Political Conjugations
It is unfortunate that our understanding of politics is so poor. I do not mean our practical understanding. I mean our theoretical understanding. But our theoretical understanding has consequences. There is a problem because our theoretical understanding, if badly constructed, plays havoc with our practical understanding.
Everyone – politicians, philosophers – assumes that words have straightforward meanings. Philosophers because they want them to, and hope they could, and politicians because they need them to. Both philosophers and politicians want to do things with words. But what we need, as I always say, is a bit more philology: attention to words, their caressiveness, their seductiveness, their capacity for infidelity.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I think I have just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading this.
And then you need arithmetic, mathematics, and money to tighten it up a bit. Hardly anything physical is built on languages alone, after all.
A reminder that whatever we think of the world today, it was ever thus.
In Yes Minister in 1986 they were referred to as irregular verbs:
I have an independent mind
you are an eccentric
he is round the twist
Let’s face it – us humans are just as easily manipulated “Now” as we ever were ! Romans nailed people to crosses, Spanish did Inquisitions , Puritans dipped Witches ,then came 20th Century Germany / Russia / China – Whoa 😳 now I’ve got Billy Joel starting a Fire in my head 😵💫🤪
The answer must be to accord a great deal less power, money and respect to the practitioners of authority. How about:
I wish to be governed well
He wants to rule over me
Starmer is a despot.
Definition of “politics” is simple: tyranny, greed, graft, grift, corruption and bribery.
Well that’s a fine waste of my time. I had rather hoped for a more reasoned article that would explain how Starmer’s words end up being the polar opposite of his actions, how Reeves is taxing us more, why Milibrain is putting up our fuel bills, how this Government would have a lighter touch, why they would govern for the country and not the party or self and there would be an end to scandals. Sadly what I got was an essay that has gone completely over my ‘university of life’ head. Perhaps I needed an Oxbridge degree to fully understand what I was being told
Dosn’t it follow that politics needs literature? For what better than our classic literature shows us the proper and inevitable variability of the meaning of words? ‘Look, don’t think’ (Did Wittgenstein say that?) as our classic writers do, and you’ll never again dream of fixing words to precise and unvarying definitions.