Words do not have objective meaning

Thank you so much for accepting! I look forward to what I'm sure will be a fun and educational debate. I am quoting here a bit of an essay that I wrote (I may publish this): "That pure knowledge is often portrayed as something objective strikes me as ironic, since the objective is opposite understanding. Objectivity by nature requires the systematic removal of all those aspects of reality that bring about bias in order to view reality through a "neutral" lens. Unfortunately this removal of bias undermines the very faculties one requires to perceive and form judgments. Objectivity attempts to account for the sight of a thing without eyes, the sound experienced by one without ears, and knowledge obtained by a being without a consciousness: in short, an object. The testimony of an "objective person" carries an equal weight to the testimony of a coffee cup." As far as words go, the idea that they are objective is a prime example of humankind's self-deception. Nietzsche was quite right when he stated: "Every word is a preconceived judgment" [1]. Prejudice is inherent in language. Language is a socially-constructed phenomenon, but humanity, in order to give itself authority, has forgotten that this is the case: "[Mankind's] method is to treat man as the measure of all things, but in doing so he again proceeds from the error of believing that he has these things immediately before him as mere objects. He forgets that the original perceptual metaphors are metaphors and takes them to be the things themselves." The word "door" is meaningless in itself, but only a metaphor for the real concept. By treating words as objective, one imagines that words are real instead of socially-constructed, that they are reality instead of human constructs that create reality. The way that we treat definitions as absolute highlights these issues. If one were to believe that words have meaning in objective and not social terms, one would engage in a system that is not only wrong but corrupt. Here are some problems with it: I. The context of words partially determines its meaning. If this is true, then such words do not have inherent (objective) meaning, but is instead assigned meaning by its viewer (who is be definition subjective). Letters do not have inherent meaning in a word, and likewise sentences do not have meaning independently of its context. "Juliet is the sun" would be taken literally in the context of a scientific journal, but figuratively in a Shakespearean sonnet. Likewise, a sentence cannot be understood simply by adding up its parts (words). There are 49 definition of "good" in dictionary.com, not including idioms. Obviously, the meaning of the words itself changing in relation to the social context. Assigning words inherent meaning ignores shadows of meaning in complete sentences. It would be like trying to grasp the picture on a television by looking at only millions of disorganized multicolored pixels. II. Additionally, the way words work depends on their context in such a simple way as word order. This is Miss South Carolina with her words reordered: "I personally believe, that U.S. Americans, are unable to do so, because uh, some, people out there, in our nation don"t have maps. and uh" I believe that our education like such as in South Africa, and the Iraq, everywhere like such as" and, I believe they should uh, our education over here, in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa, and should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us." Vs: "I personally believe, that U.S. Americans, are unable to do so, because uh, some, people out there, in our nation don"t have maps. and uh" I believe that our education like such as in South Africa, and the Iraq, everywhere like such as" and, I believe they should uh, our education over here, in the U.S. should help the U.S. or should help South Africa, and should help the Iraq and Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future, for us." If you are still not convinced that order matters, read this topic backwards. Words do not have objective meaning, but rely on sentence structure for their meaning. III. Retention of Hierarchies. That words are objective is a guise under which societal powers-that-be use definitions to perpetuate status quo hierarchies of authority and subjugation. These powers utilize the very notion that definitions directly access meaning/truth to perpetuate social norms. 1): Specific definitions reinforce problematic societal distinctions a. The legal-political definition of "marriage" is hetero-normative. Through the very definition queer couples are excluded, which perpetuates straight superiority and normalcy. b. Societal definitions of "household, family, and lady" are patriarchal; they perpetuate male dominance and female subjectivity. In society, the father is the head of the household, the mother takes care of children and cooks, and ladies cannot play football. 2) Even if without a specific definition, the idea that there is a meaningful definition that accesses reality also perpetuates oppressive standards. a. The belief that there even exists a meaningful "Definition of race""implies an actual distinction where one does not exist. This assumption helps justify racial discrimination through the very stereotype that "there is a difference." 3) Definitions can not only reinforce social distinctions but also MASK social distinctions that are unfavorable to the powers-that-be. a. The societal "definition of animal" actually contradicts the biological distinction of Kingdom Animalia in order to elevate the species Homo Sapien above non-human animals. 4) By arguing that words are objective, my opponent assumes the validity of these status quo definitions. IV: Stagnant existence. 1) The myth that definitions have objective meaning makes a person's place in society stagnant"validating the labels that society gives such as: "fa__t" "crazy" "retarded" "criminal" "female" "delinquent" "handicapped" and suggesting that they are inherently true and unchanging. Assigning "inherent" meaning to socially-constructed words forces people into boxes and offers them no epistemological space for queerness or re-construction. 2) The word "chicken" is the same for a live animal and a dead scrap of food in contemporary English language. Rather than allowing "chickens" to be that-which-can-be-eaten, we must first deconstruct this particular association before we can reasonably talk about the value of non-human life. Unfortunately my opponent assume that language is inherently "true" a priori, which forces arguments against eating chicken out of debate rounds, and in turn supports the cruelties of factory farms. 3) Additionally, status quo language is believed by most humans to include only humans. By supposing that anthropocentric language is objective we pretend that the screams of non-human animals as they are painfully slaughtered are incomprehensible. V: End of Sympathy: By assigning words inherent meaning, the my opponent validates the "self" and "other" distinction, which has a number of effects: 1) Decrease in empathy. Psychologists found that one must relate to suffering of others to help others [2]. 2) Foundation of racism: racism is founded on the notion of in-groups and out-groups. We must not validate this distinction, but by reinforcing categorization through their misuse of definitions the government team has done so. 3) One cannot treat another as oneself with the "otherized" framework. The belief that "others" are fundamentally different is what allows rape and violence and the destruction of the environment"these ideas are based on the notion that the "object" and "other" are entirely distinct from the "subject" and "self". [1]http://archive.org... [2]http://www.psychologytoday.com...