Motive
Should colored people be called 'apes'? Should women be called 'sows'? The argument that terminology is arbitrary is superficial.
Topics
About: terminology
The table of contents of this article
- Starting Context
- Target Context
- Orientation
- Main Body
- 1: Should Colored People Be Called 'Apes'?
- 2: Terminology Is, Foremost, Categorization, Which Has to Be Done Appropriately
- 3: Should Women Be Called 'Sows'?
- 4: Let Us Criticize Bad Terminologies
Starting Context
- Nothing particularly.
Target Context
- The reader will understand that terminology should not be arbitrary.
Orientation
Terminology has been argued in also a previous article).
Main Body
1: Should Colored People Be Called 'Apes'?
Hypothesizer 7
Many earthians seem to be very insensitive about terminologies.
Objector 37
What do you mean?
Hypothesizer 7
Sir, they seem to be fine with inappropriate terminologies.
Stage Direction
Objector 37A laughs scornfully.
Objector 37A
You don't understand at all; there is no such thing as appropriate or inappropriate terminologies: any terminology is arbitrary.
Hypothesizer 7
Then, is a terminology that calls only white people 'humans' appropriate?
Objector 37A
Huh? What do you mean?
Hypothesizer 7
Colored people are called 'apes' together with gorillas, orangutans, etc. in the terminology.
Stage Direction
Objector 37A rolls about.
Objector 37A
Even such a terminology isn't logically wrong! If 'ape' is defined so, certainly, colored people are legitimately 'apes', according to the terminology.
Objector 37B
Colored people shouldn't be called 'apes', of course.
Hypothesizer 7
I am relieved to hear that, madam.
Objector 37B
It isn't nice.
Hypothesizer 7
I am not talking about "nice"ness really.
Objector 37B
We should be kind to inferior people.
Hypothesizer 7
. . . . . . I am very concerned to hear that.
2: Terminology Is, Foremost, Categorization, Which Has to Be Done Appropriately
Hypothesizer 7
Terminology is, foremost, categorization, and categorization cannot be done arbitrarily.
Objector 37A
Yes, it can.
Hypothesizer 7
Well, logically speaking, it is possible, but in reality, no categorization is really done arbitrarily.
Objector 37A
I don't think so.
Hypothesizer 7
A really arbitrary categorization is for example, "Next. Ah, Susan, I will roll a die. . . . Oh, '4', so you are categorized into the group of snails. Next. . . ."; so, the group of snails include a snail, a pumpkin, and a Susan. . . . Logically not wrong? Certainly. But what are you going to argue based on that categorization?
Stage Direction
Objector 37A bursts out laughing.
Objector 37A
Absurd!
Hypothesizer 7
What are you going to argue based on a categorization in which only white people are 'humans'?
Objector 37B
I said that that wasn't nice.
Hypothesizer 7
I am not talking about "nice"ness; I am talking about whether such a categorization is useful for distinguishing humanity.
Objector 37B
Well, consideration to unfortunate people is a part of humanity, I think.
Hypothesizer 7
. . . You do not understand at all, do you, madam?
3: Should Women Be Called 'Sows'?
Hypothesizer 7
The misunderstanding that terminology is arbitrary seems to come from the claim that naming is arbitrary.
Certainly, naming is, BASICALLY, arbitrary, although categorization is not.
Objector 37A
Naming is arbitrary.
Hypothesizer 7
But naming should not be really arbitrary so much.
Objector 37A
Huh? Naming is arbitrary, for sure.
Hypothesizer 7
Then, should women be called 'sows' in a new terminology?
Stage Direction
Objector 37A chuckles.
Objector 37A
I myself won't call them so.
Hypothesizer 7
Why not?
Objector 37A
Because I don't want to be scratched on the face.
Hypothesizer 7
If you were a pure inventor of a language, you would be free to give an arbitrary name to any category, but you are creating a terminology in an existing language, right?
Objector 37A
I'm not particularly creating any terminology.
Hypothesizer 7
As the words, 'book' and 'sock', already exist, you should not begin to call socks 'books' in your terminology.
Objector 37A
But there is no existing word that represents a totally new concept.
Hypothesizer 7
Then, you should adopt a name like 'aaaa' or 'aaab' to not violate any existing word.
Objector 37A
I want to call it 'sock'.
Hypothesizer 7
Please do not, if it is not any sock.
Objector 37A
I am free to adopt any term in my own terminology; I am God there.
Hypothesizer 7
. . . Sir, any existing word unavoidably conjures up an image in people's minds; please do not call curry 'shit' in your terminology. If you are God, be a fair God, please.
Objector 37B
Maybe, we should call shit 'curry', which makes it more pleasant.
Hypothesizer 7
And bribery 'donation' to make it more pleasant? Bullying 'fondling'? I think, that is a bad idea.
4: Let Us Criticize Bad Terminologies
Hypothesizer 7
So, terminologies should not be arbitrary; bad terminologies can and have to be criticized.
Objector 37A
Established terminologies won't be changed . . .
Hypothesizer 7
No decetnt argument can be made based on bad terminologies.
Objector 37B
They should be fine as they have been used fine until now . . .
Hypothesizer 7
Any terminology that calls colored people 'apes' has been fine only for white-supremacists.
Objector 37B
But traditions can't be changed . . .
Hypothesizer 7
Bad traditions have to be changed.
Objector 37B
Any tradition has lasted long because it's good.
Hypothesizer 7
Sexism has lasted long because it is good? War? Slavery?
Objector 37B
They are different.
Hypothesizer 7
I do not see any difference.
Objector 37B
That's your problem.
Hypothesizer 7
It is your role to explain the difference if you insist the difference, madam.
Objector 37B
. . . I'm not obliged to explain anything.
Hypothesizer 7
If you insist something, you are obliged to show an unboundedly consistent hypothesis.
