The Problem of Redefinition.

PART 1: KINDNESS: A MUSE:

This essay is about redefinition. But leaving the topic for a bit, and to place the carpet on which the problem will walk: we must talk about kindness. It is widely deemed our best of traits—one we all try to embody while praising it with an almost divine reverence. Even those who don’t follow it—hell, even those who contradict it? They claim to live by it! We love the altruism in it: the selflessness, the vulnerability, and the self-sacrifice. Are those not demanding of praise?!

——//

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. PART 1: KINDNESS: A MUSE:

Section 1: what is kindness and intention?

Section 2: the role of selfishness.

2. PART 2: REDEFINITION: THE CURSE:

Section 1: The Danger of Redefinition

Section 2: The Solution.

Section 3: The Broader Implications.

——//

SECTION 1: WHAT IS KINDNESS AND INTENTION?:

As with all things philosophical, we must understand kindness by looking at what it isn’t. Kindness is praiseworthy only insofar as the intention is there: someone giving to the poor as a performance, helping the sick for social points, or being kind to specific individuals for something in return—is that person kind, or are only their actions kind? When we look at selflessness itself, shouldn’t the latter be true?

This entails some actions are kind with poor intentions, and others are kind with good intentions. And only the latter deserves praise.

But an assumption was made. Why must selflessness be a necessity? Because of the principles of trade. Picture this: I yearn for product B, and you have it. So I decided to initiate a trade. I give you my well-esteemed product A, and you give me your product B—which I desire more than the consequences of enacting or sacrificing A. Would that be kindness, or mere transaction? If we deem it kindness, we must deem all trades that require a person to sacrifice even a little bit kind—even if it was more beneficial to them.

And thus, kindness is revealed to be an action that is selfless, usually vulnerable, self-sacrificing, done with the intention of kindness itself and not self-gain. This definition is in no way new or revolutionary: you knew it, intuitively or conceptually. Why I articulated it is to prove a point: can any action be done selflessly with the intention of kindness itself alone?

SECTION 2: THE ROLE OF SELFISHNESS:

Most people live their lives, enacting innumerable amounts of actions. Most of which, the intention isn’t really known; or worse, only thought to be known. And the weight this holds is immense. Suppose you get to talk to a murderer. This murderer believes they weren’t just innocent but right and even kind in their actions. The issue is, they genuinely believe it. With utter conviction and no deception. However, in spite of this, most people would argue there is a deeper intention here: that kindness was merely something they whispered to themselves, the only whisper saving them from facing the silence that elucidates all.

But what we condemn in the murderer is in all of us: many of our kind actions can be disguised selfishness. The only difference is the killer’s cloak isn’t even kindness, making it harder to believe. But for you—the kind person—you may very well enact kindness; the cloak here is authentic, but you are both covering the same thing. Selfish intentions. This contradicts the definition above, which invalidates kindness.

PART 2: REDEFINITION: THE CURSE:

SECTION 1: THE DANGER OF REDEFINITION:

“No, no—that, that doesn’t change anything! Just because it may be a little bit selfish doesn’t make it meaningless!” And, oh, how this is the most dangerous of war cries! Instead of accepting their loss, facing the truth of its meaninglessness, and looking down the abyss with integrity, they kick. They scream. And they resist! But worst of all, they redefine. For these aren’t just common people, no, no—these include philosophers too!

But this issue’s gravity doesn’t just burn meaning; it burns through even truth itself with its heat. Words build up emotional baggage. It is how linguistics evolves. For example, hearing the word strength revitalizes most who hear it; it is a word with a powerful connotation because for millennia, it has been desired. Meanwhile, the word weakness does the opposite; it is powerless, and it has been undesired for millennia. Suppose strength meant X—yet I change it to Y. The result is brutal. Y gets all the benefits that X took an unimaginable amount of time to build up, riling up the same reaction while having done nothing. This is, in every sense, intellectual theft!

SECTION 2: THE SOLUTION:

Yet, there is an honest way: imagine you, the honest thinker, say, “Oh my fiddly doo! Kindness has died. But you know what? I still believe that doing actions that are selfless, usually vulnerable, and self-sacrificing, even with selfish intentions, is meaningful. Hmm… I got it! Instead of being a thief and stealing the intellectual prestige of an existing word, which only built that prestige for other reasons. Reasons contradictory to mine. I will make a new word and assign the value judgment ‘meaningful’ to it without distorting it!” And here you witness a level of honesty the world refuses to live up to! (Even though, I would love to add, it is more honest to not make a new term at all and just accept kindness’s death!)

What was done differently above? Firstly, we made a new word in which we added the term instead of redefining the source. Secondly, we introduced value judgments. These are labels like “good,” “bad,” “meaningful,” “meaningless,” and so on. They add a value, or lack thereof, good or bad. This leads to the new term not stealing from its source.

SECTION 3: THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS:

“But is not redefinition essential in countless contexts?!” You cry! And that cry is not unfounded: in religious contexts, in argumentative contexts, or in undecided contexts—yes. But those are very specific, usually before the term has built an emotional baggage. The line isn’t very blurry: with huge, culturally shifting emotional baggage? Keep them as they are, or revert them back to the oldest definition we have and keep it that way. Words that don’t need to be redefined but are for comfort and not necessity? Keep them as they are.

As you probably have noticed by now, it isn’t about kindness; it is about intellectual honesty. This issue defies clarity, and that defiance is not tolerable in the pursuit of truth. The biggest irony in philosophy lies in this: philosophers revel in talking about how little we know, how little we can know, and how unclear everything is; it is, quite literally, their favourite topic. Meanwhile, instead of focusing that energy on building something clear, they choose to mystify. Because while confusion hurts, clarity hurts more to these cowards we call “truth-seekers.”