Of words and truth

Can a name of an object be true or false or does custom determine its virtue. I was surprised that in a Plato dialogue Cratylus, cited in translation to English by Anne Fremantle in her Primer of Linguistics (1974), the issue of the essence of words was discussed. Interestingly enough, words were described as an instrument just as a shuttle or an awn. In other words, any person can use these tools but only experts know how to use them correctly. A linguistic example is the use of the word basically. While it does have a specific and correct meaning, many people throw it in as a breath stop, without meaning.

Plato through Socrates in the dialogue argues that instruments should be defined by the wise, i.e. experts in their use. In regards to words, he specifies politicians but apparently they were a bit more educated in his days. Nobody would praise the precision and truth of the words that politicians use today. The closest current institutions are the various national language institutions, such as in France and Israel but not in the United States. They attempt to establish correct usage and meaning, with varying degrees of success.

The problem is that language, including the name for an essence, is almost always established by popular consensus, i.e., how people use it.  A modern example is the acceptance of blog for web blog. No academy proposed or approved it but it is the correct word. On the other hand, funnest is still incorrect (as far as I know) even if thousands of children say it.

In terms of the classic debate between Hamilton and Jefferson, the people always decide but the former would say that they don’t always do correctly while the latter would say that argue collective wisdom. In other words, can one million references in Google be wrong? Yes and no. The debate continues.

Yes, but, patriotically speaking

A casual observer might reach the conclusion that Israelis hate their country.  Everybody from left to right seems to constantly criticize it. Any decision or avoidance of decision is basis for derision of the government at all levels. No one is immune, from the Prime Minister to the street cleaner.  Every citizen seems to have at least one opinion.  There is an old joke about Ben Gurion’s visit to the USSR in the 1950’s when Israel’s population was less than half of today’s 8 million.  After being shown the magnificent achievements of Russia, Ben Gurion asks Stalin if anybody objects to these massive changes.  Upon hearing Stalin’s answer that there were around three million critics, Ben Gurion retorts by saying that he has the same problem.

That being said, Israelis are very patriotic.  Just this weekend, the Israeli flags at the Eurovision contest were larger than any others. Any international athletic achievement attains top news status even if the person involves does not become a hero. Average Israelis spontaneously defend their country throughout the Internet. During Independence Day last week, I saw countless people take time from the barbeques and watch the flyover of Israeli air force planes.  Even those who have emigrated from the country are vehemently pro-Israel.

 The basic and unique reason for this underlying consensus is quite simple. These are our airplanes, whether I agree or not with their use. These are our athletic achievements whether I believe athletes should be subsidized or not. This is our government, whatever my opinion of prime minister, not one does a favor to protect the Jews. This is even our humus, one eaten even by anti-Semitic leftists in the UK and France. 

This feeling of “our” exists for most countries but not in the same sense as for Jews. For more than 2000 years, Jewish physical existence was dependent on the “kindness of strangers.” The results were often disastrous. 68 years of nationhood have changed little in terms of security.  Yes, we may disapprove of many of its policies, but it is our country. We appreciate its existence.