Skip to main content

View Diary: I am a fundamentalist (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If we each have our own definition (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RandomActsOfReason

    for a word, such as "fundamentalism" or "God" or "progressive", then it can hinder communication while appearing to expand our ability for self-expression.

    •  His definition (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, CuriousBoston

      is not limited to himself; it's a dictionary definition of 'fundamentalism', which, like many english words has multiple meanings.

      Because the word has multiple meanings, it is incumbent upon the reader to allow the author to state which meaning he is using. teacherken has done that, the efforts of others to insist he has to mean 'fundamentalism' in the manner that evokes their Pavlovian response notwithstanding.

      •  I suppose that's true, but (0+ / 0-)

        if we are using different definitions in different situations, and then trying to argue as if they are related, that seems to be an interesting linguistic exercise, but in other ways the discussions are unrelated. If one person discusses fundamentalism meaning a literalistic interpretation of foundational religious texts, another person uses it to mean adhering to a fundamental set of principles, and another person is talking about ideological intransigence and intolerance, they are really talking about three different things, even if they all use the same word. In that way, they are talking past each other, rather than communicating effectively.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site