What a sexist language!

I'm talking about English of course!  So many of the words in the English language apply to only one gender.  You know what I'm talking about.  Policeman, fireman, mailman, man hole cover, manmade, mankind... just to name a few.  This is a problem.

Some of you may say "Hey! The English language is androcentric! It has been since its inception. There's really nothing we can do about it!"  Others may say, "Hey! We can't be the only ones who have an androcentric language!" neither of these are good excuses NOT to do something.

Here's why, admittedly the English language has been androcentric for a while. However the English language has seen many revisions over the years.  Don't believe me?  Go open a Shakespearean play or sonnet.  Changes in the language happen colloquially and eventually become the norm.  So change is possible.

As for English not being the only androcentric language, I'm sure it's not! But it's our language! We should make the effort to correct what is wrong with it!

So how do we fix this?  Well sometimes its easy.  Say firefighter instead of fireman, police officer instead of policeman, mail carrier instead of mailman.  Instead of man kind, humanity; man made, fabricated.  Not so hard.  (I have some personal objections against saying server instead of waiter/waitress though that's simply because server sounds too close to servant for my taste)

Now the real problem lies with finding an appropriate substitute for  generic pronouns (ie. It is important for the customer to pay before he leaves the store with his items) .  He or she, he/she, s/he are all too inefficient, and the media and business world is too male dominated for the use of one's own gender as a pronoun (I would use he, while Carmerio would use she) to be effective.  Some suggest that gynocentric language should be adopted since 52% of the world's population is female. This doesn't seem fair either.  Our language should not favour either gender. 

Greek and Latin found good ways of getting around this issue.  The Greek solution comes in the form of the prefix anthropo-.  However this does not work as a pronoun.  The Latin solution is no more feasible (for obvious reasons) as it is Homo, as in Homo Sapiens, Homo Erectus.

I have no clue what the solution may be, but I think the internet is the best forum for the creation of a new word, because where else are all the english speakers of the world able to convene?

Any ideas? Post them!

St Anselm and the Cheeseburger

St. Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033 – 1109)

I warned you this would happen! I did! See! So don't blame me if you didn't read the first post!
 

Ladies and Gentlemen I would like to introduce you to a fella named Anselm.  Anselm was a Catholic Archbishop who thought a lot about God.  One day Anselm decided that pure blind faith was not enough for the masses, so he went about the task of proving God's existence.  This is what he came up with.

1. God is the greatest imaginable being.
2. God exists in the imagination (because we can imagine God)
3. Existing in reality is greater than existing only in the imagination.
4. If God only exists in the imagination then we can imagine a being greater than God (ie. a being with all of God's attributes but one who exists in reality)
5. If we can imagine a being greater than God this is a contradiction (there can't be a being greater than the greatest imaginable being)
∴
6. God exists in reality.

Convinced? I hope not!  This argument can be used to prove the existence of ANYTHING! No matter how impossible it is for that thing to exist.  So long as you preface the thing you want to reason into existence with the quality of being the "greatest imaginable"of its kind, hey presto it exists! 

I could argue that there is a cheeseburger that is so delicious it is the greatest imaginable cheeseburger.  This cheeseburger will actually make you lose weight, and make you more sexually attractive in all respects!  Hell this cheeseburger can even make you fly. Why not? It's the greatest imaginable cheeseburger for Jeebus sake!

The great thing is, according to Anselm's logic the cheeseburger HAS to exist! It obviously exists in the imagination 'cause you were all just imagining it! (I heard your stomachs growling!) And if it doesn't exist in reality then it's not the greatest imaginable cheeseburger.

Now let's move away from cheeseburgers because this is starting to make my stomach growl!


Since you can seemingly talk anything into existence with this argument it must be flawed!

Bertrand Russell felt that the flaw was in Anselm's assumption that existence in reality is better than existence in the imagination alone.  Who am I to argue with Bertrand Russell? Well for the sake of argument I'm going to give Anselm his first three premises (including the one that Russell had an issue with).

1. God is the greatest imaginable being.
2. God exists in the imagination.
3. Existing in reality is better than existing only in the imagination.

 This is where Anselm runs into some trouble.  His next premises are as follows:


4. If God only exists in the imagination then we can imagine a being greater than God (ie. a being with all of God's attributes but one who exists in reality)
5. If we can imagine a being greater than God this is a contradiction (there can't be a being greater than the greatest imaginable being)

Stop.  Is this really a contradiciton?

What is necessary for this "being greater than God" (BGG) to be... well, greater than God?  The BGG must actually exist! The only way for the BGG to be greater than God is for the BGG to exist in reality when God only exists in the imagination.  If the BGG doesn't exist in reality then it has all the same attributes as God.  So the BGG is actually a contradiction.  Lost? Well let's use Anselm's reasoning.

1.  The being greater than God, must by definition be greater than God.
2.  The being greater than God is not greater than God.
3. This is a contradiciton.
∴
4. The being greater than God does not exist.  

To put it simpler (in one way, and probably more complex in another) if the BGG has all the same attributes as God, then in what way do they remain distinct?

If the being greater than God does not exist then what is Anselm's argument?
So now we can all be happy again! God still doesn't exist and the Christians still have their imaginary God!

Now to find that Cheeseburger!