Re: deception in perception--slander

From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Fri Jul 26 2002 - 10:21:43 EDT

  • Next message: Vernon Jenkins: "Re: deception in perception"

    Stuart,
         You write:
    >
    > It is interesting how that definition, 'to slander someone', ties in
    > with the message I was conveying about how we often too quickly jump
    > to (incorrect) conclusions about the meaning of certain posts.
    >
    > I do think that the contraction I provided, that devil = do evil, is
    > pertinent also, even if it is not the true delineation of the word.

      Bob's comments:

         "Slander" is a term both in theology in law. In both it means the
    malicious utterance of a falsehood about someone in the presence of other
    people ("libel" is the term used for written communication, but let's ignore
    the difference and use "slander" for both as you seem to be doing in your
    comment below). So, in order words to be slanderous (libelous), they must
    be uttered with malice and with intent to do harm to another by falsely
    characterizing them or something they have said or done.

         Just how, in your mind, does :"slander" fit with "jumping to incorrect
    conclusions" about the meaning of certain post you have read here? I find
    it hard to believe that you really mean to insinuate that those whom you
    think have incorrectly concluded things about what others have written are
    acting out of malice, or that they are acting with intent to harm the person
    whom they are disagreeing with by uttering what they know to be a false
    conclusion. (This is aside from the question as to whether the conclusions
    you have in mind have in fact been jumped to, and incorrectly so.) If I
    thought you meant by "slander" what the word does mean, then, I would ask
    for a bill of particulars from what you have read. I certainly have not
    discerned in any recent posting by participants here any intentional act of
    falsely and maliciously characterizing another's posting or person. So, I
    disagree that the word "slander" "ties in with" jumping to incorrect
    conclusions.

         In medieval moral theology, the sins of the tongue are classified as the
    worst of sins, and slander as the worst of the worst, because it arises from
    envy and thus is directly related to the devil, who is driven by envy
    towards God and anything good. I think there is a lot to be said for this
    point of view, and that is one reason I have gone on at length about this
    matter. And why I wanted to make the point strongly that when we are
    judging others, we really should be careful about the words we use to judge
    them and find the right words to convey what we mean.

         On a less serious note, your reading of "devil" as "do evil" is an
    example of what linguists call "popular" or "folk" etymology: the word is
    reminiscent of another word or phrase but linguistly speaking is an
    incorrect derivation, for the words are unrelated as words. Perhaps some
    preachers have made this same verbal connection and used it in sermons.
    Certainly "devil" and "evil" have a connection in terms of subject matter
    but not in linguistics, as the latter is derived ultimately from a
    reconstructed Indo-European form and the former from Greek.

    Grace and peace,
    Bob Schneider



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 26 2002 - 11:42:48 EDT