.
I was having a conversation with someone today, and somehow we got into this interesting argument about how we define things.
My position was simple: if you really want to understand the essence of something, shouldn't you go back to where it began? The origin of the word, the reason it was created, what it was originally intended to mean.
I tend to think this way naturally. Whenever I come across a word I don't fully understand, one of the first things I want to know is its etymology. Where did this word come from? What did it originally mean? What was happening when it was coined?
Well, he his debate he used cultism as a example, a bases for his point.
The earliest Nigerian confraternities weren't created with the exact meaning we attach to “cultism” today. The Pyrates Confraternity, for instance, began as a student movement concerned with things like tribalism, oppression, corruption and social inequality.
But somewhere along the line, however, confraternities evolved, and became associated with violence, rivalry and criminality.
And that's where our disagreement became interesting.
My argument was: if we want to understand the essence of anything, shouldn't we trace it back to its origin and understand what it was created to be?
His argument was: But can you define something by what it was intended to be when what it has become is completely different? If a thing evolves so drastically that its present meaning bears little resemblance to its original purpose, then its current form should carry more weight than its history.
And honestly, both arguments made sense to me.
Because on one hand, ignoring the origin of something can mean ignoring the very thing that gives it context. But on the other hand, holding on too tightly to an origin can make us describe something by what it was rather than what it is.
Dearest reader, this got me thinking beyond who is right and who's wrong, but rather, when something evolves beyond its original intention, what should define it: where it came from, what it was meant to be, or what it has become?
What if, in trying to understand anything, we need to know both the beginning and the becoming.
What do you think?
@favvy_Okwansđź–¤.
Comments