Ken Hurley
Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing. – H.L. Menken
Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? – Jules Feiffer
… one man’s rubbish may be another’s treasure. – John Francis Campbell
Polonius asks Hamlet, “What do you read, my lord?” Hamlet replies, “Words, words, words”
Ahh, the F-word.
When was the most recent time you spoke or heard the word: Floccinaucinihilipilification? This is the longest F-word I know. Not as popular as my favorite F-word, fun. Included with fun is another F-word that can have many meanings, differentiated by inflection, some of which actually fall into the category of fun: Fu*k. (Asterisk provided by the generosity of the Christian Nationalist’s Society of Global Punctuation Censorship.)** I made it up. There’s lots of F-words. According to my last count, there’s nearly 12,000 F-words in the English language.
The English language can be a bundle of contradictory lexiconical wonders. Among them, few are as delightfully unwieldy and intellectually provocative as floccinaucinihilipilification. Say it with me: Floccinaucinihilipilification. Good! You sassy sesquipedalian. Floccinaucinihilipilification takes some practice to say aloud. Floccinaucinihilipilification is an intimidating long word, yet with a deceptively simple meaning: The act of estimating something as worthless. Like this piece of chit you’re reading. It’s the conscious or unconscious dismissal of something as insignificant, trivial, or of little consequence.
The etymology of floccinaucinihilipilification itself is a study in linguistic amusement. The word is a combination of four Latin words: floccus (a tuft of wool), naucum (a trifle), nihilum (nothing), and pilus (a hair). These words, when combined, create a sense of diminishing value, of reducing something to a collection of insignificant fragments. The very construction of the word, with its daunting length and seemingly arbitrary assemblage of Latin roots, ironically mirrors the process it describes: the act of rendering something seemingly complex as inconsequential. Authors often use this phenomenon to explore themes of power, perspective, and the subjective nature of value. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, in his famous soliloquy, “To be or not to be,” Hamlet contemplates the value of life itself, struggling with the perceived worthlessness of his own existence in the face of suffering and injustice. The act of questioning existence is a way of considering its worth or worthlessness.
Characters with immense privilege often floccinaucinihilipilify the concerns of the less fortunate, dismissing their struggles as insignificant. Take a peek at the current President of the United States as an example. Consider also the portrayal of wealth and status that Charles Dickens wrote about when he critiqued the indifference of the wealthy towards the plight of the poor. In Oliver Twist, the characters representing the upper class seem to floccinaucinihilipilify the poor’s desire for a bit more than the basics, ignoring their pleas for food, shelter, and compassion. The characters in Dickens’s novels, like many others, are often used to show class divides and social injustice.
In contrast, there are storied characters who refuse to floccinaucinihilipilify the seemingly trivial. They recognize the inherent value in small acts of kindness, in the beauty of everyday life, and the importance of human connection. The protagonists in many coming-of-age novels often find profound meaning in insignificant experiences, such as a first kiss, a shared laugh, or a moment of quiet reflection. They reject the very essence of floccinaucinihilipilification. Great Expectations, Catcher in the Rye, Call Me By Your Name, to name a few literary examples. Science also provides a good opportunity to study floccinaucinihilipilification. Yay, science! In the context of scientific progress and the dissemination of knowledge, floccinaucinihilipilification abounds. Groundbreaking scientific discoveries have often been met with skepticism and dismissal. New ideas and theories, often challenged by established paradigms, are initially considered worthless, only later to be recognized as revolutionary. Consider the heliocentric model of the solar system, proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus. Nick’s theory challenged the long-held geocentric model and was initially met with widespread resistance. Many people floccinaucinihilipilified Nick’s ideas, dismissing them as heretical or even nonsensical. It was only through the persistent efforts of other scientists like Galileo Galilei, who provided empirical evidence supporting the heliocentric model, that the scientific community gradually accepted the validity of Copernicus’s findings.
The process of peer review, a cornerstone of scientific inquiry, can be seen as a formalized form of floccinaucinihilipilification. Before a scientific paper is published, it typically undergoes rigorous scrutiny by other scientists in the same field. They evaluate the methodology, the data, and the conclusions, often challenging the authors’ assumptions and interpretations. This process, while essential for maintaining the integrity of scientific knowledge, can also lead to the dismissal of valuable research, particularly if it challenges existing paradigms or is based on incomplete evidence. Floccinaucinihilipilification can also be understood as a psychological defense mechanism, a way of protecting oneself from anxiety, fear, or overwhelming emotions. By dismissing something as insignificant, individuals can avoid confronting difficult truths or acknowledging uncomfortable realities. “The Fox and the Grapes” is a classic Aesop fable about a hungry fox who sees a bunch of ripe grapes hanging high on a vine. After many failed attempts to jump and reach them, the fox gives up and walks away, muttering that the grapes were probably sour anyway. The phrase “sour grapes” comes directly from this fable. The fox dismissed the grapes as sour in his effort to rationalize and accept his own failure.
A person who struggles with addiction might floccinaucinihilipilify the concerns of their loved ones, dismissing their warnings as exaggerated or unwarranted. Similarly, a person facing a serious illness might floccinaucinihilipilify the severity of their condition, downplaying their symptoms and refusing to seek medical attention. By minimizing the importance of the situation, they may be attempting to reduce their anxiety and maintain a sense of control. Individuals may floccinaucinihilipilify the opinions of others, dismissing their perspectives as ignorant, irrelevant, or uninformed. This can be a way of protecting one’s ego by maintaining a sense of inflated superiority. It can also contribute to the formation of echo chambers, where individuals are primarily exposed to information that confirms their existing beliefs, reinforcing their tendency to floccinaucinihilipilify alternative viewpoints.
Life events are full of moments where we engage in floccinaucinihilipilification. We might dismiss a stranger’s plea for assistance as a ploy for money, or we may dismiss concerns about climate change. We also can use it to justify our own bad choices. Consider the context of war. Many soldiers, experiencing the horrors of combat, might choose to floccinaucinihilipilify the value of their own lives, as a means of coping with the constant threat of death. Similarly, politicians and military leaders may floccinaucinihilipilify the human cost of war, downplaying the suffering of civilians and the loss of life characterized as “collateral damage.” These actions can be seen as attempts to dehumanize the enemy and to justify the horrors of war.
The concept of floccinaucinihilipilification, while seemingly complex, underscores a fundamental aspect of human psychology and social behavior that, when recognized, helps humans become more aware of their own biases. We can learn to approach the world with greater empathy, humility, and a willingness to appreciate the value of things and other stuff, no matter how seemingly insignificant they might be. You know, “stop and smell the roses” sort of a thing.
I wonder if it’s time to throw away my pet rock? Speaking of worthless trivial matters, aka floccinaucinihilipilification, when you are not looking at it, this sentence is in French. If this sentence were in Greek, it would say something else. And finally… .siht ekil ti gnidaer eb d’uoy ,werbeH ni erew ecnetnes siht fI. And now we reach the eagerly anticipated terminus. So to conclude, finally (again), I’d like to acknowledge my favorite George Gerschwin fan, composer, pianist, and sharp-witted curmudgeon, Oscar Levant, who was able to discourse interminably on the subject of his own greatness. On one occasion, he subjected Aaron Copeland to a lengthy but floccinaucinihilipilible diatribe. Unable to stand it anymore, Copeland got up to leave. “Why Aaron, you’re becoming such an egomaniac. You used to be able to listen to me all night.” Levant is the same man who told us that he was thrown out of a psychiatric ward for depressing the other patients. True.
