"Hard" vs. "Soft" language
Nov. 5th, 2005 06:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaA lot of difference in opinion and understanding comes down to a difference in style of interpreting the way words, labels, and concepts hold meaning. There's a generally "soft" or "fuzzy" way, and there's a "hard" way.
The "soft/fuzzy" way means that a word, concept, idea, label, points to a perceived pattern or persistence. It is meant as a loosely-descriptive term to illustrate how we think a thing we perceive fits into the way the world works.
The "hard" way means that a word, concept, idea, label, not only points to perceived patterns, but when applied to something concrete, is assumed to tells us things about the referent that we didn't know before.
In other words, in the "soft" way of using a word, the word does not affect our perception of the object. We do not expect the object to fit the mold of the word, label, concept exactly. So discovering that the word does not apply in every aspect of its meaning does not automatically disqualify the word as a term of reference for it. In contrast, the "hard" way of using a word involves a kind of inflexibility towards things we have yet to learn about the referent.
This is kinda abstract and imprecise, so let me get specific. Take, for example, the word "heterosexual." In the "hard" sense of the word, this refers to people who never, ever have any sexual interest in people of the same sex. In the "soft" sense, it gives us a general idea about a person's preferences, life, and actions, but does not stop applying if the person reveals that he once had an 'interesting' weekend.
This distinction can extend out to interpreting statements in general. A number of the debates i've had regarding religion, and specifically the interpretation of scripture, come down to differences in word-use style. I tend to read statements in more of a "soft" or "fuzzy" way. Some of the people with whom i've debated religion use a "hard" style. Here's an example:
[John 14:6] Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
[7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
The "hard" style sees a clear statement of inclusion and exclusion here. And this is how many or most of us are taught to read scripture -- because the "hard" style insists that words have precise meanings and therefore we should expect precision from statements. A "soft" style does not necessarily see this passage as being about inclusion or exclusion, but rather, as illustrative instruction.
The "soft/fuzzy" way means that a word, concept, idea, label, points to a perceived pattern or persistence. It is meant as a loosely-descriptive term to illustrate how we think a thing we perceive fits into the way the world works.
The "hard" way means that a word, concept, idea, label, not only points to perceived patterns, but when applied to something concrete, is assumed to tells us things about the referent that we didn't know before.
In other words, in the "soft" way of using a word, the word does not affect our perception of the object. We do not expect the object to fit the mold of the word, label, concept exactly. So discovering that the word does not apply in every aspect of its meaning does not automatically disqualify the word as a term of reference for it. In contrast, the "hard" way of using a word involves a kind of inflexibility towards things we have yet to learn about the referent.
This is kinda abstract and imprecise, so let me get specific. Take, for example, the word "heterosexual." In the "hard" sense of the word, this refers to people who never, ever have any sexual interest in people of the same sex. In the "soft" sense, it gives us a general idea about a person's preferences, life, and actions, but does not stop applying if the person reveals that he once had an 'interesting' weekend.
This distinction can extend out to interpreting statements in general. A number of the debates i've had regarding religion, and specifically the interpretation of scripture, come down to differences in word-use style. I tend to read statements in more of a "soft" or "fuzzy" way. Some of the people with whom i've debated religion use a "hard" style. Here's an example:
[John 14:6] Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
[7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
The "hard" style sees a clear statement of inclusion and exclusion here. And this is how many or most of us are taught to read scripture -- because the "hard" style insists that words have precise meanings and therefore we should expect precision from statements. A "soft" style does not necessarily see this passage as being about inclusion or exclusion, but rather, as illustrative instruction.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-06 12:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-06 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-07 02:25 pm (UTC)