The Intersection of Grammar and Politics
In today’s world we like to think of grammar as a mild annoyance that we were subjected to during elementary school. Necessary, perhaps – a basic grasp of grammatical sentence structure is necessary for communication – but ultimately a tedious waste of time. More important than learning cursive script in the digital age, but certainly not on par with the importance of learning algebra.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it’s more important than algebra. The basics of addition and subtraction can be figured out on their own by anyone who’s ever spent money at the store, and a set of wrenches will teach you the essentials of decimal points and fractions, but without proper grammar the very building blocks of rationality turn into sand and you’ll become a slave to whatever voice shouts the loudest.
I’ve described the Medieval Trivium in my videos before, but given the recent solipsism in our political landscape it’s a topic worth revisiting. When the Universities first arose, the very foundation of a proper education – what you might think of as the “High School Diploma” prep-work needed before you went on to other topics – was broken down into three parts, each of which built off of the other: Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric.
Grammar: the first step in becoming educated was learning Latin – a language which uses the same grammar as English (and all other Western tongues), but was far less forgiving of errors. In studying Latin the student would not only learn how to organize their basic thoughts, they’d also achieve insight into the etymology of words. The student would practice by studying historical and theological texts, thus edifying their knowledge of history, and granting them a wider perspective on the culture they were born into.
These days we teach grammar through “See spot run”; bright colours and nonsense phrases which provide no secondary value. In those days the study of grammar was also the study of facts.
Logic: With the essential facts and definitions established, the student would next move on to Logic; the process of taking these facts, multiplying them together, and achieving a valid result. We still teach this to some extent in algebra class, but in a manner utterly divorced from significance or meaning. Questions such as “If train A leaves station B at time C…” abound, but they have little practical application outside of narrow disciplines. Even when universally applicable logic is taught – such as in the Engineering or Science fields, where an in depth understanding of Calculus and Statistics is needed – they remain divorced from the emotional, moral world.
The Philosophy of Logic and the Boolean Algebra used to program computers are identical – but few philosophers, and even fewer Engineers, realize this.
Rhetoric: This was the final step in achieving a basic medieval education. Grammar gave you the set of facts which made up the world; Logic allowed you to combine those facts to create new results; Rhetoric is how you put them into action.
These days “rhetoric” is used dismissively; it refers to an emotional argument with no factual or logical grounding, an argument which can be safely ignored. Ironically, rhetoric is also the only thing that is thoroughly taught in schools. I’d like to share with you a comment on the original video, from YouTube user MegaAvalon:
I was taught that modern day education was nothing but rhetoric at a very young age. In my 7th grade history class, the very first question I was asked on a test was a fill in the blank. The fill in the blank was as follows: Nazi Germany was an example of a ______ government. The answer I put in the blank was democratic. Long story short, the teacher accused me of being a “class clown” and she then sent me to the principal’s office.
If you don’t consider this a frightening display of ignorance on behalf of the school, then you’re likely one of modernity’s victims.
The articulate John C. Wright recently wrote about this, quoting from The Fedarlist:
>>But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better.
A lot of us who do know better —— including yours truly —— have fallen into the silly habit of substituting the weaponized word “gender” for the precise word “sex.” Now there’s hell to pay, since it’s infecting all manner of legislation and legal documents—all in the name of “equality,” another term that’s become equal to nothing.
While the topic at hand is “gender” neutral bathrooms, this is a phenomenon that keeps popping up in all of our modern discourse.
Take the word ‘hate’ for example. Let’s consider two situations:
- A mob of people screaming slurs, throwing food, and even going so far as to occasionally assault peaceful attendees of a political rally.
- A formal, written argument, that a particular set of life choices will result in negative outcomes for the individual who makes them.
Now let’s take the word tolerance:
- A private business is forced to do business with any and all customers, else they face fines, imprisonment, and even anonymous threats of death.
- A private business which sets their own standards of whom they do business with, but does not attempt to prevent others from doing business with those whom they shun, and those who do not like the business’s standards simply shun it in turn.
In other cases, words with utterly different meanings are conflated into the same thing; or a word with multiple definitions slips between them without warning. The word “Right”, for instance, can mean both inalienable freedom and entitlement. For instance:
- The Right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of conscience, et cetera.
- The Right to due compensation for injury sustained, or for entitlement promised.
These forms will be used interchangeably, despite their opposite nature. Someone will declare their right to free speech while also demanding the entitlement to that speech being supported by others financially; they will demand the right to life while also demanding the entitlement of subsidized healthcare.
Without grammar you cannot have logic; and without logic your rhetoric becomes the hoots and hollers of baboons flinging their feces. The recent confusion over bathrooms wouldn’t have happened if people had been using the correct word – sex – to describe the differences between men and women. By introducing the word gender – a word which only applied to nouns, not to people or animals, until the child molesting psychologist Dr Money perverted the language – the general public winds up being incapable of forming a coherent argument, and madness prevails.
This is what George Orwell was trying to communicate to you through 1984; when you successfully destroy the language, you destroy the ability to think. Saying Big Brother is ungood sounded just as silly in his novel as you or I saying Democrats are the real racists. It might be true, but to your average listener it is nothing but bafflegab.
Restoring the language starts with you; don’t succumb to this politically correct venom.
Spot on again. I love language but struggle furiously to learn my own native tongue (let alone latin? I am always trying.) I notice some trivium ‘teachers’ dismiss metaphysics, and theology is scorned. Sister Miriam Joseph’s “Trivium; Logic Grammar & Rhetoric” is scorned for Putting Logic first in the title (it IS the title) she has a reason she explains that I understand, and she is not lightweight on grammar. I was advised not to read her book, thus I had too. I think it is because she is religious. Anyhow, it was difficult to get through, and not a lot stuck. It does infuriate me, someone who loves language is so horribly ignorant because of a malicious intent to ‘dumb’ us/me down. I take heart that I know enough to keep tackling & learning.
I thinkthat mediaeval education was better than modern
The Online Etymology Dictionary contains some interesting information on the sense evolution of the word ‘gender.’ Note the reference to ‘feminist writing.’
http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=gender&allowed_in_frame=0
How do you figure that Nazi Germany was a democratic government?