By Definition

[Author’s Note: Before I begin today’s scree, let me start by saying I’m not on anyone’s side. Most likely I am opposed to whatever insane, cockamamie ideas you have. Well, maybe not ALL of them, but probably most of them. For example, while I take aim at the Woke Mob today, this does not mean I am on the side of right-wing Republicans who are, by-and-large, pretty big assholes. I’m on the side of reason, thought, and interesting discourse. If you’re not on the side of these things, you, too, are probably an asshole. Only, what defines an asshole…]

 

I should have known better than to get into a Twitter spat with a Woke Mobster. Much like your average Trump cultist, there is no reasoning with them. Much like that average Trump cultist, the Woke Mob operates on pure emotion and this is why there is no reasoning with them.

 

See, I made the white man’s mistake of pointing out that a Woke Mobster’s definition of ‘racism’ was being redefined for the sake of convenience in propping up the alt-Left’s narrative, a narrative in which they intimate that only white people can be racist. The mobster in question, allegedly a doctor (a term which used to presume a certain level of intelligence along with it), went so far as to say that white people invented racism. Of course, they couldn’t say where or when this happened probably because this alleged fact was in fact not a fact.

 

Now I’m not going to sit here like your average Trump cultist and tell you systematic racism hasn’t existed in the U.S. since its inception. Yes, some groups of white people in the U.S. have been guilty of oppressing people of color for two-plus centuries. Naturally, while the Woke Mob recognizes this, they neglect to notice that other groups of white people have been instrumental in advancing rights for people of color. To be sure, more effort is needed to make people of color truly equal in the U.S. among the predominately ‘white culture.’ The problem is, in the Woke Mob’s narrative, because of the oppression people of color have suffered, all white people and all their institutions are oppressors and it cannot be the case that white people cannot be racist. It is understandable that unfair treatment might result in this kind of mindset, but this is unreasonable thinking nonetheless. To actually point this unreasonableness, though, is only more proof of the white man’s racism. But what is racism?

 

As philosophers do, we should agree on our definitions before proceeding. Per Merriam-Webster’s definition* which has been the definition of racism for, I don’t know, a while now, “1-Unfair treatment of people of a particular race in a society to the benefit of people of another race (and) 2-The belief that certain races of people are superior to others.” This as opposed to a Woke Mobster’s definition which in not so unsimilar and goes something like this, “The systematic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of [white people].” The latter of these two definitions is the only one that will suffice for the Woke Mob since it excludes any group besides white people from being racist. This has to be the case because, as everyone knows, all other races around the globe treat each other with nothing but dignity and respect. Nevermind the hatred between the Chinese and Japanese. Nevermind Africa being the epicenter of genocides in the modern age. There’s nothing to see here.

 

[*I was challenged on this, my opponent asking me if I was going by Webster’s definition. Well, yes, I was. However, because Merriam-Webster was compiled by white men one assumes, the definition is not to be trusted, obviously.]

 

And so because I, as the white man in the conversation, was wrong by virtue of my existence. For this to be the case – forgive my poor white man’s ignorance – seems kinda racist, at least according to Merriam-Webster. Ah, but since white people hold most of the power in the U.S. I can’t be oppressed on an individual, much less societal, level. That’s the way the Left’s narrative goes, so it seems.

 

What would be interesting is to peer into the future and see the U.S. being headed by people of color – that day is coming – and see whether the Woke Mob’s current definition of racism holds. According to the logic, it shouldn’t if people of color wield most of the power in the country. In fact, according to the logic, it would only be people of color who could be racist then. But, you just can’t expect people who operate solely on emotion to conduct these kinds of thought experiments much less come to that conclusion.

 

It should not be forgotten that racism is an act, not an objective object that exists when no one is around. As such, anyone or any group can be racist, unless you change the definition to suit your narrative as the Woke Mob has done. Unfortunately, words are fluid in definition (and even spelling and pronunciation). Case in point, the word ‘literally’ literally no longer means ‘literally’ when used by lay people, and this is very sad. The same could be said of the word ‘theory’ when used by a scientist as opposed to the common citizen who doesn’t understand anything about science. But I digress; it is a time-honored tradition of Sophists to change definitions to win arguments. There’s not much that can be done about that unless we all start talking mathematics.

 

It should also not be forgotten that it was the philosophy of (mostly) old-timey European white men that argued for the equal treatment of all people. (To be fair, by ‘all people’ they were largely referring to ‘people’ who were only ‘people’ because they had dicks. It’s a matter of definition that was convenient for men at the time.) If not for those philosophers, the Woke Mob would not even be in a position to voice their displeasure about their systematic oppression. No other philosophers from any other continent or culture argued so fiercely for equal rights. I’M NOT SAYING people of color should be undyingly thankful to those philosophers but history is what it is. And, yes, I know that as a white man that’s easy for me to say.

 

Now, before any of this goes any further or before I get cancelled, let us argue over the definition of ‘definition.’ I’ll pour us some whiskey. Or is it ‘whisky’? Fuck.

What is Art?

Art.

What is art? You’ve probably been told that this is a difficult question. The word ‘art’ is so broad in scope that it might as well be synonymous with the word ‘love’ whose definition is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Words that are too broad in scope are not words at all, but mere utterances aimed at conveying gross approximation. This problem of definitions plagues every language besides mathematics it seems, and so it must be up to someone to remedy this situation if it is to ever be known what anyone is talking about. I will now attempt the seemingly impossible given that there appears to be no objective basis for what is considered art. I will attempt to be objective and therefore come to a reasonable conclusion.

What is art? There must be criteria met for something to be considered art. We cannot, for the sake of definitions, rely solely upon subjective judgement calls such as “I like it” or “I don’t like it.” Again, generalities only confuse the issue. And so, I have arrived at several criteria to determine if something is art and I do admit this list may not be exhaustive. However, the criteria I think are reasonable. In thinking about the criteria, I will analyze it from the perspective of having experienced an oil painting. Though the criteria should apply to all forms of art (or what is assumed to be an art form), I think it easiest to think about our criteria as it applies to paintings.

What are the criteria?

First, and perhaps most importantly, art must invoke an emotion in someone besides the artist. (No one considering themselves an artist would produce something they think should be a called art without being passionate about the work, so they are disqualified from figuring into this criteria.) If a piece of art can elicit an emotion from at least one subject, the work is on its way to being considered art. Thus, the more people the work elicits emotion in, the more confident we can be in proclaiming something ‘art.’ However, there is a very important caveats to this first criteria.

The emotion elicited must be what the artist had intended to convey. An ‘artist’ who suggests that their painting is going to mean different things to different people has created something that merely speaks to the relative freedom a society may posses and not to human nature, where human nature is something that changes very little over time whereas societies change very quickly by comparison. Thus, a painting can have its meaning, it’s eliciting emotion fixed in perpetuity if it renders the same emotion in someone decades in the future as it does when it is first presented, though, we do have to allow for the context of the art’s time and place of creation. (For example, there is no doubt – bear with me – much Nazi propaganda that could be considered art despite how we may presently feel about WWII-era Naziism. Such art, through the lens of being a German nationalist circa the year 1939, would likely make us feel patriotic, as it’s creator intended.) A painting that conveys something entirely other than what the artist had in mind is not art. Remember, the definition of art cannot be left solely up to subjectivity or the word is, for all intents and purposes, useless. Ultimately, not only does the work have to elicit an intended response, that response must be maintained despite the passage of time and culture.

Of course, a reasonable objection is what if the artist’s intentions are unknown? At a minimum, an emotion has to be elicited and the response must be fairly universal* among those experiencing the work. Again, the emotional response cannot be broadly subjective. Ambiguity or vagueness is not the point of art; these words mean something is not being communicated clearly enough.

[Meaning, more often than not.]

It should be obvious that various emotions can be the intended response to a work of art, however, something like a painting doesn’t have to convey a strict message. To paraphrase Youtube user, Spoudaois, art can [also] be produced to create an aesthetic as something interesting or that enhances a mood, or as something complimentary to its surroundings (but also be able to be considered art on its own merit). I am in agreement with this assessment because it segues nicely towards the next criteria – purpose. What is the work’s purpose; what does the art do for the consumer of the art?

Probably not art.

If the art in question was created for the sake of an artist’s therapy, as something they simply had to get out of their system least they be driven mad, this is not art. Certainly the act of creation can be therapeutic, however, an artist cannot accurately gauge their work any more than a given person can accurately assess their own intelligence. The person experiencing a painting must be able to say, “Ah, this is what the art does,” and can go on to explain. If a painting does nothing, say, is a canvas painted white and without so much as texture among its characteristics, this would have no purpose in an all-white room and merely wastes the observer’s time.

At this point, we might raise the objection that what if this was the artist’s purpose, for their all-white painting in an all-white room to elicit frustration or anger at the observer’s time being wasted? (And perhaps also among the artist’s intent was for this to be a metaphor for the time we all waste in our lives?) This brings us to our last criteria, that a work of art is not something the average citizen can create. Anyone can create an all-white painting. This ability does not render one an ‘artist.’

An artist is one who displays talent not possessed by the population at large in much the same way the general population is unable to play professional-level basketball. For example, if a painter renders a near-lifelike portrait with charcoal, they possess talent that most others do not. Moreover, in much the same way as the professional basketball player, it does not matter if this talent is the result of innate ability or deep learning the average person in not amenable to; it is the ability itself that counts. Art is the result of an ability to produce it.

It might be argued here that artificial intelligence could produce a work of art free of human interference. However, the A.I. relied on human interference to exist in the first place and cannot operate outside of the parameters programmed into it. Nor does A.I. actually know what effort or ability is; it merely does what is asked of it. Currently, no ‘thinking’ machine wakes up in the morning and decides it is going to paint that day when it has the option not to, nor can it decide what mediums to use. In a vaguely similar vein, we should not consider a good deal of graphic design art ‘art’ either, as much of this work can be reproduced by the average citizen with relatively minimal software training. (This is not to say talented graphic artists do not exist, though.)

To recap the criteria, a work of art must:

·        * Eliciting an emotion from its consumer and be able to convey the message the artist intended [or]

·        * Produce an aesthetic, that is, enhancing or creating a mood, or act as something complimentary to its environment;

·        *Have a purpose which in brevity should be captured within the previous criteria;

·        * Be the result of talent that the average person does not and likely cannot possess.

With these criteria in mind, we can likely dismiss much of what is currently considered art and regulate it to the bin of well-intentioned but futile attempts. It’s not that we should be snobs about art, rather, we should simply have higher standards for both art and definitions. Otherwise, we’re as lowbrow as the art we think is admirable. 

Computer generated 'art.'

The Etymology of 'Idiot'

If there is one sure fire way to spot an idiot, it would have to be the way some people – usually conspiracy theorists (ironically also referred to as ‘truthers’) – think they have figured out what some words actually mean or how words are sometimes used against them. 

For example, I recall one particularly idiotic truther tried entertaining his disturbingly large audience of 200 people with the revelation that the word ‘youngster’ is really referring to youngsters as being ‘young stars’ as human beings are in fact beings of light. Nevermind that the etymology (the study of the origin of words and their historical usage) of the word ‘young’ stems from the Old English word ‘geong’ and Middle English word ‘yong’ which both refer to someone as being from the early part of life or as possessing the looks of someone who looks as though they belong to the early part of life. The suffix ‘-ster’ is also derived from Old and Middle English (and Proto-Germanic) and at when added to a word refers to that thing as belonging to a specified group or as doing something specific. Unsurprisingly, the word for a youngster is ‘enfant’ in French and ‘junge’ or ‘kind’ in German, words that have ZERO to do with this truther’s claims about young people being the children of stars. Certainly one can just make up out of thin air their own etymologies, but that doesn’t mean their imaginings are true. [The same person completely ignored some key definitions of ‘defense’ and intentionally narrowed the meaning of the word to make a rather poor argument in their favor regarding imperialism.]

Then there’s this ridiculous conspiracy theorist meme, depicted on the left. In actuality, the word ‘govern-’ as it relates here is derived from the Old French word ‘governor’ which is itself derived from the Latin ‘gubernare,’ itself derived from the Greek word ‘kybernan’ meaning to pilot or captain a ship. Meanwhile, ‘-ment’ was imported from the French and Latin ‘-mentum’ and means the result of an action. As one clever commenter wrote on English.stockexchange.com “If ‘-ment’ always referred to the mind, then a replacement would be a brain transplant, punishment would be a headache, and an attachment would be a neural implant.”

More recently, another truther tried to explain in her Youtube video that when police ask you if you understand what they are saying, answering ‘yes’ means you are giving them permission to stand over you. Nevermind that the word comes from the Old English usage of ‘understandan’ which simply means to perceive the meaning of words or ideas spoken to you. That’s it. If what this conspiracy theorist is saying is true, then you simply have to tell police you don’t understand them when they ask you if you understand and it’s like a get-out-of-jail-free card!

Conspiracy theorists / truthers (‘-ists’ and ‘-ers’ is used in a very similar fashion to ‘-ster’, btw) claim to want to make you think, but when you do and actually do research the things the talk about and come to a ‘real’ conclusion, they’ll have none of it. They’ll throw every ad hominin attack or straw man fallacy in the book at you. Conspiracy theorists are alarmingly delusional and should be hospitalized before they hurt someone or themselves. Or, we can invite them to leave and start their own country. I know, I know, they’re too lazy for all that. A few idiots ruin it for the rest of us.

[‘Idiot,’ by the way, comes from the Old French and Latin word ‘idiota’ meaning ‘ignorant person.’ Unsurprisingly, the usage of idiot’ has risen exponentially with the advent of the internet.]

George W. Bush: Terrorist? No, Idiot.

“George W. Bush: Terrorist.”

I’ve seen you, you pseudo-intellectual college students and aging hipsters of the “Free Love” generation, wearing one of those witty t-shirts in recent years. Those t-shirts are without doubt so clever they induce in your conservative Republican opponents a sort of quasi-introspective trace, don’t they? “George W. Bush is a terrorist? I never thought of it that way. Perhaps I should,” they’ll tell themselves.

I can understand why someone might want to think of President Bush as a terrorist. Let’s assume for a moment the culturally sensitive perspective of a foreigner whose country has been invaded by US forces and has seen fellow civilians killed or harmed by the US military. Why wouldn’t they think of the American Commander-In-Chief as a terrorist? After all, he is using force to achieve political or ideological objectives while he wears the “disguise” of a civilian. Though, I don’t know how much of a disguise a business suit is. Maybe it’s the inflammatory red ties he always wears.

While I am no fan of rednecks, ah, red neckties, calling George W. Bush a terrorist broadens what it means to be such a radical, perhaps to the point of even cheapening the word “terrorist” (at least they don’t try to avoid their duty). Perhaps such name-calling is to be expected though from people who merely wish to pray for world peace instead of taking action as means to achieve their visions of utopia. And while these same opponents of President Bush call for his impeachment (its all the rage these days for American presidents), they cannot do so on the grounds that George W. Bush is a terrorist. The President may be many things—and we can be unfriendly about that—but he is not a terrorist. Breath.

Now that any liberal rage you may have had has passed, let’s think about what defines a terrorist.

We’ll begin with the kind of actions that are to be reasonably expected from someone who is called a terrorist; in other words, they terrorize. Now, causing another person great harm can be either mental or physical in nature. However, a terrorist’s method-of-operation is specifically and primarily physical in nature, and typically targets civilians. If terrorist attacks were instead psychological in nature (instead of an expected result of the primary physical attack), then it would be reasonable to expect to find Catholic and Jewish grandmothers imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

The purpose of this physical violence against civilian populations is to install fear in a target populace as a method of coercing a population to meet the political or religious demands of the terrorist or the organization they represent. If the population does not give into the coercion, is expected that terrorist attacks will continue. In this way, the acts of terrorists follow a systematic pattern with which to weave a quilt of destruction.

Moreover, a terrorist characteristically masquerades as a member of the society in which they wish to attack. This tactic is designed to avoid capture by either military or civilian police opposition. This disguise technique causes a target population further concern, because they do not know who the enemy is, much less when and where the unknown assailant(s) will attack. Thus, in an attempt to gain security, a society might lobby their government to give into terrorist demands, such as was the case with the Madrid, Spain train bombings in March 2004. Who knows where they read it, but terrorists certainly make abuse of the phrase, “Better safe than sorry.”

So does President Bush fir the bill of a terrorist? In sending US troops to invade Iraq, the President did not call for specific civilian targets to be engaged. Though civilians might be killed as a matter of collateral damage, they are not the primary focus of any intended violence. In fact, the term “collateral damage” is applied to civilian casualties during military operations exactly because they would be spared any harm if it could be avoided, ideally speaking. If a government’s military intended to kill civilians, they would just go ahead and do it (though it would perhaps be wise to kill all the local reporters as well). Because the US military does not go out of it’s way to kill civilians, their Commander-In-Chief is spared the label of “terrorist.”

It is also exactly because George w. Bush is recognized worldwide as The United States’ Commander-In-Chief that he is not a terrorist. Regardless then of whether he is dressed in a suit and tie or a flight suit stuffed to the nines, he cannot be considered a terrorist because he has explicit ties to the military. Terrorists rarely if ever are connected to a country’s military or governing body, and even when they are, it is not known or disclosed who these people might be.

In order to clear President Bush of any further accusations of being a terrorist, allow me to paraphrase terrorism expert A.P. Schmid who in 1992 defined to the UN what terrorism is: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by clandestine individuals/groups, for religious or political ideals, whereby… the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The victims of violence are chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (symbolic targets) to serve as a message generator.” If we use the Iraq War as an example, President Bush commanded the US military to engage non-random, practical military targets, not civilians. Furthermore, George W. Bush can hardly be considered a clandestine individual.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but George W. Bush is emphatically not a terrorist. He doesn’t fulfill any of the qualifications used to define what a terrorist is. Call him what you want (I prefer the term “Errorist”), but he is not a terrorist.

So yeah, about those t-shirts with The President’s picture on them, branding him a terrorist? Feel free to go ahead and put those unsightly little t-shirts away. You wouldn’t want to be accused of terrorizing the fashion industry, now would you?