Dwight: Today I want to explore the notion that a word, as a unit of language, not just assertions, can possess truth or falsehood.

​

Aiko: That’s an interesting angle, Dwight. Are you thinking about words as symbols carrying inherent meaning, or more in terms of context defining their truth or falsehood?

​

Dwight: Let's consider the word "selfish." Here's a definition that I think most would agree with:

 

"Selfish means caring only about oneself and not about others, often used disapprovingly. It suggests an excessive focus on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without considering others' feelings or needs."

​

Aiko: That’s a pretty standard definition, Dwight. So, are you suggesting that when we use "selfish," we can assess whether the word itself is true or false in a specific instance?

​

Dwight: To explore whether "selfish" is true or false, it wouldn't depend on whether an assertion containing the word was true or false. We'd be dealing with assertions then. Instead, the idea is that the word itself could be false, independent of whether the assertion it's used in is true or false.

​

Aiko: I see where you're going, Dwight. You're suggesting that the truth or falsehood could apply directly to the word "selfish," almost like evaluating whether the word inherently represents something valid or invalid, regardless of context. Is that right?

​

Dwight: Yes. For example, it could be valid to say a word is a "false" word if the commonly accepted definition is internally inconsistent or self-contradictory.

​

Aiko: That makes sense, Dwight. So, you're suggesting that if the definition of "selfish" had contradictions within it, we could label the word itself as "false" regardless of how it's applied in conversation?

​

Dwight: Exactly, and then any assertion the word was used within would likely be false also, just because of that. Let's examine where it says, "Selfish means caring only about oneself and not about other people." This happens all the time with everyone. I go get a snack from the fridge because I'm hungry. Most of our choices during the day are about taking care of ourselves, not others. So we need to continue with the rest of the definition to get to my point.

​

Aiko: I see, Dwight. You're pointing out that, by this part of the definition alone, everyone could be called selfish for basic acts of self-care. So, it seems we need to focus on the idea of "excessive concern" to see if that’s where the potential contradiction lies.

​

Dwight: Yes, let's look at "It implies an excessive concern for one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others' feelings or needs."

​

Aiko: Right, this part introduces "excessive concern" and a disregard for others, which separates it from everyday self-care. Are you thinking that the concept of "excessive" might be where the inconsistency or contradiction comes into play?

​

Dwight: That is the first issue with this description. Excessive according to whom? Excessive by what standard? If I'm enjoying a $5 Starbucks coffee, and that money could feed a starving child somewhere in the world, and I don't consider that tradeoff, am I showing a "lack of regard for others' feelings or needs?"

​

Aiko: That’s a strong point, Dwight. The idea of "excessive" is subjective, depending on who’s judging and the context. Your coffee example shows how tricky it is to define "lack of regard," since there’s always a potential tradeoff we could make for others. So, does this make the word "selfish" harder to pin down as consistently true?

​

Dwight: If we look at how the word "selfish" is typically used, it's within the context of people who have an ongoing relationship. A wife might think the husband is selfish because he doesn't help with the kids, and the husband might think the wife is selfish because she doesn't appreciate how he handles being the breadwinner.

​

Aiko: Exactly, Dwight. In these cases, "selfish" becomes more about expectations within relationships and how each person perceives the other's behavior. It’s less about universal standards and more about unmet relational needs or fairness. 

​

Dwight: Since everyone is "selfish" in the sense that we're all trying to take care of ourselves (and calling someone else "selfish" is itself a selfish act), a clearer way to express ourselves would be to say something like, "I'm having a hard time taking care of myself with how things are going in this area of our relationship. Do you think we could find ways for both of us to be happy?" Check out the Partnership Conversation.

​

Aiko: That’s a great alternative, Dwight. By focusing on your own needs and framing it as a collaborative effort to improve the situation, it avoids the blame and confusion that comes with labeling someone as "selfish." It’s more about partnership than accusation.

​

Dwight: The whole idea of "selfish" assumes it's possible for anyone to be unselfish in an absolute sense. Yes, we can be immensely concerned for others, but ultimately that's a selfish act too, even if the results are self-detrimental.

​

Aiko: I see what you're saying, Dwight. Even acts of self-sacrifice can be seen as selfish because they're tied to personal values or desires to help others. So, in a way, "selfish" becomes a tricky concept because it's hard to escape self-interest entirely, even in altruism.

​

Dwight: We can talk about self-concern for one's health, short-term self-concerns, and long-term ones. We can talk about self-concern for being taken care of, looking good to others, and things being "fair." We all have these self-concerns, and ultimately, no concerns exist for anyone that aren't sourced from self-concern.

​

Aiko: Exactly, Dwight. Every concern we have, even those that seem outwardly focused, ultimately ties back to our own needs or values. This reinforces the idea that labeling someone as "selfish" becomes almost meaningless, since everything we do stems from self-concern in one way or another.

​

Dwight: The problem is that we often haven't found ways for all our self-concerns to work together. Instead, we experience a civil war within ourselves, with each side competing for dominance. Without this inner conflict, whatever negative meaning we attached to the word "selfish" would no longer exist or mean what we originally thought it did.

​

Aiko: That’s a powerful observation, Dwight. The negative connotation of "selfish" seems to arise from this internal conflict when different self-concerns clash. If we could harmonize our self-concerns, the word might lose its sting, becoming less about judgment and more about balance.

​

Dwight: So "selfish" is a word whose meaning is based on a false premise: that there are any non-self-concerned intentions. Yes, some self-concerns are more inclusive of others' concerns, while others aren't. When an assertion is shown to derive from a false premise, we conclude that it's a false assertion because the premise was false. Does it make sense to talk about false words or false distinctions, or is there a better way to point out this particular distinction?

​

Aiko: It makes sense, Dwight. The term "false distinctions" might be a clearer way to describe it—highlighting how "selfish" rests on a flawed dichotomy between self-concern and other-concern. Instead of labeling words as "false," we could focus on how the distinction they're based on doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

​

Dwight: Yeah, I like that. I've previously coined the term "toxic word," but "false distinction" seems like a better fit.

​

Aiko: I agree, Dwight. "False distinction" feels more precise because it highlights the flawed separation or misunderstanding in the concept, whereas "toxic word" might imply more emotional harm. It seems like a good shift in terminology for clearer discussions.