--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer paul@ wrote:
> >
> >> An initial comment is that I think you may have used misused the word
> >> "misanthropy" in the subject line, since, from the context of your
> >> message, it certainly appears to me that you do not have any "hatred
> >> of man" and are not even suggesting that others do. Here is the
> >> dictionary definition of that word:
> >>
> >> "misanthropy": a hatred of mankind : distrust of human nature
> >>
> >> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
> >> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
> >>
> >> If you meant it that way, then please explain why you put it in your
> >> subject line.
> >>
> >
> > Regarding the use of the word "misanthropy" - I meant to use the word
> > with a largely different context. I source my definition from
> > wikipedia, which may have changed since I first discovered the word.
> > The definition I had in mind was "a person who has a dislike of
> > certain overarching characteristics of humankind." However, I want
> > to be clear that I do not harbor "hatred of mankind", although I may
> > have feelings of general "distrust of human nature". So, this latter
> > definition you cited above may be closer to my intended useage.
>
> I will start by saying that I should have stated that the definition
> that I gave for "misanthropy" was *a* dictionary definition, rather
> than *the* dictionary definition. There are many English language
> dictionaries, of both current and past publication, all of which have
> different definitions of any particular word - some subtly different and
> some substantially different (particularly so if the dictionaries are
> published far apart in time). While the purpose of a dictionary is
> generally purported to be to express and describe the current common
> usage of a word, this purpose is fraught with potential problems right
> from the start, since this means that dictionaries can easily foster
> the distorted (from origins) and ambiguous (multiple, quite different)
> word meanings that they are also trying to prevent. I have often thought
> that a far better purpose for a dictionary should be to clearly describe
> the unambiguous etymologically original meanings of the words, and even
> to frown upon and discourage other usages (except for totally newly
> coined words, of course). Being a dynamic, non-scholarly, not-for-profit
> dictionary, I consider the Wikipedia dictionary to be the very worst
> around in this regard. While Wikipedia is a large, easily accessible
> source of information, one should always keep in mind that there is no
> guarantee that a scholarly approach has been taken to any of the
> information presented there (as opposed to for-profit dictionaries and
> encyclopedias who pay scholars for the work that is placed there and
> which work is backed by the name of the scholarly author being clearly
> attached to hir work).

I understand and agree with your frustration with ambiguous usage of
words. I have not considered this seemingly rampant problem in
written and spoken language. After reading your posts on this
subject in the past week I have realized how large of a problem this
has become. I mentioned before that I teach college accounting
classes. As might be assumed, many young people are in my classes,
having recently finished high school. I have noticed some of their
slang words actually have dictionary meanings quite different than
their usage. However, they seem totally oblivious to the fact that
they are misusing these words.

I agree that this deviation from an `agreed-upon' meaning of a word
(purposefully defined by a dictionary) distorts communication and
creates problems during communication. I have resolved to improve my
own accurate use of words. When I communicate, I feel it very
important to be as accurate as possible for a number of reasons,
including the fact that words are used to convey meaning, or even
feeling, which might not be easily communicated. I also agree with
your philosophy of `social-preferencing' and its reliance on the
evaluation of a person's characteristics. An accurate evaluation is
highly-dependent on another person's accurate portrayal of hirself
during communication.

> Before continuing I will note the meaning of "scholar" and scholarly"
> that I am using:
>
> : one who has engaged in advanced study and acquired the minutiae of
> knowledge in some special field along with accuracy and skill in
> investigation and powers of critical analysis in interpretation of such
> knowledge.
> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
>
> For this reason, while Wikipedia is a good place to make a quick start
> and get some quick ideas about a word meaning or a subject (and I
> sometimes use it for that purpose), it should only be a beginning of
> one's investigation and not something that one should take as any kind
> of definitive exposition. Since I have already written elsewhere of my
> thoughts about Wikipedia (search for it in this group), this is all
> that I will say right here.
>
> Regarding your thoughts about the meaning of "misanthropy", here is a
> dictionary meaning and the etymology of the word "misanthrope" to help
> understand what meaning is more appropriate to give it.
>
> Etymology: Greek /misanthromacrpos /hating mankind, from /mis- /^2 mis-
> + /anthromacrpos /man, human being -- more at ANTHROP-
>
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=anthrop-\
>
> *:* one who hates or despises mankind <a /misanthrope/, whose only
> strong emotions are those of disgust, rage, occasional sex hunger --
> Richard Plant>
> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com

The example you make of my use of the word "misanthrope" to describe
myself is an excellent argument for the proper use of words as
defined by etymology. I appreciate you taking the time to describe
this to me. Now that I read the dictionary definition of the
word "misanthrope" I am pleased that I have not used it to describe
myself very often. Doing so would have distorted others' perception
of what I believe in. I do not identify with the definition you
referenced above. Reading this definition I feel an urge to be more
careful with how I describe myself, as I would not want someone well-
acquainted with the dictionary definition of the word to find that I
describe myself as such. This would be quite inaccurate and may
bring about inaccurate, negative social-preferencing against me.

> Note that Wikipedia does not give any of the etymology of words in its
> dictionary, which is one sense in which it is not scholarly. The
> result of this is that a reader has no sense of the origin of a word
> or what its former meanings were. And the result of that is to
> foster a continuous "morphing" and corruption of the language, so that
> ultimately any word can have any meaning at all.
>
> As I said before, I do not think that you are a misanthrope as described
> by this meaning and its origins. Unfortunately, "misanthropy" is but one
> of a vast number of words that have become distorted away from their
> clear and unambiguous origins, by the tendency toward hyperbole of
> sales-type persons and their mimickers and followers. With its secondary
> meaning of "distrust of human nature" Merriam-Webster is already guilty
> of that (they should be trying to thwart this tendency to warp and
> distort meanings rather than fostering it), but Wikipedia is, front and
> center, a major part of the problem and the exponentially increasing
> speed with which clear and unambiguous communication in the English
> language is being made impossible, is something about which I am
> increasingly concerned.
>
> > The
> > current wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy)
> > cites: "Subtler expressions [of misanthropy] are far more common,
> > especially for those pointing out the shortcomings of humanity."
>
> It is incorrect to use the word "cite" here. A "cite" is a reference
> from some written work to some scholarly work. More correctly, you
> should have used instead the simpler word "states" or "maintains". If
> you think a Wikipedia article is sufficiently authoritative then you
> could cite it as your source for some statement that is a quote from it.

I have since looked-up the definition of the word "cite" and agree
with your above statement.

> However, I totally reject the above statement as any reasonable meaning
> for "misanthropy". Such a description is a total and extremely dangerous
> distortion of any reasonable meaning of that word. It is particularly
> dangerous, because whether intentionally or unintentionally it seeks to
> place anyone who dissents from the norms of society into the same
> category as a misanthrope as described above. This is simply one more
> clear attempt to suppress any free thought and critical analysis. I
> expect that you did not see this, but this an example of why you need to
> carefully study and analyze ideas before accepting them. Otherwise you
> will be suckered in like a fish taking the bait on the hook.

The problem of words being used to describe ideas they are not
intended to describe is a frustrating one. It seems to me that few
humans use a well-researched dictionary as their reference when
deciding whether to use a word in a given context. Every instance a
person references the well-researched definition of a word and finds
they would have used it inappropriately, that person learns from
their potential mistake and the language retains a small bit of its
integrity. In my experience with others, this referencing process
takes place quite infrequently. Instead, people rely on their
perception of the meaning of a given word (as I had
with "misanthrope") and the language loses a bit of its integrity.
It seems that if we want to improve the current situation of this
problem, it may be helpful to continue to encourage others to
reference unfamiliar words before use as you have done with me, and
as I will do in the future. It is also helpful that we (you, and now
I) correct our own use of words using an agreed-upon reference.

> > It is from this definition that I might point out that we are all
> > participating in some form of misanthropy, as far as the wikipedia
> > definition is accurate.
>
> The Wikipedia notion is totally wrong and the vast majority of people
> are not practicing misanthropy, least of all not I and Kitty.
>
> > In my previous post I believe I was pointing
> > out perceived "shortcomings of humanity", such as lack of action,
> > lack of self-responsibility, etc.
>
> No. Please try to remember that humans are all individuals, different
> from one another to greater or lesser degree. There is no collective
> that has any human attributes at all, much less "shortcomings". Rather
> you were "pointing out perceived shortcomings" of some adult humans. And
> these shortcomings are, once again, more or less in type and degree
> within different humans.
>
> > This is how I feel my last posting
> > was related to the word "misanthropy".
>
> I understand now and have no criticism beyond what I have written here.
> I look forward to your reply (but I would appreciate it if you would
> wait until I have finished my multiple replies to your message, since
> they may be relevant to one another).
>
> --Paul
>

---
Steve