Words Have Meaning

Some of you may know of my increasing obsession with words, language, and its vital importance to how we live our lives. I’d like to focus on three words in particular namely: love, freedom, and sacrifice. These words seem to be or have been words bantered about recently. The latter two seem more important in our culture today than the first, but the first one is still used a lot today and in its time was the word of choice. In fact, it may actually demonstrate a generation gap.



Love



The Oxford English Dictionary says that love is “an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion.” It is important to know definitions, if for no other reason to know how inapplicable they actually are to our everyday usage. If we were to talk to an hundred people on the street, we would most likely end up with nearly as many definitions. Words have different meanings for different people because words are not solid things. They are socially agreed upon symbols. Imagine if you will a boat anchored in the water. It will move about on the surface of the water but stay relatively rooted to that spot. Words behave in much the same way.[1]



The main problem with people is when they believe, very firmly, that a certain word is no longer a symbol but an actual thing. In this way people cannot come to a common understanding because they are unwilling to yield on their notions of definitions.



A prime example is that of homosexuality.[2] Many people say we are to love homosexuals or that homosexuals love members of their own sex. However, we are fighting a battle of differing definitions. A Texas Baptist may differ greatly with a San Francisco homosexual on the definitions of not just erotic love, but of agape love as well. The problem comes when both sides refuse to see that the other person has a different definition. One of these definitions may indeed be tied into the deeper undercurrent of the laws of nature[3] and thus truly be called “right,” but that does not mean that we are to dismiss someone out of hand because they have a different definition. Indeed we are to “love” them so much that we try and practice our definition in such a way that they see it as so self-evident.[4]



Equally dangerous to holding too structured a definition, is to act as if such definitions do not matter. Back in the sixties such things were common. Love was the buzzword, but did it really mean anything to anybody? The definition was so mercurial that it actually didn’t have any substance at all. Therefore it wasn’t anything in which we could believe. That was the point. By ignoring the definition, you could have more and more people under one tent. What does that mean though? It’s not real community. Thus, reality imitated the word. A hollow group for a hollow word.



Freedom



Today’s word of choice is freedom. Yes, change and hope are popular, but they are not as important as freedom. The definition of freedom from Encarta is that it is “ a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any, or to any undue, restraints or restrictions.” It is manifestly obvious that no person on earth (with the possible exception of sociopaths) feels that absolute freedom a good thing.



However, we see that we run into the same problems with freedom as we do with love. Whose definition do we choose? Take for instance the very broad (almost cartoon-like) definition of freedom that I will give about the Democrats and Republicans. The cartoon depiction of Democrats is that they believe in freedom for sexual preference, religion, and lifestyle; whereas the cartoon Republican will believe in freedom for business practices, taxation, guns, and the like. The odd thing that neither side sees is that they both believe in freedom for different things. They are morally outraged that the other side would impede upon their freedom.



We know that these definitions of freedom only go so far though. The definitions that we give of freedom seem many times to be shallow and apparent excuses to allow us to do what we want to do. We accept it, not because we believe in freedom per se, but because we have a “gentlemen’s agreement” that we will look the other when you want something; a sort of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch your back” attitude to rights and freedoms.



The true freedom needed in America is something that will not harm the civil population and should not be rooted in any religion per se, but must be rooted in the common culture which may spring from a certain religion. Our acceptance of some freedoms and rejection of others can become hypocritical and it is important that we do not overly condone or overly condemn other people’s desires.



From this we understand that freedom is pretty hollow. A culture rooted in Confucism or Islam or Hindu may have a completely different notion of freedom. And, to be frank America is not, has never been, and should never be a completely free country. The anarchy of three hundred million little gods imposing their will to power in the name of hollow freedom is a Hell too horrible to imagine. Freedom is marketed though because it ties in with our ego and that ties into our pride. The wise person knows the danger of pride, whereas the fool will buy into the lie of contentment at the price of happiness.



Sacrifice



Sacrifice today is cheap. It can be bought and sold…literally. When President Bush told us to fight terrorism, he said we could do this by going to Disney World. This made many Republicans grown and gave many Democrats more ammunition; but the fact is that we all believe that we are sacrificing something while not really sacrificing anything at all. In many ways, however, true sacrifice flies in the face of freedom. You cannot have true freedom if you feel the need to sacrifice and you cannot have sacrifice if you place freedom at the forefront of your goals. Yet we hear all the time about sacrifices for freedom. We are told to respect the sacrifices that soldiers make for freedom. The irony of this is that we pay lip service to their sacrifices and yet make none on our own. We talk a great deal about the heroism of those fighting, but we don’t even do the smallest of things: like thanking a soldier.



And we can’t say that going to Disney World is a sacrifice or that paying the real cost of gas is a sacrifice or that this thing or that thing is a sacrifice. A real sacrifice would be to give up eating chocolate because of the slave labor that is used to produce it or not buying from China because of the horrible human rights abuses. We could set up public funds for colleges to do research for cleaner energy or volunteer at that local boys and girls club / food pantry / habitat for humanity project. We could spend less time glued to the idiot box while spending more time with family, books, and community. We could even sacrifice time and money to get that next degree. That is sacrifice.



Now this is not to say that Americans don’t give. Americans donate time and money on levels that other countries don’t understand. While I think more of our budget should go to foreign and domestic aid, I believe that Americans give more on a private level than most anyone else in the world;[5] but let us not pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves that we are wonderful individuals when most of us (yes us, because I am as guilty as the next person) don’t sacrifice nearly as much as we really believe we could.



Sacrifice becomes a pharisaical word. We believe we can fulfill moral requirements when we have made the proper sacrifices. However, we know that a change of heart is the only place where true sacrifice finds its beginning and ending. We have even begun fudging on the definitions of sacrifice. It has moved from what have you done because you had a change of mind and body and heart to what have you done to what have you done without to did you not buy that thing you wanted because you couldn’t afford it to did you go to Disney World and sacrifice your budget so the terrorists won’t win? I don’t want to live in a world where that is the definition of sacrifice. Ironically sacrifice has been having a pretty universal agreement. Most people believe they have done or are doing enough and some believe they can never do enough.[6]



If, as the dictionary puts it, sacrifice is “a giving up of something valuable or important for somebody or something else considered to be of more value or importance,” can we really say there is anything we have sacrificed or will sacrifice? I suppose the great irony of America is that until it knows what it really values above everything else, it will never know sacrifice and no matter what it may sacrifice, it will never measure up to that unknown something.



Humanity will always wrestle with definitions and the thoughts behind the words. Words like sacrifice, freedom, and love are hard to define. A big danger comes about when we forget that words aren’t really the things they are describing but rather signs that point towards these things. A great example is the word car. When I say the word car you may think of a different car than that of which I am thinking. The question is who is right and how much does it matter? Love, freedom, and sacrifice matter to the American and individual psyche; but we should never hate because someone has different definitions. We can disagree with others and even hate their definitions, but in reality we are all humans trying to grasp at the deeper meanings of words and their importance to our daily lives.


[1] So do mathematical symbols and numbers, but that is another story.

[2] Oh yeah, I can just see it now. Everyone is going to be getting all ticked off and ready for a battle. It’s like someone broke a glass at a crowded restaurant. Now I am not going to argue homosexuality, primarily because I don’t care to do so at this moment. I am not interested in it in that way, but I may write a blog post about it in the future.

[3] Do not for a moment pigeon-hole me into a close-minded Christian camp because I speak of the laws of nature. People from Aristotle to Kant have discussed the laws that govern human beings souls as being co-equal to those that govern the natural world. One does not have to be a Christian to believe that such things exist.

[4] Neither camp has been too good with demonstrating their definition of love properly.

[5] If I could have data on this, I would be one happy Phil.

[6] A Christian believes that there is only one sacrifice that we can make and that we can never truly make it by ourselves and on our own.