True Love – Script

Lights up shows the set – a psychologist’s office with a chair and a couch across from each other at a slight angle toward the crowd. The room can be set up however, but there needs to be a door so actors can enter the set. Also, the lamp must have a pull-chain to turn on/off since the psychologist “operates” the scene change – should be made somewhat obvious to the audience.

 

Characters:

W = Dr. Chambee – psychologist (older man)

L = Lilly – patient (20’s)

R = Rob – patient (20’s)

H = Henry – patient (20’s)

 

(Front and center)

W: Good morning, afternoon, and evening. I hope everyone is doing well and has left their emotions and preconceived notions at the door, you won’t be needing them. Also, this story is between you and I, so mum’s the word – keep it to yourself. You see, before my writing career I was a psychologist, so naturally I have stories upon stories that I cannot repeat. But there is one, a story of a couple kids who changed my life forever. It never occurred to me until laid down my first dot of ink that it was about love, true love.

The play starts out with Dr. Chambee sitting in his chair reviewing notes mumbling. There is a knock on the door. Dr. Chambee looks at his watch and smiles.

 

W: Come in

W: Hi Lilly

L: Hi (looking exhausted and uncomfortable)

W: Please sit

(They sit and stare at each other for a while – dr. with a small blank smile, L just confused)

L: Listen, I’ve never done this before – I’m not crazy or anything don’t worry (nervous laugh)

(W still says nothing – still a slight grin and blank look)

(Pause)

L: I mean, I’m fairly popular at school, my dad drives a Porsche, you know. So I’m not like your other patients

(W just sits there staring intently)

L: I don’t see things, hear voices, sometimes I think I’m fat, but that’s normal for a girl my age, you know, right?

(W seems like he’s about to say something then doesn’t)

L: Why aren’t you saying anything? Aren’t you supposed to fix me?

W: What’s broken?

L: I’m not broken?

(Stares exchanged for another 5 seconds)

L: Listen, I come from a great family; I’ve been raised well in all regards. I had a great childhood, and college has been great…

W: Sounds like you don’t need me

(Stares exchanged for another 5 seconds)

L: I was raped

(Lights down and Lilly exits) (Lights up – Dr. in the same spot reviewing notes mumbling. Once again, knock at the door, looks at watch and smiles)

W: Come in

H: Hello Dr. Chambee

W: How was your week?

H: Excellent sir

W: Glad to hear it

(H sits)

W: how is it going with that girl?

H: Amazing! She’s so great – I can’t think of a single bad thing to say about her

W: Why try?

H: You know what I mean (laugh)

W: So how is your other relationship, still broken up?

H: Yes, yes completely I promise

W: Don’t promise me; promise yourself

H: Of course sir

(Henry leaves and Rob comes in)

W: Come in

R: Hey hey!

(silence)

R: Man you never talk; you just sit there

(sits down hard on the couch)

R: Man College is great – so great

W: Glad you’re enjoying yourself Rob (still a bit confused)

W: How is everything else?

R: What else? Haha (not even giving dr. eye contact)

(Silence)

W: Did you ever talk to that girl? Your childhood friend…

R: Nah I’ve been busy

W: If she is as you describe her, she probably won’t be single for long. I suggest you try talking to her. She probably remembers you too and is just as shy.

R: I’m not shy?

R: Yea, so anyways, I can’t stay long today, but same time next week, have a good one Dr. Chambee

(He walks out and Dr. Chambee just shakes his head with confusion)
(Lights down) (Lights up – Dr. in the same spot reviewing notes mumbling. Once again, knock at the door, looks at watch smiles)

W: Lilly, come in, come in

L: Listen, about last week

(waits for Dr. to say something but he doesn’t)

L: Maybe it was my fault, I don’t know…

(finally showing some authority)

W: No No Lilly, don’t think like that – what happened was not your fault

L: Well if I wasn’t so drunk…(starts to get upset)…I just don’t understand. I was having a good time, and there was this guy, he seemed nice… I don’t know, and then it goes fuzzy. It was just him on top of me…and.. that look he gave me, I don’t remember much, but.. God it looked like he wanted to kill me…

(Silence)

(W stares thinking)

L: Fuck, say something

(W gets up and walks over and sits down on the couch next to her, puts his arm around her…she leans on his shoulder and cries)

W: We will get you through this.

L: Doctor, My heart is crushed in a way I can’t explain. I gave him my heart; how am I to take it back? How is it mine when the man who did this to me has it? (sobs) It’s not mine; my heart is his. I can’t bear to take it back; how can I want such a heart.

W: It’s your heart, Lilly, please

L: Don’t you understand? It’s not anymore, and with no heart left to give, it’s safe with him. A place it’s not wanted nor needed.

W: Is this a rational idea Lilly? Do you really think your heart is safe with this guy?

L: No

W: Why not?

L: Because of what he did to me

W: Yes, and people that do these sorts of things have problems, often deep within themselves. They’re hard to understand, but the most important thing is that it’s over, you’ll never see him again, and it was not your fault. Please remember that.

L: But if I wasn’t drunk?

W: LILLY, you being drunk does not give someone the right to violate you

L: I know but…

W: There is no question here, you did nothing wrong

L: Ok, but do you understand he has a piece of me

W: No he doesn’t your body is yours…

L: I just told you my heart; aren’t you listening?

W: Lilly, you must take your heart back; you cannot live like this

L: You don’t understand

L: We were neighbors, he and I. Best friends as children, he would come over every day and we’d play in the forest chasing lizards and making up stories. He would construct dolls out of twigs and strands of leaf for me; thinking I would like them. (Lilly starts to laugh) He tried so hard to make me laugh. (A painful memory) He never did want to go home. We would play in the pond trying to catch fish and I always noticed he had stripes on his skin; at least that’s what I thought they were at the time. We got older and I saw him less and less. His parents rarely let him leave the house. Then one day they all just left; a day almost as painful as now. I can never forget, he ran to my house to give me one last gift before leaving: a piece of paper folded four times. He told me not to open it, but naturally I did anyways. I’ve carried it with me every since.

(Lilly opens her wallet, pulls out the piece of paper, and reads)

“Lilly,

Through many hours of solitude and self-reflection I’ve come to understand my meaning in life; and now, I want to share what I know with someone else. This sharing is called love.

Forever,

(W sits and listens)

Oh and one more story, I just remembered

We used to sneak into the old town church. Find the secret staircase in the closet and climb up to the top where the bell was. That was our spot. He would tell me scary stories and we would carve pictures of faces into the brick walls that surrounded us. Every hour the bell would ring so loud and on each ring we would scream, releasing to the world. We always made sure to stop before the noise of the bell stopped – that was the rush. The bell kept our hiding spot through the screams. It was his idea.

And another time we…

(gets up and walks over to light and pulls string) (Lights up – Dr. in the same spot reviewing notes mumbling. Once again, knock at the door, looks at watch and scowls)

W: Come in

R: Hey, h

(W finally showing total control and authority)

W: (cuts him off) cut the crap Rob

R: What!?

W: You’ve been coming here for 2 months and all you talk about are your goddamn good times. There are people in this world really suffering, and you waste my time with your bullshit. Why do you pay to see a psychologist if you’re so…(thinks for a second and calms down) I am releasing you as my patient, this is your last session

(cuts him off at session)

R: Wait (looks like he is out of breath, his whole demeanor changes)

R: Listen, I don’t… egh…(grabs his head and walks in a stressed manner: jumps between emotions then turns to depression) I’m just not good at talking, or…Just hold on don’t…starts to break down (sits on the couch) (silence)

I came here because…I had some issues with my Dad growing up (Looks ill) he did things to my mom and other women and made me watch. Once I turned 14 we left and I went to live with my grandma, the rest is history…

(silence)

W: Rob, I had no idea, why did you hide this from me?

R: (starting to calm down) It’s not you (catching his breath) Me…it’s me…I’m too vulnerable

W: So you put on your act

(silence)

R: (Nods)

W: You should’ve been honest with me, I’m so sorry for getting angry with you

R: It’s fine, I guess we needed to get that out somehow

W: Yes, that’s true

R: So now what do I do? I’d really prefer not to talk about specifics

W: You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to, of course

R: Do you know how hard it is to still be a virgin in your senior year of college?

(Knock)

W: Oh, we’ve been here for well over an hour, the next person is here

R: I don’t even know how to treat a girl

(Knock)

W: (Yells “Hold on” to the door)

R: I want to love; I want to make someone’s world

(Knock)

W: One second (to the door)

Rob, are you ok, will you be ok till next week?

R: That’s all I want…

W: Rob talk to me

(W reaches for the cord)

R: Don’t pull that fucking cord, I need you

(Lilly walks in)

R: (Stunned – deer in the headlights) Lilly

L: Oh my God

R: (Looking scared and shocked)

L: (starts to dry heave)

(W looks shocked and frozen – hand still on the pull-cord)

L: (sadness turns to anger) You Fucker!

(she lunges at him – jumps on top of him and starts punching him. He gets control of her arms and she spits in his face)

R: Lilly, listen

L: No (coughing and crying) no how could you, who are you

R: (looks like he wants to die)

L: (starts to calm down and looks like she wants to die as well) I thought you were different.

(stands up and starts to back toward the door shaking)

(silence)

R: Lilly, please…

L: (right before she leaves the door) When I was a little girl I believed that one day someone would love me. I believed that I could love and be loved. ((depressed) shaking her head slight laugh she pulls out the letter) I believed this.

R: (Says nothing, but his face says: “But I love you”)

(Door slams)

 

Rob is still in the same position, not sure what to do.

 

R: How do I fix this?

W: Is what she said true?

R: Yes

W: Then I believe our work here is done

R: What do you mean?

W: You must know I need to call the police

R: Go ahead

(Dr. Chambee picks up the phone to call the police, he doesn’t dial and listens to Rob speak)

R: I loved her, I truly did, now, I still do. I didn’t know what I was doing wrong. The only ideas I have of love are from my parents. I thought I was doing it right. She started telling me to stop, but I thought that was just part of it. (Rob looks up) What do I do?

W: What do you want?

R: I want to understand what I did wrong. I want to know what love is. It’s as though I have a cloud over my head making my vision and thoughts unclear. I see her and want to know her, but I don’t know how. It’s not like when we were kids. Doctor, I felt something in her gaze, and up until the moment she told me to stop the feelings didn’t stop. It was like a vibrant warmth in my chest and pushed its way to my mouth and made me smile. She made me smile in a way that hurt. Can’t you understand she’s the only way I can leave this pain.

W: You’re the boy from her story; you were neighbors

R: She talked about me?

W: Yes, but Rob, I don’t think you understand what you’ve done to Lilly. She feels violated emotionally and physically; I don’t think this can be fixed.

R: Well can I apologize at least?

W: I’m not sure approaching her is a good idea.

R: What if we spoke here?

W: I don’t know if she will be coming back here Rob

R: Can’t you make her?

W: No Rob!

(Dr. Chambee slams the phone down)

W: You cannot force people to do things. You don’t have power and neither do I. There is no amount of control over another person’s life. You forced her (starts to cry), can’t you see what you’ve done. I must tell the police. Dammit Rob, Dammit. My livelihood is at stake…

R: Make the call then, I don’t care

W: Rob you’ll go to jail

R: I belong there

W: You took away her free will. You wanted to control her; you thought that was the only way you could have her

R: Stop, Doctor, please, I can’t…make the fucking call

W: You held her down, though her tears, forced yourself upon this meaningless girl

R: (Lunges at the Doctor and grabs his throat) She has meaning!

(Pushes Rob onto the couch)

W: Through her screams you managed to get aroused

(Rob breaks down completely)

W: And you took her free will and…

R: I never had any free will! Never. You think I did this out of control, you think that’s what happened but you have no idea. The contents of my mind are not black and white like you psychology textbook. Your plaque on the wall doesn’t mean shit when you’re with me because you’ve never had a patient like me. We live in this quaint small town where everyone grows up without the faintest illusion of grief. Parents nurture their kids into proper citizens by the book of God and teach them the righteous ways. The way people ought to be. Some cookie cutter technique to pop out robots of the divine word, and then there’s me. Nurtured by the hand of death and pain in that house. You think we’re all ‘understandable,’ you think we can all be fixed. We’re a product of our conditions in the bubble of our reality. My decisions, while mine, are not mine. You think I was there that night? Mentally? I don’t recall any of it. Blackness, nothingness, not the faintest memory of my parents or that house; I know I was there, I know what happened, but I see no pictures nor remember any sounds. All that remains is me: a product of hell.

 

(scene)

Advertisements

The Right to Death

The topic of suicide receives a lot of attention, and for good reason; the cessation of one’s own life should not be taken lightly. Nevertheless, the morality of the action is still open for debate. Do we have a right to our own life/death, absent of any moral qualms? Engaging with the views of Immanuel Kant, Albert Camus, and David Hume, we see both sides of the argument. With the premise that suicide is indeed morally wrong, I will argue the alternative; man has a complete right to death.

Let us begin with a deontological standpoint; here we will confer with Immanuel Kant, chiefly by understanding his famous categorical imperative. Kant explains that for each action there is a maxim, a subjective principal of volition, the reason a person gives them self for acting. There is also a moral law which is what we ought to do. How does one determine moral law? By means of a universalization test of the Maxim; Kant explains that there is only one categorical imperative. He states: “Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Kant 34). Kant goes further; people acting morally must be autonomous, and a truly free will is a self-legislating will under moral law. Since people are the creators of moral laws; we are ends in ourselves. To Kant, suicide is using oneself as a means. We have intrinsic worth, and destroying oneself is wrong. Even if an individual’s future looks grim; is this person just a pleasure seeker? Is his/her body wholly theirs? This individual is the foundation of moral law and they have worth beyond what they know. To destroy that is immoral. This is all apparent, and Kant simply states that we must treat humans “never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end in itself” (Kant 45).

While the concept of humans always being treated as ends and never means is interesting; I believe it is fundamentally flawed. Humans are brought into this world as a means, not as an end, so why ought humans to be treated as ends when our existence is, and is based upon, a means? Let me explain. According to the Red Queen Hypothesis, sexual relationships are preferred over asexual ones because of various diseases/parasites, and the ultimate goal of procreation is to successfully pass one’s genes on to the next generation (Bell, 378-9). What this means is that humans have a better chance of survival by means of sexual relationships and procreation. If this hypothesis is true, which we, along with a majority of the scientific community, will assume it is, then what is the purpose of a human? It seems clear from a basic biological standpoint that a human’s purpose is simply to procreate and survive. A human is created by others as a means to create more humans and ultimately to enhance the chances of mankind’s survival. By this logic, we are simply a means for procreation and survival.

With this understanding, it makes sense that suicide is illogical; it clearly goes against our fundamental purpose. However, the issue here is not a matter of logic, but a matter of morality. Humans are brought into this world against their will. Why are they not allotted the choice of whether to accept life? In the case that ending their life would negatively impact others who care about them, does this make ending their life immoral? Surely not from a Kantian perspective, as they are now living only for the want of others – a mere means. Their life is kept solely because of pressure. This person has a life suspended on the potential hurt of others, a means for others happiness. When the will and want to live is gone, and a person is going on for others; a person is no longer an end in and of them self; I will explain this point further. This person not being an end makes sense as they lack the fundamental aspect of life – a will to live. They cannot be a legislator of universal law, and thus cannot be included in Kant’s theories in a similar way mentally retarded people cannot. The question now is whether Kant’s categorical imperative can even apply to suicidal people. Kant states that “Man can only dispose over things; beasts are things in this sense; but man is not a thing, not a beast. If he disposes over himself, he treats his value as that of a beast. He who so behaves, who has no respect for human nature and makes a thing of himself, becomes for everyone an object of freewill. We are free to treat him as a beast, as a thing, and to use him for our sport as we do a horse or a dog, for he is no longer a human being; he has made a thing of himself” (Kant, Lectures on Ethics). Kant is saying that if a person attempts suicide and does not succeed; this is the result. However, doesn’t the will to commit the act weigh similarly to a failed attempt? How does one classify a failed attempt? If shooting at someone and missing is not murder, but attempted murder – there is a big difference. But when it comes to attempted suicide, Kant believes this person loses their humanity as if there is no difference between a failed attempt and success. Under these terms, the intent and will is equivalent to a failed attempt. Kant’s passionate hand-waving and repugnant opinion of suicide bears no true grounding in even his own theory. How can Kant judge the morality of a thing? From what we have uncovered, it is clear that Kant’s theories are not suitable to judge a suicidal person’s morality.

Since Kant does not have a theory suitable to judge a suicidal person, I want to turn our attention to another perspective – an enlightened one. Man has long searched for a meaning to life. It is quite probable that one with suicidal thoughts has engaged in the same search, but they have found an answer: nothing. This is not to say all those who have come to realize this nihilistic meaning of life are suicidal. Many are fine living without knowing or believing in a meaning. Others of this enlightened perception may feel they are, as Albert Camus describes, “ridiculous character of the habit, the absence of any profound reason for living, the insane character of that daily agitation and the uselessness of suffering” (Camus 13). Camus explains the meaninglessness of life in terms of its “absurdity.” When man pushes for answers to the truly unexplainable aspects of living, the absurdity of existence is revealed. It is not that life is absurd, or that the universe is absurd, but that humans cannot truly understand it. The realization of the meaninglessness is the absurd existence. Not realizing the meaningless (possibly by means of God/religion) is closer to ignorance. Moving forward we will remain completely secular and follow the, possibly existential (despite Camus’s rejection of categorization), view of our absurd existence. The real question, then, in this absurd existence, is whether suicide is the answer. In Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus, Sisyphus does not try to escape his eternal absurd task of rolling a boulder up a hill, but instead perseveres and resists his urge to commit suicide. Camus believes suicide tempts us with the promise of freedom from the absurdity, but is a renouncement of our responsibility to confront the absurdity. Camus believes that suicide “is not legitimate,” and ultimately comes to the conclusion that people should find a meaning for their own life while understanding the absurdity (Camus 7). This conclusion is respectable, and Camus sheds light on the concept of existence and its absurdity. Moving forward we will maintain the understanding of life’s absurdity. As a side note, and from a different perspective, according to Simone de Beauvoir, man’s freedom is due to a similar ambiguity, but that of the separation of consciousness and body. There is nothingness, a distance, that allows man to be conscious of him/herself, with the ability to understand and choose what to do. However, the body keeps the consciousness alive without permission or choice. If one were to concentrate very hard on dying, one would not. Nevertheless, if one takes action against the entity forcibly restraining one’s will is it morally wrong? From what has been uncovered; I believe the answer is no.

Now that we have established grounding and discussed several theories from Kant and Camus, I want to circle back to some of the claims I made in the beginning of this research. I will confer with David Hume, an empiricist, and remain completely secular. Most refutations of suicide come first from a religious perspective. While this perspective may hold weight for some, in our secular view it is completely irrelevant. In the case of suicide there are typically three parties discussed: God, one’s neighbor, and oneself. The secular aspects, the effect suicide has on one’s neighbor and oneself, are often intertwined with the religious view. With the removal of religion there are two, instead of three (the third being God), remaining parties: others and oneself. In Hume’s essays he addresses all three, but due to our secular standpoint we will omit God from our discussion. Hume asks why “It would be no crime in me to divert the Nile or Danube from its course, were I able to effect such purposes. Where then is the crime of turning a few ounces of blood from their natural channel?” (Hume, Essay I). Why is it that man has the choice to do so many things, but cannot decide their own existence? Can we not rely on our biological motives to lead us correctly? The will to live, as we have discovered, is innate and powerful, and it should be enough. In the face of the absurdity of life, man will often blindly push on because of our innate biological predisposition. The cessation of one’s own life is agreed to be man’s greatest fear. If a person is able to logically decide to end their own life, then there must be a very good reason. If there is no speak-able reason, then the internal pain must exceed their innate will and drive to live. We have a right to happiness and some control of our experiences during life, but we do not have a right or control of our own life or death. It is as though we are a string and the hands holding each end are not ours. Since we are taking a secular approach, the hand holding the beginning of the string are the creators (one’s parents) and the hand holding the other end is society (people who care about us: friends/family). It does not make sense that we cannot hold our own string. While the creation of the string itself (the first hand) is needed for the situation, why do we not gain control of the string once we have consciousness? In many cases man is given control of their string in the face of terminal illness, however, the morality regarding suicide is no different in the face of terminal illness. We are all dying from the terminal illness of life, and the pain in the heart of one without the will to live can be as strong as one with terminal illness. In every case, the difference is only a relatively small number of years – no one has the option of eternal life. Without a divine entity, who holds the reins of our lives? In the case of suicide, it is society.

If society holds no true control of our decision, and cannot determine the morality, then there are no blockages left in place. Hume states that “A man who retires from life does no harm to society: He only ceases to do good; which, if it is an injury, is of the lowest kind. All our obligations to do good to society seem to imply something reciprocal” (Hume, Essay I). The necessity to do good for society occurs in a reciprocal relationship. We cannot do good without any sort of feedback or good done for us. Human interaction entails feedback. In the case of cessation, there is no feedback nor need for goodness – simply because there cannot be any. If for some reason this goodness is still required, it is at the expense of misery, and man is being used as a means once again. As a quick aside, in the case of co-dependence, if the one committing suicide has an infant in their care that will die; this does not fit into this thought process as this is an act of murder and should be treated and thought of as such. The concept of family and the pain that would come to those caring is the largest non-biological pressure against suicide. Can their happiness be valued above one’s own? If it is, then the pressure will be too great and the suicide will not occur. However, in the case of suicide it is clear a choice was made and the reason/pain outweighed the pain it would cause those caring. Do not forget the mourners have the same rights. Hume states that “the only way that we can then be useful to society, by setting an example, which if imitated, would preserve to everyone his chance for happiness in life, and would effectually free him from all danger of misery” (Hume, Essay I). The free and unconstrained option of suicide preserves the happiness of mankind. Like evolution, only the happy will survive. Removing all moral constraints gives man the freedom of choice in death and happiness.

Conferring initially with Kant and making our way through Camus’ existential perspective, we moved toward a deontological mental conclusion with the help of Hume. It is clear that many thoughts and philosophies don’t hold credence in the face of suicide, such as was the story with Kant. Others have nihilistic ideals but still push for life, which was the case with Camus. Keeping Camus’ absurdity as a foundation we were able to move through the specific claims of Hume regarding man’s duty to themselves and others. In the end, the right to death was made clear through our moves and ending with the notion that a world in which total freedom of choice over one’s death is right.

 

Works Cited

Beauchamp, Tom. “An Analysis of Hume’s Essay “On Suicide”” JSTOR. Philosophy Education Society Inc., 1 Jan. 1976. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20126886&gt;.

Beauvoir, Simone De, and Bernard Frechtman. The Ethics of Ambiguity;. New York, NY: Citadel, Kensington, 1948. Print.

Bell, Graham. The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality. London: Croom Helm, 1982. Print.

Camus, Albert, and Justin Brien. The Myth of Sisyphus. London: Penguin, 2000. Print.

Cholbi, Michael, “Suicide”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/suicide/&gt;.

Hume, David. “Essay I.” ESSAYS ON SUICIDE, AND THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. National Library of Scotland, 1783. Print. http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/suicide.htm#A1

Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012. Print.

Kant, Immanuel. Lectures on Ethics , Translated by Louis Infield. New York Harper & Row, 1963. 151. Print.

 

Just a moment

It was her and I standing there watching a service like a bunch of outsiders. The box sat in the pit but could still be seen, and everyone stared with their own thoughts. The clouds overtook the sun and the leaves were falling in an almost cliché way. The hand that was in mine was strong yet fragile, and she thought her mourning was over. His song came on; it was theirs at this point and his soul seemed to rise up and sing to her. The reality sank in and her lasting strength caved into my shoulder. The crowd turned almost surprised; who was she? And his ghost grabbed her hand as the sun came out to dry her tears and they sang together “I did it my way.”

Definitions

Definitions have always interested me.  Using words and concepts to break down a word or concept into a form that is understandable.  On the surface, definitions are just that – using words to understand the exact meaning of a word.  The concept of a definition doesn’t get more complicated than that, but the words do.  Can every word or idea be defined?  Why are some words easy to define whereas others are near impossible?  Well, when something is unchanging from everyone’s perspective (like a tangible object) it is easy to define.  What about an abstract idea?  As humans we try to make our lives simpler by using mental shortcuts.  We will accept an idea even if we are unsure of its validity because it puts our minds at ease.  In a sense, we define certain words even when a true definition cannot be created.  Some words cannot be accurately defined because the experience with that word differs too much from person to person – such as love.  Sometimes there is no true definition, so we just make it broad and useless.  What is it in a word that allows us to communicate with the intent to make others experience a mental state we desire.  Make them feel a word that cannot be defined, yet we have the ability to make them experience it – even though we do not know how it is defined in their mind.