March 10, 2008
-
Which is more powerful: actions or words?
Actions.
Now if you know me, right now you’re probably doing a double take. What the? You’re thinking. How could I, who live and breathe on words, who love words deep down to the bottom of my heart, who could easily spend every second of every day of all my life simply writing words and be totally happy. How could I of all people say that actions are more powerful than words?
Several of my friends have already chimed in, in favor of words too. They think actions are important but words are more powerful overall. A reasonable perspective, it sounds.
But sorry guys. You’re all wrong.
And you know what, I didn’t even have to read your posts to know that you were wrong. There’s simply no argument that you could have made that could possibly be convincing.
You see, this isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of simple logic. And I’m way too much of a logician to commit the fallacy of saying that words are more powerful than actions.
Let me explain.
Words do not exist in a vacuum. Every instance of a word is a case where it is being spoken, heard, written, typed, read, thought about, used, considered, measured, tasted, spit in, or sucked out. In short, words are intrinsically tied to actions. They are so very closely related to actions that it is not unreasonable to say that words are actions. That’s not precisely accurate, but suffice it to say that if you are talking about words having “power” at all you are of necessaity speaking of the action association of words. IE using, saying, thinking, or otherwise interacting with words. Words independent of actions are not only less powerful than actions, they have no power whatsoever. They cann’t properly be said to really have any substance whatsoever. They can’t even be conceived up or understood since those too are actions.
So for shorthand we’ll talk about words-in-action using the term “words” for the rest of this piece. OK, now let’s ask the question, “are words more powerful than actions?”
Here’s the thing though. We already established that words ARE actions. So it is logically strictly IMPOSSIBLE for words to be more powerful than actions. Period.
The only possibilities that remain are that either words and actions are equally powerful or actions are more powerful than words. To prove that actions are more powerful than words we need only find one SINGLE example of a non-word-action having a power that words lack. (Because of necessity all powers that words have, actions have too)
OK. HEre we go. There’s a pen lying on the floor next to my desk. I lean over pick it up and put it on my desk. Easy enough. That was a non-word-action. OK, I’ll drop it on the floor again. Now I need to replicate that same effect using a word action. Here we go.
“Up You!”
“Get on the table you damn pen!”
“I said arise my beautiful wondrous pen and come to me to do my bidding!”
Huh. The pen’s still lying on the floor.
And there you have it. Actions are more powerful than words. And everyone who said words is simply dead wrong.
Of course your correct response to this post should be somethign along the lines of
“Oh stop playing with words!”
And you’d be right. I should be being more serious. I should be answering the question in the spirit in which it was asked. That would be a more meaningful action as it were.
Eh. I don’t really feel like it. Maybe tomorrow.
Guess I’m just too lazy. I’m really a word lover at heart.
I just answered this Featured Question, you can answer it too!
Comments (10)
very clever… and funny too. nice work
Awesome post! Actions > words.
Language is the slowest form of communication
all very true. But words shape the way people react to actions. Example: “She got so drunk she blacked out and that guy had sex with her” versus “She got so drunk she blacked out and that guy raped her” – Same event. Same actions. Completely different power. Words shape how we think and perceive different actions. They can either add to or take away from the force of the action.
My opinion: words and actions are mutually dependent. They’re empty by themselves.
Very funny. True, all words require action as a medium to exercise its
power. Thinking & writing are good examples you gave. But does necessity equate
to power over the powerful? If you can’t exist without your lungs, would you
say your lungs are more powerful (or just as powerful) as yourself. I agree with elvesdoitbetter that both are mutually dependent.
And this thought seems to echo with your assertion that words are
actions. But I didn’t hear a counter-assertion that actions are words too.Words without action are empty. I think enough fq responses emphasize
this and the dead horse is beaten to a bloody pulp purée. What are actions without
words though? This is really hard for me to grasp, and the more I think about
it the more it seems to be acts of physics. Actions without words seem like billiard
balls colliding. When I act without thinking the words to act, it seems more
like something that happens… like a heartbeat. So this leads to more interesting
questions.Can a person think without words?If free will exists, can a person have free will without words?Can actions truly have power without free will?
@elvesdoitbetter -
@moonlitsage -
Hey you two, that wasn’t a serious response. I was being very tongue-in-cheek. Maybe I’ll give a serious response later.
But as for your objections. hmmm. *puts on philosopher cap again*
The sex example is a clear cut case where words are actions. The two variant conceptions of the event that took place can be formed in the mind and thought about. The forming of those thoughts are actions. So the ability to change our understanding of an event isn’t a power words have that actions don’t. It is even conceivable that the two understandings of the event could exist without the words at all. That is, you can have a very negative sense or feeling with regards to the details of the occurrence or you could have a neutral understanding of it.
The lungs example is a case where we are talking about two different part/whole relationships. I am not saying that words contain actions as a component in the ay that your body contains your lungs, but instead I am saying that words are intrinsically linked to the actions that manifest them. To give an example of this kind of link, think about a human body without a mind (and spirit or soul if you believe in that stuff). Can we properly call that thing a human being? I think not because we’ve lost the most essential components of what it means to be a human being. Or to use a sillier example, it’s like saying something is water even though it isn’t wet.
So yeah I’d say lungs are less powerful than you. But the relationship between lungs and you is much weaker than the relationship between words and actions. So saying that doesn’t really get us anywhere.
I didn’t say actions are words too very explicitly and for a very good reason.
Because I think that’s bullcrap.
I don’t think they are mutually dependent. I don’t think that at all.
This is sort of like the tree falls in the forest kind of a thing. If you believe that actions are word then you believe that that damn tree doesn’t make any sound at all unless there exists someone to hear it. But what an arrogant perspective. Of course it makes a sound! I cannot conceive of the idea that it doesn’t make a sound. Why would sound cease to exist just because we human beings aren’t around to make it exist?
Likewise with actions. If humanity had never developed language. If there very literally was *no such thing* as a word, would we suddenly be rendered immobile, unconscious, and without the ability to engage in any kind of an action whatsoever? I think not. Similarly if humanity didn’t exist, nor any language wielding race exist, to be able to describe the events of the big bang and the creation of the universe, that universe would still have been created. Those actions would have occurred. It would exist. I guess you could say there’s some almighty God creature giving words to everything so that it can exist even without humans. But that sounds like a cop out to me.
“Can a person think without words?”
Sure. Why not? Or else what does the word “indescribable” mean?
“If free will exists, can a person have free will without words?”
Yup. It seems a little beyond the scope of this discussion, but right now I’m not seeing what dependence free will could possibly have on words.
“Can actions truly have power without free will?”
Of course! My computer doesn’t have free will but it does stuff and it’s fvcking powerful!
Haha. That’s it for now. Let’s debate some more!
Maybe I’ll answer the question seriously in a later blog post.
@nephyo - You’re points are all quite valid. Though I apparently didn’t communicate what I was trying to say very well. I don’t think there can’t be action without words or language. Hellen Keller could still move and do things, ya? I was not really focussing on the physics of an action as much as the significance.
Like the tree falling in the wooods example. Of course it makes a sound! But how does it really matter if there’s no one around to hear it? Every action can be reinforced or degraded through words. And like I said in one of my entries recently, words don’t mean a thing without actions to back them up. Words don’t equal actions (or vice versa), but they depend on each other for meaning.
Interesting!
I see this is an old post … I guess it’s kinda cool to be able to do a search and come across a blog post written 2 + year ago!
Have a nice day!
Decent perspective…I tend to agree…only to the extent that actions provide a more powerful example than words.
The objective, or what one intends to accomplish, ultimately dictate if words or actions will convey more power.
If a mortar is inbound, headed for a platoon of Marines, describe a single, or series of actions, that commands the platoon out of harms way. Frantically move to a other location and you’d catch the confused glimpse of your platoon just before they bought the farm. Order them to “fall in” “right face” “forward march”…..and finally “double time, march” and realize the true power of words.
Don’t analyize the example, rather examine the principal.
Hhhmm…I’m for Thought. It precedes both