Well, if one is to maintain that some form of inequality must exist for value to have meaning then be ready to be discriminated against or, far worse, prepare yourself for this inevitable event: being killed, cut to pieces, cooked, and served to the being just that much higher in value than you as you are compared to animals and plants you consume on a daily basis. — TheMadFool

Yes, this is (metaphorically) how our world operates.

List of fallacies
Please, spend some real time going over this. I would recommend you start by skipping to the bottom and reading all of the "red herring" fallacies. This is truly meant to be helpful.

Too, the very notion of value understood in your terms doesn't make sense. To think higher and lower values are essential for value to be meaningful sounds very much like saying slavery must exist and that misogyny and that racism must exist to give meaning to value. That doesn't sound right to me — TheMadFool

I think you're getting lost between two meanings of the word "value". You are thinking of something important to you, "I value X," and saying that it would be bad to say, for example, "I value slavery." What @BitconnectCarlos was describing was more of the placing of relative values on various things, "X is more valuable than Y", for example, "liberty is more valuable than slavery." The first is an assessment of an individual thing and is mostly a statement about oneself, the latter is an assessment of multiple things and is an attempt to make a statement about one's environment or worldview. If you say, "all things have equal value," that statement says nothing about anything because everything is the same. To put this mathematically, you can't have "2" without having "1" as well. The only numbers exempt from these kinds of formulations are the purely conceptual ones, zero and infinite. If you say all things have equal value, that value is either zero or infinite, and it doesn't really matter which one you choose. Can you see that?

Good! I hadn't even been thinking about incentive.

Any other thoughts? — Srap Tasmaner

You said you have kids. Have you ever tried to teach one of them something and they say "I already know this!" If they think they know it, teaching them is almost impossible. If they admit they don't know (even if only to themselves), then instruction becomes possible.

We'll just have to agree on your terms. I make some distinctions I like and find useful but not everyone does.

Some of what you're describing I would call "institutional racism" and it bugs me that Wikipedia redirects "systemic racism" there. I think of institutional racism as the codifying of racist choices within an institutional structure — Srap Tasmaner

They're not mine, they are the common uses of the terms in these conversations, per my growing internet research over the lingering days I continue to participate in this thread. I may be a qualified expert before this is all done. :grin: Your wikipedia frustration is caused by that commonality of usage. In general, I would say that "system" and "institution" are considered synonymous in this case.

it allows members of that institution to avoid responsibility. "Look, if it were up to me, I'd hire you. But we just don't hire colored people, company policy. I'm not saying it's right, or that I wouldn't change it if I could, but I just work here." — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think it necessarily does that, or that's all it does. In your scenario, there are a few possibilities. Either both the institution and the individual are racist, or one is. If it's only the institution, the individual may be genuinely unhappy about it (and they should look for another job). If it's only the individual, hopefully someone finds out about it and that person is fired. The institution can be changed through legal processes, but the individual is much harder and takes longer.

Some things like mandatory minimums are kind of a grey area for me because they're certainly "in effect racist" but they are not explicitly racist — Srap Tasmaner

Are you referring to affirmative action? If so, it is explicitly racist. However, it is an example of an application of the racial fiction that may be necessary to eventually destroy that fiction and/or its lingering effects. I do not believe "white privilege" falls into a similar category of utility.

B: "If so, it's not because they are black, so what's the real reason?"
— Pro Hominem

But like... social facts are causal too. People drive on the side of the road they drive on because it's a norm. If you're happy to disentangle race from science, and you know the history of the concepts, that doesn't mean disentangling race from causality, no? People really are treated differently because of their race, that's the very essence of racism - be it a personal prejudice, an implicit stereotype, an apartheid system or systemic effects. If someone's racial profiled - yeah, it's because of their race. If someone avoids all of that horrible bollocks; yeah, it's also because of their race — fdrake

You've left something out of the quote. The example you gave was about black people drowning in swimming pools. I can't say I'm acquainted with the raw statistical data, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of those cases are not because someone drowned them. In other words, the drowning is not racially motivated. There are likely to be socio-economic factors at play - e.g., lower access to swimming lessons for a range of reasons - and that is the proper focus. Race may play a role in that analysis, but it's incredibly lazy to reach a conclusion like "black people drown because they're black."

i would also caution you against lumping "apartheid systems" in with "personal prejudices". They are different things, and operate in different ways.

If we're happy to say that people get racially profiled because they're black; it's an act of racism and implicit stereotyping — fdrake

Black people get racially profiled for two reasons: 1) because police departments train their officers to do it, and 2) because some individual cops are racially prejudiced against blacks. The act is interpersonal racism, the training is systemic racism. Again, they are two different problems with two different solutions. Both are predicated on the fiction of race, and could not exist without it.

Then we should be happy to say that people aren't exposed to some risks, or have relative advantages, because they are white. And that's white privilege. — fdrake

What if there were no "non-whites" in the population? Is their treatment still an advantage? Do they still have white privilege? No, they just have ordinary treatment. But if we add some "other" group and treat them poorly, the same treatment of the original group becomes a privilege? What if over a long period of time that other group is assimilated and there is no discernible difference in treatment? Do they now all have privilege, or does the privilege disappear even though nothing has changed about the underlying treatment? The point is, this is a disingenuous way to talk about these things. Mistreatment exists. It does not transform all other treatment into privilege. That's not what privilege is. Privilege is a unique benefit conferred on a designated person or group. That group is usually restricted in number, and that is implicit in the way the word is used. Except for "white privilege", which has none of these characteristics at all.

If you want the causal chain spelled out:

skin colour -racial signification> assigned attributes+treatments — fdrake

So if we remove racial signification, your chain breaks, yes?

Here's a hard question: to learn how to play tic-tac-toe, do you have to know that you don't know how to play tic-tac-toe? — Srap Tasmaner

Probably. It is possible there are things so simple that one can learn them without needing to be aware that one doesn't know them. Pretty sure this must be true for babies, for example.

To bring this full circle, I have a friend who likes to use this analogy (it's not his) to describe talking to devoutly religious people or Trump voters: "It's like playing chess with a pigeon - they knock over all the pieces, shit all over the board, then strut around like they've won."

I guess the ultimate question is whether you are talking to a pigeon or a person. :smile:

By racially marked I simply mean that one's race is, as it were, re-marked upon, whether in word or deed. A kind of racial intentionality as it were - to experience race as race; as distinct from those experiences of race which are not experienced in racial terms - as with your hypothetical police interaction.
— StreetlightX

You don't see anything here or in the last handful of posts he and I have exchanged? Nothing that rings true? — Srap Tasmaner

Not really. When was the last time someone said anything to you about your whiteness? The reality is that there is ordinary interpersonal interaction, which I acknowledge is the usual standard in an "all-white" group (of course, this can fall apart in the face of someone being Jewish, or Italian, or Irish, etc, so the perceived blanket category of "white" is largely illusory). In many instances, black individuals may experience something less than that standard, but how much depends a lot on the place and the people. It's why I hate painting with these broad brushes. It's also why it's so important to maintain a distinction between acts of interpersonal racism and systemic racism. They are not the same problem and won't have the same solution. One can be legislated, the other, only educated.

And this: "A kind of racial intentionality as it were - to experience race as race; as distinct from those experiences of race which are not experienced in racial terms"? I can't tell if that's circular or just nonsense. What does that even mean?

Sorry for multi-posting here, but you started it :grin:

But when you put the word "systemic" in front of the word "racism", do you mean something else? Something like "racism without gaps"? I truly don't know. Attributing qualities besides skin tone based on skin tone, I would just call "racist". Do you just mean "lots of people having racist ideas"? If so, I suppose I agree after all, I just make allowances for people not to be all-day-everyday racist, in this sense. You only need to be racist once in a while to do your part. (Like maybe you want your dog to have a fun day and that bird-watcher is just so annoying.) — Srap Tasmaner

No. I mean what "systemic" means. Embodied in a system. Systemic racism is a formal, structural phenomenon whereby institutions deny services or discriminate against people based on race. Systemic racism has been reduced in the aggregate over the last few decades, but it still remains, particularly in the criminal justice system.

Systemic racism is differences in experiences and outcomes that correlates to an improbable degree with which race your society, at large, assigns you. It is evidence of the holding, at least now and then, of racist attitudes because, being improbable, it must consist of racist behavior. As I say, "in effect racist". — Srap Tasmaner

This is actually "interpersonal racism" and is embodied in the interactions of individuals with one another. It is what most people mean when they just say "racism". The key here is "experiences and outcomes" which cannot exist in a vacuum, there must be individuals to have these experiences and outcomes. Systemic racism, on the other hand, exists whether anyone experiences it or not, for example using zoning laws to enforce de facto segregation, or maintaining the criminalization of marijuana to allow for discriminatory enforcement of the laws.

I think the consequences are really different, largely invisible, but no fewer. — Srap Tasmaner

What? I don't really think you believe that. That's just for argument's sake, right? Devil's advocate?

I invite you to enumerate examples of "white consequences" vs "black consequences" that would clarify what you are asserting. For now, I'll proceed within the context of "white privilege" which is the de facto subject of this conversation.

If you look through all the attempts to define "white privilege" in this thread, they are phrased in the negative. It is that white people experience the absence of the oppression non-white people experience. This is no straw man - scroll through the posts, that is what is asserted time and again. Given that definition of "white privilege":

• different - it must be virtually the same, only in the negative. Black people are harassed by cops, white people are not, etc.

• invisible - in order to define something in the negative, one must have its opposite in mind. In other words, if black mistreatment is visible, then white privilege is equally visible, just ignored by many (white people). So it must be equally as obvious to say "black people have a hard time getting home loans", or "black people carry a lot of student debt", as it is to say, "white people have an easy time getting home loans", or "white people don't carry a lot of student debt," if the white privilege construct is accurate.

• no fewer - this must be true because if you define white privilege as the inverse of non-white discrimination, they are mirror images of each other. Every discriminatory act against a non-white person corresponds to an equal "benefit" to white people. A sort of Law of the Conservation of Racism.

If you look at any of this and think it is a bit absurd, then you see what I see. The white privilege concept is poorly defined, not accurate, and leads to conflict instead of resolving it.

I am saying that within these confines, we should strive for language and thinking that is more accurate and nuanced than "white people bad!"
— Pro Hominem

Cool, 'cause that's not what white privilege is - although I understand that for you, seeing the word 'white' can mean nothing other than some kind of slight because at no point have you ever had to deal with being racially marked in that way. — StreetlightX

Let me say this as clearly as possible. You have absolutely NO IDEA what my experience is.

You are also apparently unaware that engaging in speculation about it is the textbook definition of the ad hominem fallacy. Based on the entire body of your responses, you lack the ability, if not the intellect, to form or respond to actual arguments in any meaningful way. This is not me attacking you, this is a conclusion drawn from the totality of my experience of your behavior. I invite you to surprise me in the future, but you'll understand if I doubt it will happen.

As you are, you add absolutely nothing constructive to any conversation I've seen you take part in. That could be excusable, but you have somehow married incredible arrogance to a mind of absolutely no consequence. I invite you to just stop posting for a long while and read. Learn from people who are just plain better at this than you are - and I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about almost everyone else on this board. You'd really be doing all of us, including yourself, a favor.

But you're not going to deny that a whole lot of people count you as white and that this has consequences, are you? — Srap Tasmaner

It has far fewer consequences than if they identified me as black. But what does that have to do with this conversation? "Many people engage in lazy and fallacious thinking, therefore..." What? I have to think that way too?

It is the position of the (apparent) majority here on this board that the answer to racism is to double down on racially categorizing people. "If you're going to say that blacks are bad, we're going to show you how whites are bad - that'll teach you!" What's actually bad is ascribing qualities to an individual based on their skin tone. That is what systemic racism fosters. I don't see how the answer to this is to ascribe qualities to individuals based on skin tone. It's the same mistake in a different direction.

Let's change the conversation. Let's consider saying skin tone might not actually tell you anything about a person and see where that takes us. This is clearly a minority position, but I feel it is the more rational of the two.

A reckoning with 'white' privilege in particular is a recognition that the ability to sail through life being racially unmarked is not something that many others are afforded. — StreetlightX

Yes, because all white people just get to "sail through life."

I mean, there's something comic - truly hilarious - about the dude above who reckons that he can just 'reject' racial labels. One has to ask: how does this play out when you're being shot at by a cop? "I reject this!". Oh goody, racism is cancelled, everyone can go home. I mean these people really think racism is some kind of discursive phenomenon, the kind of thing you can just reason about over a coffee table. — StreetlightX

We are literally reasoning about this over a metaphorical coffee table. That is the context of this conversation. I am saying that within these confines, we should strive for language and thinking that is more accurate and nuanced than "white people bad!". Not just because it is totally inaccurate, but because it is unproductive. In the "real" world, i have repeatedly expressed my belief in a movement like "Black Lives Matter" to show these inequities in practice and stoke public outrage against them. These are two entirely separate conversations, but you cannot seem to follow that point. Or you don't want to because it would undercut your whole "pedantic asshole" vibe. Your arguments are weak and mostly all end up as ad hominem attacks. Before you say it, what I have done was make a coherent argument and then follow it with an ad hominem attack.

Their experience of race - or lack thereof - is so far removed from any reality that they really think it's just some kind of moot-court exercise in which if one disavows with a clear, strong voice, then all will be right with the world. — StreetlightX

You know absolutely zero about my experience, but it is clear that you hold yourself as an authority on things you know nothing about, so I know that won't stop you.

it's just some kind of moot-court exercise in which if one disavows with a clear, strong voice, then all will be right with the world. If only George Floyd had 'rejected' being knelt on. — StreetlightX

"Give me Liberty, or give me death!"

"I have a dream!"

"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

Disavowing a thing in a clear strong voice is a critical part of every successful resistance effort in history. George Floyd did "reject" his treatment. "I can't breathe!" is a battle cry now. It is a call to arms to resist oppression. It has been carried into the streets. This, hopefully, will foster some real progress.

How can you not register the difference between that and a purely intellectual discussion playing out on a philosophy forum?

A: "Black children are 5 times more likely to drown in swimming pools"
B: "You are aware race doesn't really exist, right?"

vs

A: (car fails to start) "These parts are Jewish!"
B: "You are aware race doesn't really exist, right?"

I imagine you imagine you are doing the latter. From my perspective, it looks like you are doing the former. I draw that conclusion because you are being hostile to the concept of race in a discussion regarding a critical concept used to highlight racial disparities rooted in discrimination. Surely the difference between the two is obvious to you. — fdrake

Yes and no. Here are my actual responses:

A: "Black children are 5 times more likely to drown in swimming pools"
B: "If so, it's not because they are black, so what's the real reason?"

and

A: (car fails to start) "These parts are Jewish!"
B: "That's a horribly inappropriate thing to say. You shouldn't speak like that if you don't want people to think you're a bigoted asshole."

Now, imagine this third conversation:

A: "I think we can effectively reduce racist acts and inequality by pushing the concept of "white privilege".
B: "Except that race doesn't really exist and we are reinforcing these false categories with language like that. If we have to do something like this, let's keep the focus on teaching people not to hate and fear others for their skin color rather than trying to convince the majority of people that they are implicit in every racist act simply by virtue of their skin color."

I assume the differences here are obvious to you as well.

My kids have seen me play chess, and when little would sometimes want to "play chess like dad" by moving pieces around on the board. They're playing something, but it's not chess. They don't know how to play chess. Even when I played this game with them, my ability to play chess didn't turn what I was doing into playing chess. We were still only playing whatever that game was. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, but if you use the opportunity to teach them the rules, then one day you may be able to play chess together.

If someone is struggling with coherency or consistency, you can sink to their level, talk above them, or meet them halfway. In my experience, meeting halfway offers the best chance to promote better thinking and communication in the long run.

I think you already believe what I'm saying, so this isn't intended to be instructive (to you). I said in another thread that engaging theMadFool is just shadow boxing - practicing without a real opponent. I don't see this thread as a true debate on anything - the answer is pretty clear if your thinking is similarly clear - it's just a kind of exercise.

This looks like a deflection. You seem to fully understand racialisation as a societal mechanism (people are sorted into racial categories by skin colour blah blah blah) and now apparently me pointing out that this happens regardless of individuals' choices to identify as a race member is a racist act — fdrake

This is a recurring thing in this conversation. People keep jumping back and forth from the general to the specific whenever it suits them. One can acknowledge the presence of racism without "doing" racism. In the same way one can acknowledge the existence of sociopaths without having to be one. I did not say that you were committing a "racist act". I said that the predilection to sort people according to perceptions of skin tone is racism. I try very hard never to do this, and I would not ever do it if it wasn't necessary at times only because so many other people do it.

I still think it's a social fact that people are racialised. That's what I'm pointing out. The lack of scientific basis for sorting people into races biologically and blah blah is something much different. — fdrake

I read an implication in what you're saying here. That implication is "racism is a fact and we just have to accept it." Correct me if that inference is not accurate. If it is accurate, I wholly disagree. Racism did not always exist. There is no "need" for it to exist. It remains at least in part because we as a culture do not seem very motivated to rid ourselves of it. Even those who are upset about "racist acts" still perpetuate their likelihood by maintaining the race-based view of the world.

We could stop doing this. I have. Teach against the concept in schools for a generation, then never speak of it again. Stop reinforcing it by self-identifying in this way. Stop using its language. Actively teach humanity as a singular whole. There are lots of things that could be done differently and better.

If you're white or black, you're white or black whether you accept it or not. Those are the breaks. That is the social fact of racialisation. If you are uncomfortable with being seen as your race... Welcome to the racial binning process, please enjoy your stay — fdrake

I am painfully aware that this happens. I just took part in a census, which seemed to have establishing the race and gender of everyone in my house as nearly its only purpose. I'm not denying that we as a society do this, I'm just saying we dont have to. We can be better. We can do better. We just need the will to make changes. The easiest change to make is in one's self, and a good place to start is to personally reject race and its signifiers and purge them as much as possible from your mindset. Once you've done that, don't be afraid to counter people using race-based language - make a point to say that "race doesn't really exist". Learn the science and history to support that statement. Truly adopt that belief. Realize that change takes time, but remain persistent. After all, if you aren't willing to do any of this, how can you expect anyone else to?

What if the clocks are all labeled "Here"?

What if they're labeled as you say but their times are only a few minutes apart?

What if speaking a natural language isn't like looking at a shelf full of clocks? — Srap Tasmaner

Uh, then my point still holds true? Conclusions are still only "true" or "false" in a contextual sense.

Don't browbeat me with this shoddy example - I didn't come up with it. :razz: I was just trying to milk it for the obvious truth. The OP suggests that words can be "wrong" if they don't correlate to some Platonic ideal (presumably listed in God's own dictionary). This way of describing language does not reflect history, usage, experience, or even reason.

Language is a tool created to allow organisms that can use it to communicate with each other. We have developed it even beyond that into a tool for a single organism to "express themselves", without need for a recipient. Thus, words and meanings are highly personal and within groups, very flexible. The larger the group, the more there is a need for a standard of definition to support successful communication. Still, this definition is simply that which the group agrees upon through commonality of use. It is not an absolute to be appealed to. One can easily say, "when I say X, I mean the following...," and then everyone can still converse even if this definition of X is entirely novel. Thus, one meaning of a word can be "true" for the duration of a single conversation, and "false" in every other instance.

Trying to say that a given word X must mean "X" at all times is to entirely ignore the way language developed and is used. In addition it robs language of much of its power, which is derived from its very flexibility to be adapted to different circumstances.

If you want an awareness neutral concept of membership, think of it is set membership - you belong in a group whether you like it or not — fdrake

This is, in simple point of fact, racism. The conjuring of race as a concept, followed by the distribution of all people according to this manufactured set of categories.

I denounce this. It is not necessary to view the world in this way. I can acknowledge that people do hold this view, but I reject it and I push for everyone else to reject it as well.

Thus, you may ascribe "white membership" to me, but I do not accept it, nor do I wish to define myself or anyone else this way.

Yes, to know a word is being misused is to know it's definition. However, it isn't necessary for us to know the correct definition of, say, the word "chair" to realize that words are being misused. — TheMadFool

Again, you assert that a word's "definition" is some absolute monolithic quality that actually exists in some concrete or at least enduring way and can be "known". Definitions are not absolute, not present in "reality", and not enduring. They are flexible agreements made by groups of people in particular times and places, and they are fully malleable depending upon their context.

Imagine an array of clocks before you, all showing different times. What conclusion can you draw? You don't need to know the correct time to realize that some or all of the clocks are showing the wrong time. Right? — TheMadFool

Wrong. This example simply proves my point. Let's say there are five clocks all showing different times. You say the only conclusion is that some or all are showing the "wrong" time. What if one clock is labeled "Tokyo", one "Los Angeles", one "New York", one "London", and one "Moscow"? Context is everything.

How many of these types of users are on this forum then? — substantivalism

Some. I think many here are interested in having a conversation - of there being a flow of information in more than one direction. Some have more skill/experience with fostering it than others, but that doesn't mean the intent isn't there.

In the incident case, however, I have seen no evidence that the subject is interested in true discussion. Thus my assessment, offered to a third party with all sincerity.

:rofl: Sorry but you could be charitable instead of disparaging. After all, according to you, I'm not playing with a full deck. — TheMadFool

I was offering a personal observation in the hopes that it would help someone new to the forums. He seemed to be sincere in trying to get substantive back and forth going, and I was only letting him know that it probably wouldn't happen. I thought it was quite charitable.

As for your "full deck", I am not the one calling you a mad fool - you did that.

FYI:
Misanthropy

Toxic Masculinity

I believe that a more historically correct and rationally sound labeling for these two ideas would be "post-theist", and "pre-rational".
— Pro Hominem
Understandable. If I have to label myself, I prefer 'antitheist' (or just freethinker). — 180 Proof

The reason I included history in the mix is that I generally like the concept of history as the "Great Conversation", which denotes a sort of meandering progress of human thought - an evolution. In that context I view theism as an intermediary stepping stone, a juvenile state, of our collective ideas. It played a role in advancing us to the point of rationality, and now the rational-scientific worldview is charged with moving the baton forward to reveal the next phase in the future. In this conception, it is predictable that the previous worldview will linger, and act as something of a drag on progress until it can be marginalized and its negative effects mostly nullified. I see tribalism as the precursor to theism, and we are still dealing with that as well.

Anyway, this more or less linear conception of things is where I derive "pre-rational" and post-theist" from.

Yes, but only, as you agree, in "ordinary" language but language is a bona fide philosophical subject and we bring the tools of philsophy to bear on "ordinary" language we realize how clumsily people have been using this extraordinary tool we possess. — TheMadFool

You are living proof of such clumsiness (laziness?). Now you're conflating "degree of accuracy needed" with "wrongness".

Different applications of any tool will have different tolerances. To quote Adam Savage, "every tool's a hammer."

If one is describing shapes they "see" in cloud formations, the margin for error is enormous. If one is drawing up blueprints to produce precision parts for scientific instruments, the tolerance is very small. It all comes back to purpose. Different applications require different levels of precision.

I will reiterate that nowhere in any of this is there a need for this notion of absolute meaning ("essence") you want words to have. They just don't, and beyond that, they shouldn't.

The recent book by Susan Cain addresses that very question. Ironically, she is a lawyer, who gets paid to stand in front of strangers and talk. Innate Introversion is not Destiny, nor an excuse for becoming a cave-dwelling hermit.

Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet:_The_Power_of_Introverts_in_a_World_That_Can%27t_Stop_Talking — Gnomon

Thank you for that contribution. I think it's important to carry those thoughts all the way through to the end, lest we unintentionally reinforce someone's (a silent reader, for example) concern that they just "are a certain way", and growth isn't possible.

I have established parameters for value equal worth, while you have not. — Joel Evans

You'll find this is how he operates. He asks questions, then ignores your answers except to pick snippets out of context and ask more (inane) questions. It never goes anywhere.

I think of it like shadow boxing. It's decent exercise, but it's no substitute for having a real opponent.

Social awkwardness seems to be typical of Intellectuals, and especially Philosophers. Throughout history philosophers (e.g. Socrates) were noted for either never marrying, or for ignoring their families. One explanation for this peculiarity, or uniqueness if you prefer, may be that deep thinkers tend to be Introverts. :nerd:

Introvert : a person predominantly concerned with their own thoughts and feelings rather than with external things.

4 Reasons Highly Intelligent People Are Often Socially Inept : https://shynesssocialanxiety.com/socially-inept/

Are Introverts Highly Intellectuals? : https://psych2go.net/are-introverts-highly-intellectuals/ — Gnomon

For the sake of argument, should we express some concern that this leads to a defeatist mindset? In other words, it is too easy for someone to say, "I'm an introvert, therefore I am socially awkward," with the implication that they are unable to choose to be otherwise or to develop social skills?

I see people use concepts like this all the time to limit themselves with victim narratives. You do not have to be socially awkward because you are smart or naturally introverted. You may just have to work at it a little more.

This is why I don't describe myself as an atheist. I prefer the term "post-theist".

I agree with the implications of your OP, which is that to claim atheism logically requires theism. The term literally describes the condition of being against or in opposition to theism. The further implication then is that theism is a position that requires engagement, one must take a position on it.

I give theism little thought, and don't believe that holding a strictly rational view of the world requires one to engage with theism at all. The term atheism should be seen as loaded, similar to the term "pro-life". It is polemical and attempts to put words or ideas in one's mouth and mind that need not be there.

I believe that a more historically correct and rationally sound labeling for these two ideas would be "post-theist", and "pre-rational".

Nothing. Why?
— Pro Hominem

:rofl: So goats have amplitudes and thoughts are red?

Perhaps a more familiar example will clarify it for you: colorless green ideas sleep furiously. — TheMadFool

What's wrong with these words?

"’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."

There's the problem and you recgonize it but only, it seems, subconsciously."Widely accepted" meaning misses the mark in philosophy or so I hear. This kind of freedom in word usage inevitably plonks everyone outside the gates of confusion, no? — TheMadFool

No. Again, this is the fact-value dichotomy at work. "Widely accepted" is exactly the standard to apply in ordinary language. It is precisely what language is for.

In these sentences, you shift your meaning from language use in general to language as used by those attempting to "do" philosophy. You a making a fallacious substitution there.

To engage in philosophy, participants must take extra care to define terms for the purposes of the particular discussion they are having. Once they've agreed upon these definitions, they can proceed because the targets are not moving as much. This is why so many conversations on a board like this just end up in arguments about the meaning of words.

Words have no meaning except what we give them. That meaning can change over time, intentionally or organically. Philosophy requires that meanings be fixed and agreed upon so discussion can be more precise. None of this approaches the question of "wrongness" in words, which is an appeal to an absolute that does not exist.

The goat has an amplitude of red thoughts. What's wrong with the preceding sentence? — TheMadFool

Nothing. Why?

Universal.

All relationships are difficult to maintain, moreso the closer they are, and/or the longer they last.

Most people want to be around people who allow them to feel good about themselves. If you're having a lot of trouble maintaining any relationships, then you should probably spend more time trying to understand the other person's wants and needs and meeting them to the extent you can. If they do the same for you, that is what we call a "healthy" relationship, and it will probably last until something comes along to fundamentally change the dynamics.

However, at this juncture, I feel the necessity to bring into the discussion the notion of misuse, germane to the issue of definitions as occasions when a word like "chair" is inappropriately applied to objects. If we follow Daniel Bonevac's logic, and I'm sure he's not alone in this, there's no such thing as misuse of words, there is never an error in applying words to objects - every single time a word is used, it's always used correctly. Preposterous!? — TheMadFool

You read some Plato, skipped ahead to Aquinas, and then just stopped, didn't you?

I'll take a shot at this in terms you might accept.

You are too focused on the instance of "chair" when you are really talking about the category of "language". Your analysis fails to appreciate that language has a purpose. It was created by sapient animals to communicate and allow for some level of cooperation. It is not absolute, and is an entirely artificial agreement reality. Therefore "chair" does not exist in any real way. Only when we attempt to communicate something to another person do we use the tool of language to indicate a thing that we think that other person will most likely recognize as a "chair". Therefore, there is no misuse, only miscommunication. In other words, every time a word is used, it is neither correct nor incorrect, it is merely effective or ineffective.

You may attempt to go down the rabbit hole of how we form these abstractions in our minds and whether they correlate to something "real", but that's all superfluous to the thing you seem to have a problem with here.

Side note: you should probably leave Wittgenstein out of this. Especially if you're going to try to refute him with "chair".

Responses from the Community headed your way:

1. You don't understand Wittgenstein, like, at all. — Srap Tasmaner

etc.....

Thank you for this post. It gave me real joy to read it.

What personal investments are at stake in the discussion? — fdrake

Varies from person to person.

Ranges from just being an anti-human troll, through simple insecurity, all the way to a sincere desire to see if one's own views hold up to scrutiny and criticism.

Possibly all of that is just a continuum of insecurity. Clearly every one of us is here seeking something we can't find in ourselves alone.

But we've taken the time to learn all this terminology and think all these thoughts. What the hell else are we supposed to do with it? :grin:

Problem of evil
- God
No evil.

Therefore, no problem.

I've been pondering death quite a bit, as usual. It is a constant thought of mine, partly because I never expected to live a long life and have faced it quite a few times. The compulsive thoughts are not due to fear, but instead a loss of what to do next, and a curiosity in the loss of fear to be some sort of abnormality that would effect optimizing function and habits. — Cobra

I think you've diagnosed your own frustration right here. You say you no longer fear death, but you are clearly still very fixated on it. Seeing life through the prism of death is trying to understand a thing solely by considering its absence. You may not fear it, but it consumes your thoughts nonetheless.

Shift your focus. This is easy to say, hard to do. It requires daily effort and the willpower to maintain that effort over a period of time. There are various tools to help with this. Meditation, mantras, routinized physical activity such as yoga or tai chi, counseling, or joining a support group. The idea is to rewire where your mind goes by default in its resting state. Yours goes to death. No wonder you can't seem to "get into" life.

Choose your own reality. All reality is agreement reality anyway. Imagine yourself as you wish you were and then take logical steps to become that person. You say you wish you were not bored. What does that mean to you? Imagine a not bored person. Can you? What is that person like? What do they do? Visualize and emulate.

If you don't, you don't. There are no judges, no prizes, and no "answers". Life is truthfully what you make it. The key to it all is the "you" part.

↪Pro Hominem

I'm good with that. We agree on so much, I think the remaining differences are mostly semantic. If I have new thoughts I'll come back to this.

It was a good discussion and I look forward to seeing you elsewhere on the forum. — Srap Tasmaner

Cheers. When two people engage in civil discussion with thoughtful sincerity, they actually CAN come to an agreement.

I applaud your decorum. Quite rare and much appreciated.

@tim wood

Also, all of this.

↪180 Proof The essence of the disagreement I think we'll find here is that you're opposed to answers the grounds or operations of which are inaccessible - or nonexistent
— tim wood
No. I'm not "opposed" to them because they are not even answers. Avowals, at most, not propositions.

The answer has an historical basis.
So does astrology.

As to there ain't no why, why ain't there no why?
(1) The only answer to the fundamental / ultimate Why that doesn't beg its own question (i.e. precipitate an infinite regress) is There is no fundamental / ultimate Why.

(2) And as I wrote

Also, "the why" of existence presupposes an 'intentional causal agent' that exists prior to any existence at all which is viciously circular (and/or a category mistake).
— 180 Proof
In other words, it's a pseudo-question - just Bronze Age woo-woo nonsense which philosophy perennially attempts to exorcize — 180 Proof

You overlook my reference to history. Christianity gave a leg up to science. In no sense am I giving over to anything supernatural; it's just the historical fact. It needn't have been Christianity - but it was. The only salient point here is the utility of the idea of one god over many, as the author of one set of rules instead of many sets of inconsistent rules. This evolution starts - well, maybe not starts - has a significant waypoint in Greek Paganism and the Greek view of nature as imperfect. Which already had the tectonic tensions of Pythagorean number, Aristotelian description, and Plato's ideal (Platonic?) models. But this didn't really resolve until Galileo, and still has not completely resolved. Psychology is barely a science, and mainly descriptive; biology, mainly descriptive. — tim wood

If you want me to say that Christianity was one of the voices in the historical "conversation" that led to a rational-scientific worldview, fine. Done. I don't think it's as influential as the the Greek contribution, given that Christianity spent 1000 years more or less sitting in its own waste before the "re-discovery" of Greek thought allowed progress to continue on. Still, its relative importance is probably just a matter of opinion and we won't get anywhere discussing it.

But what made science a science was the essentially Christian idea, as opposed to the Greek, that God made nature, thus it could not be imperfect, thus it was something definite and a proper subject for science, the task of the scientist to find out not what imperfect nature is approximately, but what perfect nature is in fact and actually. No voodoo/woowoo here, just history. — tim wood

Did monotheism contribute to the formulation of the universe as a rational place that could be studied and understood? Maybe. I don't think that case is as clear as you're making it here. I repeat that I think Greek principles of logic and reasoning are a bigger factor. Especially since Christianity doesn't seem to espouse that view very clearly at any point, given the acceptance of God's frequent failure to follow the rules (miracles and such). You also have the Christian penchant to burn anyone that suggested the world was most reliably understood using our faculty of reason and observation as opposed to taking church doctrine as incontrovertible. Christians were still actively afraid of the presence of witches among them until about 200 years ago, and a disturbingly high number of them believe in angels even today. So Christianity as the bedrock upon which all science is based? Not sold on that at all.

Your view is going to keep bringing you back to the God of the gap as your best case scenario. People hung onto God as long as they needed him, and the progress of science continually diminishes that need because a universe inhabited by an all-powerful magic ghost and a rational universe are mutually exclusive.

Most scientists - those worth the name who think about the underpinnings of their subjects at all - believe just this: that if it falls down today, it won't fall sideways tomorrow, unless there's a good reason. Logos, law, god - what's the difference when they're all impenetrable beliefs? — tim wood

So taken at face value, this statement makes me think that you actually believe in a vast, impersonal, materialistic universe governed by physical laws, but you've just decided to call that god for some reason. I'm surprised no one has told you this before, but that's not what the word is used to signify to basically anyone else. Why cloud the issue with a such a loaded and counterintuitive word?

Agreed. Well put.

On the other hand, I think there are interesting things to say about positions of dominance people are unaware they hold. When I see a young man and a young woman at a coffee shop and the guy is talking 90% of the time, I think, "I used to be that asshat." (And there's data on speaking time in conversations between men and women.) I think that kind of thing is worth knowing about for so many reasons. — Srap Tasmaner

Totally agree. I think we can certainly argue for self-awareness and gender equality without having to resort to "male assholery" as a crucial element of the discussion. In my experience, most people are unaware of these inequalities when they engage in them. That's natural since it requires so much effort to stop seeing the world purely through one's own eyes. It's like George Carlin said, "our shit is stuff, but everyone else's shit is just shit." Finding ways to help people see these undesirable behaviors is a worthwhile exercise. Almost as much as learning to see them in ourselves.

To bring this full circle, there are racists. There are misogynists. Mostly though, there are people who live their lives in a culture that has these elements woven into it historically, and they personally don't intend to abuse the dignity of other people in a flagrant way. Call out the minority of people who are bigots, and build bridges to the rest.