Creativity in words

Before I begin I'd like to refer people to the video I made on this topic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itm6mFxGkDA&feature=player_embedded#!
          The only importance of words are their meanings. Otherwise they would only be only noise. Due to this, one must be creative with words. Often this "creativity" is looked down upon. Even though philosophic communication is limited by word uncreative. When I use such words such as word uncreative I am referring to people who make words axioms unto themselves and refuse to recognize epistemological problems with their words and also refuse to recognize that the words they know may have meanings that they are unfamiliar with. Arguing with such people can be difficult if the concepts discussed do not have extremely common meanings and if there is disagreement about the meanings of words. This is especially a problem for anarcho-capitalists whose very ideology's name is a redefining of two old words. It is also a problem for objectivists who give their own redefinition of the word selfish. This brings us to our topic, which is how can creativity in words help us use words more clearly and also make use of new concepts?
          Often words have package dealing. Something Rand fought against with her meaning of selfish. This package dealing often fogs two or more concepts together. Faith is a good example. In common usage it means both trust in the natural and trust in the supernatural. The problem is that these two meanings are very different from each other even though users of the word often conflate the two to mean the same. If I try to argue against supernatural faith sometimes natural faith is used in defense of supernatural faith. This is something I have personally experienced when I questioned someone on faith and they replied that I must have faith in the chair I was sitting in so why not have faith in a god? This is also true of the word monopoly. There is a big difference between Standard Oil/ Microsoft which is simply market domination and still is held in check by competitive forces, i.e. if they start doing a bad job they will be replaced (think my space) and government monopolies which outlaw all competition by force and do not suffer any market regulation. This isn't to say that either type of "monopoly" is either good or bad. That is a bog for another time.
           The solution is to be creative. Look for meanings behind words and separate these meanings into their own distinct ideas. This is often done with modifying words. Faith becomes natural faith and supernatural faith. Once you separate out these meanings it is easier to talk about a word and know what each person is referring too. This requires one to not be very stubborn. This solution leads the creative to be accuse of being dumb or being a trickster but such solutions are necessary to understanding new concepts.
            Another important idea is that not all concepts have words to them. People often make the mistake of assuming a perfect language as if every concept in the universe has a corresponding English word that fits the concept perfectly. The problem is that this just is not true. Sometimes when new concepts are found whole new words must be found or old words must be used in a new way. I wish English had the same language rules as German. In German, when a new concept is found, they simply put old words together to make new words. English does not have such luxury and thus close interaction and creativity is necessary. Thus when Ayn Rand come up with a concept that had no English word at the time she gave selfish a new meaning and defended it. This was because selfish was the closest existing word to her concept, which had not its own word at the beginning. This is why it is also important to always ask people to define their terms in a debate as their meaning of a word may be different than your own. Especially so if the two speakers are a libertarian and a Marxist who both have such different meanings to the word capitalism that it appears one or the other is misusing the term. The fact of the matter is that they have given the word their own meaning and each must understand the meaning of others.
           The obvious problem with my statement thus far is that it seems to make communication impossible because people could simply make a new word for ever concept out there until no one knows what anyone else is talking about. This is why I must put emphasis on the idea that clarity is as important as the meaning of words. Without clarity the meaning is well meaningless. Thus it is important to try to follow current standard English rules and try to use words that best fit what one is talking about even if the words are being used in a new way.
          In conclusion, one should see language as an ever living entity that changes with the movement of history. This means excepting new meanings to words and being able to be flexible with words. This can take work and patience as debaters will have to go about defining words with a fine toned toothpick and be willing to wait calmly for the argument to develop into what they wished to argue for in the first place. Treat words as living and not dead.