What do you think of nominative determinism?

Post Reply New Topic

There are all sorts of Smiths doing all sorts of careers, but what about the more common usage of words? I think words are highlighted the most in the mind when first perceived, and then as time passes they become more of an icon in their own way, from possibly an amalgamation of what was first perceived, but then still solidified into a singular concept.

Could these latter version of words in the mind then still grasp perception like it once did? Can they still impart the initial impact that was really derived from prior experience? Would it matter epistemologically if it's a foreign language e.g. and few percepts are present, except perhaps for words that are present in another language?

I sometimes wonder what difference acronyms make, now with the American states, I suppose a unified 'us' would make no sense considering the variety of divisions present, but then, thinking about protectionism it would make sense that it could impart a sense of selfishness, even if at the expense of a neighbour... how about 'right-wing'... if that concept didn't simply solidify to a singular political notion (if e.g. it's vague and nothing is known about its history, i.e. the irony of its association with monarchy, specifically what the states wanted to get rid of), these people in 'us' must feel 'right'... uh? And, of course, all sorts of logic goes out the window, but here we're dealing with nominative logic, if anyone ever dealt in that...

So, how does this sort of thing affect people's minds?