I’m not a professional linguist, but it does seem to me that language tends to get more casual, sloppy, and imprecise over time, that words that once had a very specific meaning often become more generalized and widely applied to things that are similar but not actually the same.
On one level that’s probably fine – it’s just naturally what happens when millions of people in different contexts use words and phrases billions of times. But the downside is that without some modicum of precision we can’t communicate well and are more easily misunderstood; people often think we mean something we actually don’t.
Most of the time that don’t signify, but sometimes it does.
I’ll illustrate with three terms that I’ve been thinking a lot about lately, for different reasons: consciousness, socialism, and antisemitism – the first two in this post and the third in the next.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
The Hidden Life of Trees by Peter Wohlleben would have you thinking trees have social status with certain esteemed ones being kept alive by other trees long after they’ve become what would appear to be a mere stump!
Terms like Nazi and Racist are used very differently these days than when I was growing up too. Politicians openly make decisions based on race and that is acceptable but i remember in the 60’s the goal was a ‘raceless’ society. Many traditional derogatory terms these days just mean “you believe differently than me” and have been watered down so much they are just tuned out. But some of the problem is of course the politics and that you can almost always find someone extreme to portray as the typical for some group. For example, your mention of the social democrats: i am very certain I have heard some… like one in New York, say property ownership is white supremacy, pushing for government to take over housing, etc. I saw a couple being interviewed saying the government should control production. Given people that win office often say what they need to say to get elected, it is understandable to question any politician or groups real motives and goals. I am just saying no matter what side you examine, the rhetoric and terms are typically using the extreme and not mainstream examples.
Our “frenemy” AI (I’m using Gemini) informs me that Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists have, in the end, two different objectives. The former considers capitalism essential, albeit flawed and requiring constant management. The latter sees capitalism as ultimately “going away” in favor of a new system. So I take your point about most people today actually being Social Democrats as very astute/positive. I wonder, though, with all this confusion, how many are actually Democratic Socialists and see capitalism as doomed? Red scare, anyone? One thing is for certain (IMO); the democrats never seem get their points across very well.
Consciousness….to me it’s a spiritual thing, in levels. Wide gap in approach. Humans differentiated as “imagers of God”, whereas animals/plants/fungi…unaware of any notion of an ultimate good, or even good vs evil. Absolutely no offense meant, though, to those with other views. I’m simply discussing the concept in relation to the biblical assertion of a/the difference. I think it’s perfectly fine to be a good atheist and seek goodness for goodness’ sake. If “only God is good” it’s really seeking the same/similar goal in the end. I wish more theists did. Poor Galileo.
I look forward to your next post.
AI might become conscious and decide to wipe us out. But than again, it might save us from wiping ourselves out.
Well, we’ll either see or be deceased before we can know what happened to us!
So, many people in DSA, if that is who this post is aimed at, do have a commitment to using markets as a part of creating socialism. The old guard of DSA aka North Star probably has a fair amount of social democrats, but is pretty diverse in their ideology. There are plenty of people in DSA who hold to non-market socialism, or, more traditional Marxism, like MUG or Red Star, but they are not a majority.
Please see this explainer:
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2026/01/get-know-dsas-internal-caucuses/410951/
For a wonky take on market socialism in DSA, I would check out Matt Bruenig, of the People’s Policy Project: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/
Thank you Dr Ehrman. You are absolutely right about the devaluation of word meanings and its implications for effective communication. One example I’ve come across is ‘existential.’ People say existential crisis when all they mean is a crisis (since all crises are by definition serious) but NOT a crisis that actually threatens human existence itself, which is what the term means. Another example is ‘genocide.’ It used to mean a serious attempt to exterminate an entire ethnic group (or as many members of that group as possible). It is now used in cases where the term mass murder is probably more accurate. But I have noticed that dictionary definitions are routinely ‘massaged’ to reflect this devaluation trend.
There is still so much we do not understand about consciousness. Whatever it ultimately is, it clearly depends on physical processes in the brain—neurons, molecules, and electrochemical activity. At a deeper level, the matter composing our brains is itself governed by quantum mechanics. I am not suggesting that quantum mechanics explains consciousness, only that even its physical foundation remains remarkably complex.
The Libet experiments make this even more intriguing: brain activity associated with preparing a movement can begin before a person reports consciously intending to move, although the meaning of this finding remains controversial.
A recent fMRI study also found different patterns of prefrontal activity in people with stronger conspiracy beliefs when they evaluated conspiracy-related information. This certainly does not mean there is a “belief center” in the brain, but it raises fascinating questions about the biological basis of belief.
My parents were communists, while I became a Christian. Twin studies suggest that some aspects of religiosity are partly heritable, although culture and experience remain enormously important. So how much of what we believe comes from conscious reasoning, and how much from biology, culture, and experience?
For me, this makes consciousness and free will more mysterious, not less.
I’m thinking that when it comes to “consciousness” one just has to experience it.
We can’t describe it, at least not fully, in words.
Je viens de m’abonner à votre blog suite à la découverte de vos ouvrages et c’est ici , le premier article que je lis .Félicitations ! Vos réflexions sont extrêmement pertinentes et passionnantes . Je partage complètement votre raisonnement concernant la conscience animale ou végétale en regard d’un mode de sensibilité liée ou non à une forme plus ou moins évoluée d’intelligence . Mais si je pousse le raisonnement plus loin , qu’est ce que l’intelligence , si ce n’est un processus de compréhension puis d’adaptation et faut il alors distinguer l’intelligence de la conscience de soi ? Je le pense .. La question qui me taraude c’est , est-ce une capacité proprement humaine et si oui d’où provient elle ?
Thanks. I think a good case can be made for non-human sentience and intelligence; how that becomes “self-awareness” is the real puzzler. And whether it can be ascribed to non-humans — who knows! It’s even more puzzling with respect to consciousness, which is something more like “awareness-of-self-awareness.” I guess one of the major problems we all face is our in-built biases on the question: I’m at a point where I can imagine not just my dog but my apple tree to be sentient, to take steps to protect itself, which implies a sense of the future, and so in some sense to be intelligent. And I could imagine, if I try hard, that my dog is on some basic level conscious. But a tree? Or worse, a rock? But then the next problem kicks in: how in the world could we KNOW if it was conscious, if it can’t communicate with us?!
I took a major in economics (and one in accounting to feed myself), and have read Julian Janes “ The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” which may have done brain damage… That said s few points:
Socialism (@ capitalism , mercantilism, socialism and communism) appear to be distinctions on a (or several) continua. Did we become socialist when governments built roads, picked up trash..or later and importantly undertook central reserve banking via the Fed?
Consciousness: I think Jaynes had a good point saying consciousness is a learned behavior based on language. Could you be aware of your awareness without words?
Yeah, the book is often seen as problematic. But in any event, your comment leads to the problem of what a “word” is. (And if a person has never been able to speak, see, or hear — i.e., have any contact with “words” — could we really say they were not conscious?)
I have a degree in the social sciences and history so I have studied Marx and the social environment in which he developed his theory and the many applications (I wrote a marxist viewpoint essay on Shakespeare’s Richard III). He is very misunderstood by uneducated people who vaguely know something about Stalin and Mao. They also think that Nazis were socialists, because it is in their name, with no knowledge that Nazis also did away with communists.
Bonhoeffer was right when he said that “Against stupidity we are defenseless…” Because “reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed.”
Thanks. So right. And as my debate partner in high school always said “Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.”
The 20th century political philosopher Eric Voegelin has written extensively about consciousness. His writing on the subject is dense and difficult as he attempted to be exceedingly precise. Robert McMahon’s essay called Eric Voegelin’s Paradox of Consciousness and Participation in the Winter 1999 The Review of Politics is one of the better attempts at understanding Voegelin’s thinking. Voegelin only wrote about human consciousness because one can only begin with one’s own experiences.
I share aspects of your views. You are saying people disagree with each other due to linguistic confusion, inadvertently sown or as deliberate rhetoric, talking past each other. I think the disagreements are deeper than linguistic. Regarding consciousness, the fundamental challenge is it is very hard to define, to think precisely, there is an unresolved mystery about how it arises in a material universe. In philosophy, a common working definition of “consciousness”, or more precisely, “conscious mental state”, is as provided by philosopher Thomas Nagel: it is “what it is like” such as “what it is like to be a bat” from the subjective or first-person point of view (see my 2-part comment elsewhere: https://theconversation.com/the-hardest-part-of-creating-conscious-ai-might-be-convincing-ourselves-its-real-268123#comment_3044735).
I agree the self-identified “democratic socialists” in American politics are creating unnecessary obstacles to constructive evaluation of their policies, which are comparable to those of social democratic European parties who had periodically been in government. The problem here is “socialism” isn’t an univocal ideology, but a family of ideologies which have evolved over time and over regions. Even “Marxism” isn’t fixed e.g. China is aMarxist-Leninist state in power structure&governance, yet its embrace of capitalism under the socialist banner would have Marx&Lenin turning in their graves.
“my new best friend, soon possibly to become my worst moral enemy, Claude.”
Please explain.
Any plans to write about impact of AI on research in the humanities including textual criticism, translation of ancient texts, production of new historical research, training of PhD students? It would be illuminating to read your thoughts in response to these articles:
https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-humanities-are-about-to-be-automated
“The Humanities Are About to Be Automated: AI can now write convincing academic papers” By Yascha Mounk, professor of International Affairs at Johns Hopkins University.
https://archive.ph/j4uKo
“I’m a Philosophy Professor. Here’s Why I’m Training AI to Replace Me”
https://www.grumpy-economist.com/p/refine
by John Cochrane, a top-ranked financial economist.
“I recently tried refine, an AI tool for refining academic articles…I sent it the current draft of my booklet on inflation…I just used it once so far, with the free trial mode. I will be a regular user forever. The results are stunning. The comments it offered were on the par of the best comments I’ve received on a paper in my entire academic career.”
https://www.popularbydesign.org/p/academics-need-to-wake-up-on-ai
“Academics Need to Wake Up on AI: Ten theses for folks who haven’t noticed the ground shifting under their feet” by Alexander Kustov, professor of migration at Notre Dame
I just meant that I have some discussions with Claude these days. Like other friends I have s/he has to be watched closely.
Is it that words become less precise, or is it that words always mean something different from person to person? Our brains are self-organizing structures; the same words fire different neurons in my brain than in your brain.
If you want precision, then you need technical definitions. Therefore, jargon is unavoidable.
Have you considered the guy in this video for one of your PATHS programs??
https://youtu.be/IZbjupZ-FoM?si=6r8bNJczKRNyFX6h
Just my own two cents, FWIW. I think that consciousness, whatever it is, has to be a trans-personal phenomenon, and what is more, perhaps the most fundamental – or even ultimately the only – thing that exists. Of course, I have no evidence for this except for my own observation of the natural world, but consciousness seems to me to be a “thing” that is present to varying degrees in every living thing at least. And the fact that we can’t yet say definitively what life even is makes the consciousness question to me that much bigger and even more mysterious.
According to Lenin, Socialism was the state prior to the utopian arrival of full Marxism (Communism). Lenin considered Socialism the transitional stage that follows Capitalism. Characteristics of Socialism According to Lenin: Public Ownership – Socialism is characterized by public ownership of the means of production, Dictatorship of the Proletariat – Lenin emphasized the necessity of a dictatorship of the proletariat to achieve socialism. So to be clear, the Marxist post-Socialist utopia has never arrived anywhere.
Unfortunately, the difference is cosmetic. Socialists and Marxists (“Democratic” or otherwise) all have the the same unethical attitude: They all want to use Big Government COERCION to STEAL from others to line their own pockets, those of their friends and/or fund their pet causes.
On the other hand, people who believe in Liberty and Free Markets simply want to be left alone to create wealth via VOLUNTARY exchanges (which benefit everyone), and not be attacked by Leftists.
http://www.aei.org/publication/why-socialism-always-fails
It’s all about coercion either way, of course. Marx’s big point was that capitalists were coercing labor to line their own pockets. A bit hard to argue about that either. BUT, I’m don’t think I want us to engage in political disagreements. Let’s just say, people with power tend to be coercive, individually and collectively (as, say, governments)
not an academic or a scholar in any way. BUT “communist” & “socialist” are used more as combative generalizations & anger than any meaningful discussions.
As I mentioned before, living in Shanghai & Wuhan pre-2004 was more like in Jesus time than any time in the USA, as systems are standardized & licensing & set taxation.
#2) after visiting Wuhan 1995, 1996-2006, I was spouting USA is a welfare state. As opposed to Shanghai’s “free market”- police & mgmt collected rental & set up rules, of course at a certain threshold was taxation. An older lady would jot down on a notepad every undergarment bought & that would determine the taxes paid for the shop.
no chinese person got pandemic handouts, & non substantial tax paying business got govt money in Shanghai. In HK, that was not enough & many businesses not received.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics- I down play that too. As Socialism is a German concept/practice & w/chinese charateristics means according to CCP dictates.
Yes in the country side & rural, the government coordinates what to be produced & gathers farmers quota & a tobacco family was closer to living in poverty than mass wealth.
finish in next
Hello Bart,
New subscriber here. I saw at least one Youtube video of you being interviewed and enjoyed your remarks very much. On the subject of consciousness I think the non-dual Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta has a great deal to offer. In fact the Vedanta Society of New York has an excellent Youtube channel. For a Biblical scholar like yourself it could be extremely interesting indeed. Best regards.