Sermon on the Mouth: A Sloppy Discourse on Language, Emotion, and What it Means to be Rational

Language is subjective right down to the syllable, and as anyone who's ever watched a movie or read a book that's criticized contemporary politics in some way knows, it can be used to sway the opinions of the masses (you know, that big dumb hunk of people who always seems to be everyone but you). When it's done successfully on points you already agree with, you don't mind. Intelligent men are eloquently stating their point to persuade their enemies. They're gentlemen and scholars: juggernauts of negotiation perpetually master-debating in the faces of the ignorant. But when it's done by someone who you disagree with, they're pushing an agenda or perhaps even intentionally "brainwashing" you. All subjective nonsense, and that's okay.

I'm not going to lie: I have a pretty high opinion of myself. I still try to criticize myself occasionally for the purposes of personal growth, pointing out what are, perhaps, flaws and absurdities, if either of those words mean anything in a universe laden with what could be seen as flaws and absurdities.

I spent a good deal of my childhood and adolescence suffering from a serious lack of confidence and self-worth. Nowadays, in addition to the criticism, I like to tell myself that I'm intelligent and "going somewhere with my life". I don't know if that's true, I could die in two seconds from any number of causes and I could very well be a delusional dumbass. Taking that into account, I see my confidence as a personally-necessary form of irrationalism.

Irrational motivations and rational inquiry are buddies when it comes to human progress. No doubt it was irrational things like fear, fear that there might not be a God or that God may be malevolent for example, that lead thinkers like Epicurus to frightening conclusions (I don't know if that was Epicurus's motivation, I'm just giving an example). But they faced the fear and eventually became numb to it by thinking about it more than most people can bare. On the flip side, Johannes Kepler made a lot of scientific and mathematical discoveries in the process of trying to prove that the Universe was geometrically perfect and a testament to God's existence, among other things. Presumptuous much? Yet his religious motivation helped human understanding in the long run. My confidence motivates me to type shit like this and not feel like I'm wasting my time. Whether anyone is actually reading this, whether anyone is actually learning from this, whether or not I'm just preaching to the choir for the most part, I'm not sure. But I'd like to think that I am having some effect, and I'm fully aware that it's irrational, but I also think it's necessary for my own well-being.

The world is full of double-edged swords. Confidence is one of them, and language is another. Many people (you know, those filthy masses, the groundlings you can't possibly be a part of) don't like to grow, learn, or change any of their opinions, especially once they've become self-sustaining adults. Thus, language has developed so we seem to have two words for almost anything. People who agree with me will see my confidence as, well, confidence. He's a confident person. People reading this who disagree with me may see me as a windbag or a snob. In reality they all mean fairly the same thing in respects to one personality trait. Open and unafraid of saying your opinion and feeling correct as you do so. The differences in the words usually say more about the person who is using them than the person who they're being used for. One man's patriot is another man's lemming. Someone who changes their opinion upon learning new things could be seen as "open-minded" by one person and as a "flip-flopper" by another. Someone who never changes their opinion or compromises could be seen as "just sticking to their guns" or "stubborn, hardheaded, and ignorant."

Now an experiment for you to try:

When you're going about your daily business and you stop to talk to someone and a third person comes up in the conversation, pay close attention to the adjectives being used to describe them. Instead of thinking of the person as those adjectives, think of the adjectives as a description of the relationship between the speaker and the person being spoken of. Things might just become a lot clearer. Not that clarity is an objectively measurable thing, mind you.

Another experiment:

When you're bitching about someone you don't like or praising someone you do like to a third person, try not to use any adjectives you see as positive or negative. Try to use neutral words. Just see how it turns out. Could be interesting, could be frustrating, could be an 'introspective nightmare'.

Have fun. Peace.