More specifically, it had degenerated into a series of repetitive entrenchments of positions, insults, and bad jokes.

I suggested and carried out the closure on the basis there was no philosophy left in the discussion.

Banned @Coeus for unprovoked hostile PMs suggesting he rejects the idea of being modded and for general low quality.

It's trivially true that language originated in humans, but it was not "invented" as if there was some conscious effort at design involved. Language develops organically. The world's most recently developed language, Nicaraguan Sign Language, is a case in point. The route from creole to full language occurred through the children of parents who used the creole and added grammatical complexity spontaneously.

So the process there is something like rudimentary tools of communication being automatically transformed into a language, which allows for more advanced communication and from which rules are retroactively inferred and codification occurrs. The communication comes first then becomes more complex. And only at that point can you start to talk about a set of rules which defines how the language functions.

So, the quote

With English, in a nutshell, it seems to me that people invented the language, made up the rules, agreed on them, started speaking it, started using it as a tool for communication — quoted in the OP, unattributed

is senseless from a linguistic point of view (and really from any point of view to the extent it implies people invented and debated rules with each other before using language as a tool for communication).

It's true we don't know for sure how quickly or gradually language developed (there are competing theories), but there does seem to be an in-built capacity that kicks in with children to the extent that they can unconsciously create complex linguistic form. It's important though to stress the lack of purposeful design / agreement.

Just saw that, thanks. Sorry, @Metaphysician Undercover :scream:

Odd. Who said that? MU? Anyhow, rules are retroactively inferred from language in use. The extent to which (generalized) linguistic rules are genetically inbuilt is a hot topic, but no-one thinks that humans "invented" language and then had a debate how to use it before employing it as a tool for communication because that's extreme cart-before-horseness.

That's a wrong question. — unenlightened

Sorry 'bout that, boss. ;)

You get sold into slavery, you can be as virtuous and authentic as anything, you still get whipped and worked, and chained, and it would be invidious to make a comparison with any possible humiliation of the slave-owner. — unenlightened

We may be heading in to Hegelian territory with that :) But yes, I'm probably stretching the meaning of "humiliation" here.

One gains the power of the machine by becoming a cog (or a sub-routine). — unenlightened

Yes, and voluntarily so. That’s the exchange. So, within an organisation, when you exercise systemic power, you enforce the identity of the organization's system on yourself as well as on the person over whom you exercise the power. Personal identity power would be a more authentic potential exercised outside that context, one more expressive of your particular attributes, skills, inclinations, beliefs etc. Of course, we are always in some context, so it's more complicated (I think you can generalize outwards from organizations into society as a whole and how it exercises, maintains, and reproduces its systemic power), but it's to point out that the powerful can become effaced of identity in the exercise of their power. And that that’s a different kind of humiliation that's harder to see because it's presented as a reward, a conditional status . So, “Success” as humiliation, but where the humiliation is sublated by the system and belief in its value. And this relies on a view of identity whereby it's constructed both of the past and the depth and breadth of future possibilities reflected into the present, becoming effaced as these possibilities lose their volume and density, with long-term engagement with systems a major means of this paring down.

So,

Consider two humiliating scenarios. — unenlightened

1) A supervisor disciplining a lower-level employee not because the employee did anything he/she considers morally or ethically wrong but because the employee broke a company rule (let’s say an unreasonable or ill-thought out one). The supervisor goes by the book and enforces a punishment he/she doesn’t believe is merited.

2) An employee being disciplined by a supervisor when he/she has done nothing morally or ethically wrong.

Who is more humiliated here? At least the employee can retain their sense of contempt for the rule. The supervisor though has made it part of his/her identity by enforcing it even though he/she doesn’t believe in it.

And:

Note that a change of world view can enable one to avoid the humiliation. — unenlightened

This can work for the employee, but not so much for the supervisor for whom a change of worldview is in some way enforced and is the humiliation.

I earlier said:

To humiliate is to undermine social power — Baden

But it’s not the full picture because the social takes many forms (e.g. the workplace as hierarchical system vs the workplace as broader social system) and humiliations may advance some forms of social power while simultaneously undermining others. And they may be acute and explicit or chronic and implicit.

Getting back to this:

What you do not need if you have it, you will die and kill for when it is taken away. This is identity as the absolute meaning of life, the sine qua non of existence itself. Identity is tribe. We are the champions. — unenlightened

I agree, but I’m claiming that humiliation can and does interpose at both ends of the power dynamic. For the “losers” identity is threatened explicitly and acutely. For the “winners”, it can be a chronic and implicit loss.

And his is why I am identified as troll as hostile, as sexist. Because I always insist that there is an other to every identity, and every identification is an othering. Because I never allow the discussion to be only about them and not about us. — unenlightened

And it's uncomfortable taking about us. Naturally enough. I know I'd rather you'd just let me get on with banning people without having to think about the power differentials and their significance. And humiliation. Shudder. But I'll get over it.

Nicely put. Just to complicate matters on a more micro level (not regarding identity politics per se but just identity), my experience in systems of hierarchy in professional environments is that what draws power and effaces identity is less individuals re their particular positions in relation to each other, but the amount of commitment to its systems the organisation in which the hierarchy is instituted demands, and this tends to correlate positively with hierarchical level. There's kind of an exchange of power then, system power for personal identity power, which makes being on the bottom in some sense the best place re retaining authenticity.

Another way to put it would be the mapping both facilitates power and absorbs it both intra- and interpersonally. And the intrapersonal absorption happens slowly and perniciously. (Thinking of my experience working at a university here).

Oh, and welcome to TPF!

As @Fooloso4 indicated, you seem to have a lot of ideas about what you should be and should do with little apparent thought as to why. Why do you want to be like your friend? Why do you want to 'connect' and for what? Is there something inherently good about wealth, status and popularity? Because it's not self evident any more than thinking your friend is a bore who you should avoid like the plague, and that you should keep to yourself and read books all day rather than wasting time talking to people. :)

I am white and I like who I am... There is nothing wrong with racial pride, any more than there is something wrong with personal pride in being a great cabinet maker or a barber. — Bitter Crank

You made your own skin? Well, I think you did a great job. Well done. :D

I don't personally think it's necessarily racist to be proud of one's race. And in cases where a race has been historically denigrated and oppressed, it seems an appropriate balancing response to socially and politically coordinated attempts to inflict shame. In other cases, it ranges from benign to nefarious depending on the associated beliefs.

@unenlightened

To humiliate is to undermine social power, normally in a way that causes emotional pain. It's justified or not depending on the type of social power being undermined and the type being elevated. You are right that it can sometimes be counterproductive. It depends on the context. Anyway, your focus on identity is spot on and humiliation in the broader sense of an eliding of identity (especially in a background institutional sense) deserves attention.

the experiment has only irrational answers if the answer is required to be affirmative in any way. — Mww

:up:

Is there a rock? Yes or no? — S

Does the word "rock" mean anything? Does it mean what it means in English? — S

Mu.

Or to put it another way.



See 1:30. You are pre-enlightened Bart Simpson.

I wasn't going to, but the time argument is so utterly pointless maybe this will direct things back on course and give @S somethingone else to chew on.

Yes, it means something, it means what it means in English, because "rock" is a word, and words have a set meaning, and once set, this does not depend on us being around to interpret or understand the meaning.

Some people believe otherwise. They consider that to be impossible, as it would be a contradiction. But that's just because they're going by a false premise resembling the idealist premise from Part 1. — S

A distinction without a discernible difference. As in, asking what the difference is between meaning and non-meaning where the circumstances under which meaning is instantiated are bracketed out is to posit an impossible dichotomy. Each requires the other in conditions in which one or other is said to be the case. It's like asking for a choice of heads or tails on a non-existent coin. In one sense, the word 'rock' cannot cease to mean rock because we all disappeared—our physical presence or absence doesn't seem to matter except indirectly when we choose to use the word. On the other hand, the difference between the word 'rock' meaning rock and not meaning rock does require our presence, so though 'rock' cannot cease to mean rock in our absence, it can also not be distinguished from non-rock, and seeing as this violates a condition of its meaning rock, we're left with the paradox of rock both meaning and not meaning rock, which can only be dissolved by realising that the scenario given is engineered such as to undermine the ground of its own solution, and it's meaningless to posit 'rock' as either meaning or not meaning rock under the circumstances given. Similarly, rocks can neither exist nor not exist under the first scenario's speculative conditions.

Thick coat of irony there, alright.

Removed @pbxman's membership at his/her request.

You can't. We own you now.

I mean, OK then, I'll remove your membership. Have a nice day.

We're all in the pay of the Bush family and would rather you didn't blow our cover.

Nice OP with many interesting issues raised :up: Just to make the observation that the ultimate point of the social credit system in my view is not to force people to behave this way and that against their will, but to change their will so that eventually they think they're behaving of their own volition in accordance with the system. Which is what's so pernicious about it. A social subject creation mechanism in effect. So, I'm sure the Chinese will be delighted with the impression that it's just a transparent attempt at oppression that people will surreptitiously oppose by trying to game the system rather than being a system that will become so transparent it will game them.

Nothing bothers me anymore, I feel content, I have someone I care for, and I feel safe and secure. — Wallows

That's about as good as it gets. The rest is just TV.

because your spokesman, Baden, had advised that the Swedish preschools reveal what's wrong with the USA. — frank

So, seeing as you didn't tag me, I can plausibly deny seeing this and correcting the record. Carry on. :up:

Take it up with Harry then. And I hope you'll be able to sleep at night after that.

You're catching on K. :razz:

Seriously, someone should sticky a topic on logic terminology. — Michael

Shall we do a poll?

The analytics are sometimes just that; too anal with their terminology, too desperate to be rid of ambiguity. — Janus

Probably. It's sometimes necessary, but certainly not in most of what goes on around here.

:lol:

And I don't care that you got it wrong. It doesn't matter. Again>>The point.

We are talking about logic and logical fallacies in a philosophical context and the appropriate vocabulary to be used within that context. I didn't invent the frigging vocab.

To be sound (which means true) an argument... — Janus

Arguments can't be true. So, he messed up the vocab.

the argument would not be true... — Janus

As are you...

"If you talk of 'valid premises' or 'true arguments', then you are not using logical jargon correctly."

https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Philosophy/Logic/Truth_and_Validity

But who cares, really. That was kind of the point.

The site staff will band together and keep coming up with reasons to reject it, no matter what you say. — S

Yes, we should really change your name to @K, and this place to "The Philosophy Castle".

Great idea. — S

At last, consensus. Just need @Michael's go ahead then. Oh...

Cool. I'll try not to spoil the suspense by telling you jamalrob said no. :up:

Ok, I'll just wait 'til you work your way through every reply then... :ok:

If no-one reads in the Resources section, I guess they won't notice the waste of space either. :nerd:

What about @fdrake's idea? My suggestion would be to combine the two. Pin a list of resources / fallacies in the Resources section and link from the guidelines.

We've got the resources section of the Learner centre. We could pin there maybe.

Yes. He just managed to be wrong again with this.

So in order to be true, your argument need to be valid. — Harry Hindu