sold property rights to the word. His teacher, who he originally made up the word to spite, sent him a dictionary with the new word in it, and a nice letter. He responded by sending her a gold pen and a letter saying, "This object belongs to Lorelei Granger and she may call it any name she chooses to." Words are funny. Who would have thought to name a cantaloupe, a cantaloupe? At the end of the day, I guess I just settle with "that's the way it is". Who gives a shit anyway?
ReplyDelete