I am interested in what you said about race and I suppose you could fit me into your three categories. That there is only one race I suppose is similar to classifying dogs as canines, and then you break them down to poodles, beagles, etc. So how would you do that with humans?
Good morning, sorry I did not respond earlier. Somehow I got some ‘code’ in which appears to have messed up posts & my eye sight not what it used to be.
Thank you for kind words.
Regarding words, they are important, but NOT like ‘sticks or stones’.
Words are important as a conveyance of information, nothing more. Therefore, to me, it seems reasonable that the consistency of a ‘word’ would be important; in that if word meaning always changes, then the ‘value’ of the information is always changing. Which leads to, or is viewed as, chaos or ‘chaotic’.
Add to this the making up of words or word meanings; and we find the ‘state of confusion’ created. This confusion creates the need for some pseudo-intellectual to lead the masses from the ‘word fog’.
Regarding the word ‘race’ specifically.
First this word, if I remember correctly, did not appear on the scene until around the 16th century and it appears in writing as a ‘negative’.
Scientifically I can find no use for this word except in the ‘Imaginary Sciences’; things like, earth centric solar system, flat earth, climate change and political science.
Without going in the taxonomy and history of the understanding of living organisms etc. I could name for you many scientists starting with, modern day, E.O Wilson, who would find the concept of saying one human group was a different ‘race’ from another human group, implausible.
Anyway Google the word origins of ‘race’. unless some sophist has changed it you will find it quite enlightening.
Oh well, and on another ‘rant’ I am disappointed about the misuse and bastardization of the words ‘captial’ and ‘capitalism’ as well.
History is full of people manipulating and changing the ‘human narrative’.
It seems I cannot keep anything short anymore.
Have a good day
I needed to add this.
I forgot that when mentioning so called ‘experts’ it is often assumed that more credit is given then really is.
Since the concept of writing and editing has been created and used, we are subject to ‘error creep’ that enters into the reprinted material.
For example. In Ludwig Von Mises book ‘Socialism’; I read where others have found editorial differences between re-printings that in fact literally change the meaning of the author’s statements.
Add to this editorial license, the fact that many of the renown people (scientists) referred to in specific fields, are in some ways ‘nuttier then fruitcakes’ in other things. That even so called ‘experts’ need to be taken with a ‘grain of salt’. True polymaths are rare.
I believe ‘eccentric’ could and is the word that is often used to describe these individuals.
Specifically about E. O. Wilson and the word ‘race’. If you read Wilson which gets a little more difficult as he got older, you will find that he uses the word as well, but only because of it acceptance in society. Wilson like many in the past, was absolutely a great entomologist and scientist. However he too would use the word ‘race’ but it did not always have the same connotation and actually used it, when it required many other words to explain what he meant.
I try to make this my first thought; ‘just because I can do something, should I’. And this includes, to the best of my ability, word choice. The problem with this is, not everyone knows the same words and instead of taking the time to communicate properly we use ‘short-cut’ words. This can get a point across generally, but not concisely.
Good grief, I am sorry, again too much. Anyway have a good day.