some words intregue me more then others. one thing that the dictionary reveals is the complexities, richness, and issues that concern certain words and terms. how do i define a word that holds the meaning of so many different applications. such a word has just come up to me, the word is “jerk”. the idea of a jerk has become a common problem in many of my favorite ideals. my definition thus far is; one who undermines and counteracts often recklessly the goals of an ethos.
now this can be applied in both uses of the word jerk, a name to call someone, and a sharp movement. both have the ability to alter the original course of movement, sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a negative way.
there are problems with this word and the definition that i have given. in that jerks are sort of essential, in many ways they provoke questions contradictions within the established order. in other ways a jerk is the one who uses trust and openness within an ethos as a catalyst for digression. the authority loves jerks, jerks give power to the authority to take control away from humanity as a whole. whats troubling to me about hating jerks is that, they are proven to be a part of the voice of humanity. dealing with jerks is a slippery slope, because the perspective of who is a jerk is completely subjective. it asks the question who is calling who a jerk?
a jerk i guess is something we may not like, sometimes we may hate them, but it’s something we have to live with.