Words change their meanings and will again but is Poul Anderson just playing with words here?
"'Officially, the name 'Constitutionalism' refers merely to an attitude toward the physical universe, an advocacy of basing thought patterns on the constitution of reality. Anti-mysticism, you might say. But I grew up here in North America, where half the population still speaks English. And I can tell you that in English, that word Constitution is loaded! The North American insurrection was brought on when the Federation government persistently and flagrantly violated - not the spirit of their poor old much-amended Constitution; they were always good at that themselves - but the letter of it.'" (p. 12)
So Poul Anderson presents a future empiricist philosophy but, merely by naming it "Constitutionalism," invests it with all the connotations of the US Constitution. Is this valid?
2 comments:
Certainly in an American context it is.
Kaor, paul!
In an American context, the very word "Constitutional" is loaded and has many connotations vexatious to a World Federation many Americans in the former United States resented as oppressive.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment