THE SCIENCE OF DEFINITIONS by Colin Mulholland

Good intellectuals know when they are right, but the greatest intellectuals are the ones who know when they are wrong. I myself have my moments of un-clarity. But these are the things that writers, philosophers and intellectuals must see as an advantage. For your one moment of failure is the assurance of an iron clad future for the mind. I bring this up, for today's topic about words and their multiple meanings. The biggest, ESPECIALLY in political science, the word Catalyst.

CATALYST: noun

noun: catalyst; plural noun: catalysts

1. a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.
2.  

   a person or thing that precipitates an event.

 

"He's using his roots as a catalyst" was the comment I made on a post during a friendly debate over a status I made in which politician Mike Huckabee made the statement: "I'm blue collar, not blue blooded". Now my friends, your humble narrator admits when he is wrong and therefore I was still not yet aware the phrase "Blue Blooded" was  a widely known phrase for "those of noble/ wealthy birth" I literally took it to mean he meant his blood is forever red. But after further explanation from a few facebook friends, I hit clarity. From there I furthered my statement to the belief that it was still a rather crass statement, and that it sounded like imperialist hokum to the extent that they would try to separate themselves from commoners. I also thought it was rather crass for a politician to be saying that. Even if he remembers his roots you'd think that the years of political work and his duty to local government would, in turn, make him "blue blooded". The idea of a politician using "positive self imagery" to further his gain is nothing new, but to use the working class as a scapegoat to further his advantages is a weak sediment. Not all of the working class even cares for politics to begin with. The smart ones know that all politicians lie, and that nothing good comes out of either party, so long as the politicians find ways to keep taking our money. Being a working class intellectual myself, I came to the realization of this many years ago and in turn became an anarchist.

 

After further debate about the Blue Blooded issue (which to be honest is a stupid topic for debate) came to a stand still once I used the word "Catalyst". My friend was really confused as to why I used that word to describe what Huckabee was doing, so simply as I could I explained that A catalyst (as mentioned above) is a substance that causes a chemical reaction to come about quicker. A substance is any matter of which a person or thing exists. Therefore in my use of catalyst the primary substance is Mike Huckabee, the secondary substance, his statement. He's using his statement to cause the metaphorical "chemical reaction" to gain votes in his favor. A lot of people have told me it is not a good idea to mix ideologies. The first time was when I made my artwork for "Her Body Matters Too" the art piece I did that stated concern over the fact animal rights should also be a feminist issue, and if you have done the many hours of research I have, theoretically, it makes sense! In the matter of the word catalyst I was told the same thing. But I've always liked using scientific terms if I feel they fit. Let us not forget the term political science is a form of science. It may not be the same as the sciences we all know but it includes the same principles: like "for every action there is an equal or opposite reaction", and like all sciences, it starts with a hypothesis. I feel it's fair to relate the two when necessary. I also feel if you can find a philosophical connection among words and their definitions, you can make them work in just about anything.