Moreover, we know an objective reality exists because we can make note of how we are irreducibly constrained by it.
Quote:
What is a leader?
Well today we'd define as a person in charge of a group, organization, nation, some structure of people.
2000 years ago in the middle east a leader would be a MAN in charge etc...
The definition of a word has changed.
|
There is a vital difference between that and what you do. Here, the images around people have changed, so the word acquires a new meaning. Remember, words refer to images -- language attempts to describe the logical structure of images as they appear in the mind's eye. Moreover, even though the meaning has broadened, it still essentially refers to the same objective, which is beings with authority over others. So, while the meaning of words change, it generally happens slowly and naturally with reference to the kind of world multiple speakers-writers find themselves in.
In contrast, you jumble together a bunch of images by defying the conventional meanings of word, inevitably producing incoherency and contradiction, making productive argument impossible. What's worse, you don't even make a standard practice out of systematically explaining the constitution of the new definition and why you are justified in altering it before employing it. Then you hold it against people when they mistake your meaning, which is a a dishonest rhetorical trick.
Also, to nitpick everything to death, Middle Eastern peoples who lived 2000 years ago probably would not have used English language vocabulary to designate the authorities in their societies.