David McFadzean wrote:
>Here's my simplistic analysis of the great faith debate so far:
>
>Pro-side: "It is counter-productive to denigrate faith in general
>because the word has many meanings, some bad (and admittedly
>irrational) and some good, even necessary. If we want the CoV
>to appeal to a majority of the population, we have to accept
>faith."
>
>Con-side: "It is counter-productive to use the same word for
>distinctly different meanings (at least in our own discussions)
>because it causes confusion, miscommunication, equivocation
>and generally wastes a lot of time and effort that could be
>better devoted to more relevant, interesting discussions."
I like it. (Although I agree with KMO that "accommodate" might be better than "accept" in the first case.) And when phrased in those terms I can come down equally on either side of the debate. Although I have no way of knowing (yet) if all those on the "con-side" see it in the same way.
I'm not a big fan of group-specific jargon--unless it's easily adopted by
the "common people" and just group-specific as the first stop on its way to
becoming culturaly pervasive. "Phaith" has some advantages in that regard.
By its similar spelling to phat and Phish (and Phranc--is she still making
records?) it invokes that whole hipster counter-culter vibe that sells so
well with the kiddies these days:
"Keepin that old-school phaith alive."
"What's so funny about phaith, love and understanding?"
"Back off, Holmes! Ya' best not be steppin' on my phaith, muthafucka!!!"
"Virions don't have <God>, they just have phaith."
"Phaith protect me!"
"Shi-i-i-t, that's right--you know, I can do a-a-all things through my
phaith, baby."
It's sheer marketing genius!
>I fully support coming up with a new word for this profound concept,
>but would prefer one that could be used in spoken discourse in
>addition to writing.
"psycognate"? "dicarefide"? "prefidemise"?
-Prof. Tim