That is what “PC” is, forcing people to do things a certain way. — DingoJones

No, that's not PC, nor is it polite. That's just trying to make others do it your way, which does nothing (constructive) for anyone.

The only thing that politeness prevents, while maintaining honesty, is personal insults. — Pattern-chaser

Not thinking it through properly or lying to yourself? Which is it?

There can be a big difference between insulting someone and just saying something which they don't want to hear. — S

Exactly. :up: Politeness disallows the former, while facilitating the latter.

Frankness involves honesty and directness, and being polite doesn't allow that in at least some conceivable cases. — S

The only thing that politeness prevents, while maintaining honesty, is personal insults. And that's its point and purpose. Address the message, not the messenger, and politeness will get you wherever you want to go, with complete honesty, but without conflict. Politeness avoids conflict.

In order to actually respect or tolerate the next person I need to understand their perspective. For me to do so the next person will have to be able to tell me their honest opinions however offensive these may be. — Ilya B Shambat

It is quite possible to deliver any opinion honestly and with courtesy. "Political correctness" is just another name for courtesy. Politeness. :roll:

But sure, it's not unusual that a lot of people are pro-conformist enough that they think that. — Terrapin Station

I'm not convinced that 'pro-conformist' is a position one would choose. Societies (communities) are quite demanding of their members. Conformity is one general requirement that communities make of their members, although specific and individual non-conformities might be tolerated, up to a point. Don't you think this is how societies work in the real world? It seems so to me. :chin: [ I offer no moral judgement, only my observations of how the real world seems to be, to me.]

Here's an interesting link I just found today. It's not about this specific issue, but it's about culture and societies, and the effect they have upon us and our lives. I've never read anything like it, although I have had vague feelings in this direction for some time. Worth a read, I found. :up: :smile:

Then your morals would be out of step with your community. That would put you 'in the wrong'. — Pattern-chaser


People who think that "out of step with their community" amounts to "wrong" in any manner are the last people I want to be spending time around. — Terrapin Station

If you have understood that I posted a personal moral verdict, I have miscommunicated, and I apologise. I merely note that any community would consider the views of one of its members who disagreed with every other member as "wrong", wouldn't they? :chin:

I have no problem stating it that way as long as we recognize that "collective (social) preference" is not a simple thing. It involves a complex interaction of societal, governmental, religious, and cultural institutions. — T Clark

:up: Definitely. :smile:

So if there is some "external" thing being 'shared' then why isn't it preserved through translation. — Isaac

I quite agree with what you're saying. :up: :smile: But your sense doesn't quite come through (to me!) in the above text. The external thing isn't preserved through translation because the communications medium (speech/words) is imperfect, and we know that this is so. Because the shared external thing isn't safe in simple transmission, it just gets worse in the case of translation.

And then there is the question in the OP: what exactly is the external thing?

You seem to be missing the point by a country mile. — S

Oh, I thought we had reached a realisation that we had no significant disagreement here. :chin:

What if I was the only non-racist in a racist society? — S

Then your morals would be out of step with your community. That would put you 'in the wrong'. Unless you think there's some kind of natural law that defines racism to be wrong?

Even worse, how accurate has previous doomsday predictions been? (I'm looking at you Al Gore!). — Taneras

Really? I think that the only significant way in which the doomsday (climate-change) predictions have failed is in when they will occur. They start off saying 'by the end of the century', or something like that, but it happens before the end of the decade. Doomsday really is here, but our momentum prevents us from seeing it, even though it is already too late.

Well, first off, it's obviously not a matter of personal preference. Moralities are systems of values associated with particular societies, traditions, and cultures. — T Clark

:up: And so we can conclude that morality is a matter of collective (social) preference, can't we? :chin:

So, what is it that is being shared between language users? — creativesoul

I think this has a lot to do with the bidirectional nature of shared speech. I utter some words, and I intend for them to carry a particular meaning. You hear my words, and you discern from them a meaning. But the meaning I intend and the meaning you receive might be two quite different things. I think this is the core of the sharing question. :chin:

Just because it has not been mentioned, does not mean it hasn't been accounted for. — creativesoul

Agreed. But lack of mention means that this accounting is far from obvious.... :chin:

You treat meaning rather like a thing or a property, whereupon it seems mysterious that it could survive without a context, and how does it survive, in what form etc. — jamalrob

I think that meaning must be considered alongside context, as indicated here. The OP focusses tightly on meaning, but does not even mention context. I think this is an oversight that could usefully be corrected.

maybe you could refrain from clogging the forum with your cleverness? You know, there's an appropriate place for what you want to do. It's called Facebook. — Jake

:up:

And the other 99% went along with it? — Brett

Yes. I've always found that bit difficult to believe. Why do people allow themselves (and all around them) to be controlled by this empowered and entitled minority? :chin: I have no idea.

So why, if it’s true, have so many been fooled? — Brett

Propaganda issued by the 1% - the super-rich - who own everything and control everything? :chin:

I would have thought the two go hand in hand. It would seem you can't seriously cut CO2 emissions without seriously slowing the growth rate, and you probably can't seriously slow the growth rate without seriously cutting CO2 emissions. — Janus

Yes, I don't (especially) want to sound like a raving commie (:joke:) or anything, but the underlying theme here is that capitalism has destroyed the world. By encouraging consumption for its own sake, it has caused our demands for wealth to exceed the ability of our environment to provide it. Continuous-growth economics? An eco-joke in poor taste, and an impossibility, given a finite environment.

The way this thread has gone, you would think that no one has ever considered something bad happening except religious nuts. — unenlightened

I see your point, but who has considered these things? Can we read about what they achieved or concluded? Where? The paper linked in the OP is the first of its kind that I've seen. You say others have considered these matters, but who and where are they?

Secondly there is a tacit assumption - namely if catastrophe does occur we cant do anything about it. There are many engineers working on the problem that disagree - but that is generally not talked about. — Bill Hobba

This is encouraging! :up:

• Who are these engineers?
• What companies do they work for?
• What sort of projects are they working on?
• What degree of success have they already achieved?
• Give us links, so that we all can spread the good news!

are there other types of truths that are not spiritual? Mathematical truth? Do they fit the description of spiritual truth? — Possibility

Interesting. Mathematical truth is defined to be true, so it's true by definition. A lesser form of truth, I believe. :chin: But that doesn't invalidate your question. Truths that are factual might be independent of spiritual truth. ... But how to verify facts to that degree of certainty? I'm not sure. :chin:

Is it wise to give a definition if the wording is terrible and leads to the very thing you call nonsense? — S

The wording isn't terrible. It refers to simple questions about what wisdom is, or might be. In asking you what you think wisdom is, I was just trying to find out ... what you think wisdom is. I wasn't trying to steal your definition, or even your understanding, for myself. I just wondered what you thought. I have my own understanding of wisdom, which you have ridiculed, and I hope(d) to improve that understanding. You have moved this discussion away from that destination, not toward it. So, in a literal and autistic way: thanks for nothing.

And that's all there is to it? — S

No. It requires your deliberate misunderstanding to reduce it to nonsense. :sad:

People should be taught both to think and to feel. — Ilya B Shambat

You think people can be taught to feel? To think, yes, there are definitely ways in which we can improve our thinking, and many of them can be taught. But teaching someone to feel? How would/could that work? :chin:

One claim by some followers of Eastern religion is that spiritual truth is “inexpressible.” I doubt that claim. I believe that anything is expressible, if you are good enough at expressing. — Ilya B Shambat

Easy for you to say, and maybe you're right. :chin: But many of us simply don't have such accomplished powers of expression. As an autist, I feel this especially. There are ways of expressing things that you do without thinking, that I am completely unable to do. It's not that I need training or instruction, it's that I actually lack the spark that could be fanned into a flame. Not everyone is autistic, of course, but many of us share shortcomings in our means and ways of expression. In practice, I think there are many things that many people are unable to adequately express.

And then there is the intended meaning of "inexpressible truth" that you mention. I think there are such truths. Truths that can be learned and understood, but not expressed in words. For these things, words are insufficient. Perhaps because their understanding, if one can reach it, is visceral (yes, not a great word, but I couldn't think of a better one) more than intellectual? Perhaps the matter concerns something that must be experienced personally before it can be understood? Maybe it's like me trying to appreciate what it's like to grow a baby, and give birth to it? I dare to guess that this might be something that cannot be adequately expressed using only words?

While some particulars of the scientific method can be debated, I can't see anyone arguing that it's entirely wrong. — Echarmion

Neither can I. :chin:

I am autistic, and cannot see a constructive way out of this conversation. I'm sorry for bothering you. :yikes:

So I suppose you go around insulting people that are carrying guns? 8-) — Sir2u

I think the point is that the presence of the guns makes politeness both impossible and irrelevant. In the presence of the gun, you are constrained by fear of being shot (and maybe killed) to say whatever the gun-holder wants to hear. Politeness is something you do voluntarily, not for fear of your life. :worry:

the scientific method seeks to be first and foremost to be objective — ssu

Seeks to be, but perhaps fails to achieve this aim? I think that's the issue, isn't it? :chin:

am I just a believer in Eurocentrist science that doesn't get the point of decolonization of science? — ssu

It looks that way...? :chin:

Sorry, but I'm not going to give you the easy answer. Do you think that that's a good way to find wisdom? By having it handed to you on a silver platter? — S

I'm so sorry, Master. I am humiliated. I have addressed you as an equal, and I am but a lowly student in your eyes. I abase myself before you and salute the knowledge and wisdom you hold. I sought only to discover your thoughts, not to trouble you with my own. I sought to learn from you, but I am not worthy. My apologies.

How does he connect with dietary laws, the communion, and Ramadan? Could someone provide me with a rational explanation? — Jacob-B

Simple. God pays attention to detail. She is able to do all you describe, and maybe more too. :wink: I don't know if that's the right answer, but it's a rational explanation.... :chin: I see no problem here to be discussed. What have I missed? :chin:

You have nothing but subjective appearances..that's the only thing that there is. — Nobody

I was with you until this point. You have not even begun to justify this conclusion. Why do you think this is so? What evidence do you have to offer? Or is this just a feeling? [Nothing wrong with that, but say so! :smile: ]

Wisdom, I think, is what oriental philosophies tend to refer to as "right action". — Pattern-chaser

Excuse me; I am an idiot. :yikes:

Wisdom is that which enables us to discern or recognise right action. It is not right action of itself. :up: :wink:

A bit cliche but: what is the sound of one hand clapping? — praxis

Silence. :clap:

What do you think wisdom is? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I think wisdom is something along these lines (quote taken from a Reddit discussion):

Do any of you find the Daoist principle of way similar to the Buddhist idea of Right Action? The Way being action that is in perfect harmony with the Dao, Right Action being action in perfect harmony with your inherit Buddha Nature. Sound a little similar?

Wisdom, I think, is what oriental philosophies tend to refer to as "right action".

Religion, like philosophy, is a multi-function tool — Pattern-chaser

Okay. Well, I've purchased and tested both. I would like a refund on the religion multi-tool, please. — S

Fair enough. That a tool is available doesn't mean you have to use it. Maybe you don't have the sort of questions that religion might answer? It doesn't matter. Like I said, religion isn't compulsory. :up: :smile:

science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do. — Rank Amateur

Now that is starting to sound like a description of what wisdom is. I'm sure it's incomplete, but it does actually address the issue (what wisdom is). :up: :smile:

Wise, being, that quality which is beneficent for themselves or can produce wise information, a print-out that's beneficent to others. — kill jepetto

So wisdom is "that quality which [...] can produce wise information...", which looks a lot like a circular definition to me. :chin: What do you think wisdom is?