Language/Reality

Superstition is a strange concept; everyone has a general idea of what it is, but without looking it up online, I was unable to define it. The reason for this is that "superstition" is a word that is defined by its use. There can be no finite definition of what a superstition is because its assimilation is that superstitions themselves are based on beliefs. Beliefs, however, should all theoretically be on equal footing-- in that they can be neither proven nor disproven. (Those who choose to remain in belief of things that have been disproven are choosing to remain ignorant.) Thus ultimately, what is superstition and what is not is determined by the general consensus.

Upon Googling "define: superstition," I came up with several interesting results. The first definition was provided by Princeton's WordWeb: "an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear". Ignoring irrelevant references to famous (or not so famous) media, several entries defined superstition as "irrational," while others used the similarly derogatory noun "ignorance", pertaining to the cause of superstition. (Might I add that several of the definitions provided came from poorly constructed religious websites.) Yet, the saving grace of free-flowing knowledge, the wikis pulled through. Unbiased in wording, Wiktionary defines superstition as, "A belief, not based on human reason or scientific knowledge, that future events may be influenced by one's behavior in some magical or mystical way". Although this definition lacks the strong negative denotation (although it's really connotation owing to the fact that there can be no finite definition), the preposition with which it ends, "in some magical or mystical way," has an air of dismissal owing to incredulity. (It might as well say, "in some magical, mystical, mumbo-jumbo way".) Ultimately, our beloved Wikipedia triumphs over the dominator attempt to bias; "Superstition is a credulous belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge." Here we see explicitly that superstitions are believable-- which they must be, for them to be believed by even one single person.

Being the seeker of knowledge that I am, I had to read further on Wikipedia. What fascinated me most, of course, was the union of the physical and nonphysical worlds, of spirit and science-- "Superstition and psychology". Apparently BF Skinner, in conditioning pigeons, noticed what he concluded were superstitions; the pigeons were fed intermittently and began to associate a particular behavior-- different from pigeon to pigeon-- with feeding. The pigeons then repeated that behavior, whether or not they received food, sometimes as many as 10,000 times without reinforcement. Odd as this may seem (in humans and pigeons), natural selection provides a simple, reasonable explanation for superstition; on the off chance of making a correct association, the benefits outweigh the negatives of the incorrect association. For example, should one choose to believe the superstition, "If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back," the benefits of perhaps not breaking your mother's back (should the association be correct) GREATLY outweigh the negatives of unnecessarily avoiding stepping on cracks (should the association be incorrect).

To sum everything up thus far, superstition is roughly the belief in that which cannot be proven (which, according to the assimilation of “proven,” must be done with science). Furthermore, it exists to some degree (whether it be our belief or disbelief in it) in all humans as part of natural selection (which is course of nature, meaning that which is natural, ultimately meaning nature.) So what does all of this mean for language? Being that much of what we experience (which is to say through the “self” or in the “mind”) isn’t tangible, we give life to it, shine light upon it with identifiers or forms—words and symbols. Unlike the word “tiger,” we cannot point to “love” in order to define it, because much like “superstition,” it is only through use of the word (or idea it represents) that it assimilates a rough definition. Much like a meme, the definition of a word grows into itself exponentially through use, in that each use of it in a certain way piles on top of itself, faster than it did the time before. It is in this manner that language creates reality.

Should a person choose to create something out of the blue, only through repetition of that something can it become “real.” Be it a new word, a new form of “art” (in quotations because who is to say what is and is not “yet” art?), a new religion or philosophy, can any of these things be truly “created”? In one sense, nothing is ever “new” or “created;” it merely comes to existence from a preexisting possibility. On the other hand, in order to “come to existence,” these functions, originally without form, must take forms—in fact, they must be given forms to come to be known as “real.” Take something as simple (or perhaps as complex?) as a unicorn for example. Before the “inventor” of the unicorn came along, the form (word) “unicorn” meant nothing and the function (idea) “unicorn” meant nothing—which is absolutely not to say the function did not exist. In order for the function “unicorn” to have become “real,” it had to be given the form “unicorn” and all of the sensations (visuals, sounds, etc…) that now come with “unicorn” to those who “know” what a unicorn is. When the “unicorn” was finally “invented” it became real-- the function came to take said forms; however, it was not until the general population became aware of the form of “unicorn” that the function of “unicorn” could become “real” according to the assimilation that what is “real” is decided by the consensus. Generally speaking, at this point in time, everyone knows what a unicorn is—it is a real concept, but still some would argue it is not “real” because it is not based on reason or knowledge—that which is observable. As logic follows, that would make “unicorns” “superstition,” but like all superstitions, they become real as we give them life through words.