If I'm following correctly you're saying:

• Offense can't be given.
• Thought can be given.
• Meaning can't be given.

Is that right?

Pretttttty much. But its a bit trickier than just that, because we must have an internal 'meaning' to utterances (at least their parts) before we can even entertain an utterance. But our internal meaning can be wrong, so clearly is not coming from the person uttering x unless it is an explanation of the parts of some other utterance.

I would say intent and thought can be given - but their actual meaning and relevance is up to the hearer (well not 'up to' but reliant on).

I'm interested enough to read your essay but don't want to link my phone, from fear of spamage.

At this point I'm primarily interested in how you separate thought and meaning.

I'm sure you realize that thoughts can be incommensurable.

This doesn't negate the fact that it's impolite to offer offense to others. — praxis

Thank you. I am enjoying comparing a past I read about and in some cases experienced, with today, and the talk of the young people who are just becoming adults. Some believe the new young people give us hope. I remember reading long ago that our societies swing from one extreme to another.

I know, as a matter of fact, we have been through some difficult social transitions. :lol: Checking the spelling of "transitions" led to learning today that it means sexual transitions and laws regulating personal choices. I was thinking of the transition to women's rights. That was the big issue when I was young. Each cohort has its defining issues. I think Economic crashes like the Great Depression and more recent recession, and wars were damaging to society as a whole.

But my grandmother's 3 rules bring out the best in us.
1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people. This is about our character; it doesn't matter if the person we are interacting with is the mayor of a bum.
2. We protect the dignity of others.
3. We do everything with integrity.
I think these rules would resolve a lot of problems.

I've always found your posts to be a model of courtesy and have no idea why you think you might be 'thrown out' for saying so. I completely agree with the importance of manners (and wish my grandsons had more of them ;-) ) I think the more delicate point is, how to disagree with others whilst remaining civil. That is especially important in philosophy and in navigating online discussions. My experience is, I have plenty of disagreements, some of them quite heated, but I try and refrain from inflammatory language and bomb-throwing. But it's especially difficult in this polarised time, where standards of civility are under constant assault by people in high places (some more than others, if you catch my drift.)

Anyway - overall in total agreement, and the model of 'paideia' is certainly one that we should all aspire to. — Wayfarer

I have to admit I tend to react and say things spontaneously, falling way short of being the refined person I want to be. So I try to avoid people who bring out the worst in me. It is so much easier to be the person I want to be, when I am engaging refined people who are as I want to be.

Totally fair. If you have somewhere, I can send it directly to you.

I think you're identifying a different issue (but a good one to discuss, for sure).

The problem with my position, when objected to, is not the separation of thought and meaning - but words and meaning.

I can hope you interpret me correctly. I cannot ensure it (probably because of the incommensurability of thought). All i can do is retrieve words and sentences (utterances) which reflect, as far as I'm concerned, what I mean to say - once these leave my mouth, the meaning is lost until it reaches your mind, and you interpret it against the 'meanings' you have in your internal dictionary for those words and sentences (utterances). This is why you can fail to make someone laugh, or get offended. My meaning might be "disgusting black freak", but because I used words for which that interpretation is esoteric, I fail to offend person A.

I do not think thought and meaning can quite come apart, but they can be... stretched... from one another.

our idea of the "best in people" is not defined. So I presume that to be the most "virtuous, charitable, forgiving, easygoing, affable" sort of designation. Sure, no one wants a neighbor from hell, after all. But that's just your own desire for, not peace or goodness, but preservation of all that you've become accustomed to. Not to say, someone else accustomed to the opposite would wish the same (example being, an impoverished person who experiences hardship regularly would not wish for the same sentiment you express). However, as I'm sure you can see, the two different scenarios and persons in each unique scenario view the idea of "creating social pressure" I.E. hardship quite differently. — Outlander

I was raised by a divorced mother who worked for low pay. As a teenager I dressed in black, smoked, and I was ready for a fight. The first guy I almost married became a Hells Angel. It was important to be tough. :lol: In my later years, I have a different understanding of being tough. But I know poverty and rough neighborhoods. My sister and I are sensitive about what separates us from mainstream society.

Dick and Jane textbooks and later TV and music, influenced my ideas of what to value. In this way, I was in step with my cohort.

My school teacher grandmother was perhaps the most influential person in my life, and I always hung out with older people, except for my teen years. The older women in the Toastmistress Club were great mentors. Everyone should have a mentor. And the Greek gods and Goddesses became very important in my struggle to be independent. They taught me how to be my own hero. Thanks to my grandmother, who taught me the importance of reading.

Is there a history of philosophers trying to prove each other wrong? — Athena

The most pointed attempt I know to “prove someone wrong” would be Austin’s reading of Ayer in “Sense and Sensibilia” which we read through here. But even there, Ayer is just a straw man of the argument for “sense data” that Austin uses to actually figure it out, not just prove Ayer “wrong”—it is actually fair and (somewhat) understanding. The most generous and in-depth reading that I know of (while still a complete reversal) has to be Wittgenstein’s examination in “Philosophical Investigations” of his own earlier positions. Austin is waaay more readable though (plus it’s only like 70 pages).

To be clear, are you now saying that thought can’t be given, only words can be given?

I PM'd my email address where you could kindly send your essay. Thanks for the offer.

@Athena

I just wanted to make clear that, in my post here, I was only trying to point out what I take as the real problem and the responsible party, which, yes, was also to say that those wrongs have their own separate criteria for identification, and individual redresses, but I did not want to imply that what some call “being offended” is trivial or inconsequential.**

People say “how you feel is your choice”, but that is just biologically impossible (thus the dismissiveness), that is if we take it as if we should, say, choose not to feel anger. I take the point to be that you have (some, sometimes) control to not express your anger, as in: let it get the best of you, dictate your reaction, not hold your tongue, lose your cool, etc. Part of my point above was that we wouldn’t want our being offended to dictate our reaction, or serve as our justification, because, as I pointed out, the punishment should fit the crime. This cold deliberateness is why we hand over dispensing justice to the State—and also so we don’t have the (emotional) blood on our hands.

Nevertheless, I think many other states of being have been lumped together with “being offended” to make them all seem like an overreaction to simply, as it were, being slighted. Obviously, in taking offense, there is the sense of being shocked, affronted, annoyed, or displeased. And this implies that we merely resent our pleasure, comfort, or decorum being upset; that our feathers have simply been ruffled. Thus the pejorative implication that the insult may be simply “perceived”, and such mild reactions imply that the party offended are those that usually “can’t be bothered”, the privileged, the “status quo”, those “easily offended”, and so where is the real harm?

**But sometimes responses are categorized as “being offended” to minimize the offense, say, keep it on the level of a possible insult rather than, say, a personal crime. Acknowledging that we are responsible for our reactions, we are, again, not judging the emotion, say, deciding whether it is true outrage or self-righteousness. The judgment is of the bad act; the first responsibility is the bad actor’s. Being disrespectful or scornful may just be rude (at a dinner party), but it may be a much more serious matter, say, when it comes to someone’s sense of self (try to disrespect a marine, or an abuelita).

I think we can both agree that a formal tone is required in order to present a sense of neutrality? If one attacks an argument that is fine, but such should probably be done in a formal manner.

If someone is speaking informally I have no qualms with openly attacking their position in an informal manner IF attempts at a more formal and distanced dialogue fail. It all depends on judgement.

Examples:

- Formal: I am not sure I agree with your position on this point due to X and Y.

- Informal: You are probably wrong about this mate, because of X and Y.

Of course there are more severe degrees and everyone has a lien of tolerance for the style they encounter. I would find the second a little disappointing as the 'mate' from someone I have never met seems misplaced, but I would not judge on one sentence alone.

@Athena

Offense can be given in many ways—through direct insults, indirect or implied slights, a condescending tone or delivery, hurtful humor, acts of disrespect, deliberate provocation, or insensitivity to someone’s circumstances. — praxis

This is a good list of examples. I noticed that the dictionary divides between objects that offend (smoke, or the smell of fish) and just offending a rule or principle (without an object). I would say yours fall into the first category, although what is disrespectful is perhaps what is commonly accepted (or set) as a “rule”, as are manners, and thus “being rude” (humor of course being a slippery fish here).

What interests me is that the “object” in your examples is the act, identified as what it is without the speaker (though there is the individual to hold to account). We are all able (though some more astutely than others) to judge a slight, an insult, a tone, and what is inconsiderate or provocative behavior. Of course there are tricky cases, and the variables of circumstance, and mistakes (in judgment), but some will take this to the absurd that we can’t decide in any case, and begin to talk about “what I meant” as if it were tied to something inside them. But that is a desire to avoid (as you noted) our ongoing responsibility for (and to) what we say, which also creates the philosophical fantasy that one puts their meaning into words, and the rest is only interpretation and what we “read into them”, say, “take” offense at.

The most pointed attempt I know to “prove someone wrong” would be Austin’s reading of Ayer in “Sense and Sensibilia” which we read through here. But even there, Ayer is just a straw man of the argument for “sense data” that Austin uses to actually figure it out, not just prove Ayer “wrong”—it is actually fair and (somewhat) understanding. The most generous and in-depth reading that I know of (while still a complete reversal) has to be Wittgenstein’s examination in “Philosophical Investigations” of his own earlier positions. Austin is waaay more readable though (plus it’s only like 70 pages). — Antony Nickles

I did not read all of that but enough to believe people can disagree and remain pleasant. I am not going to fuss over right and wrong, or true or false, but speak of my experience because that is most on my mind. What I read was pleasing, like good music. It did not excite unpleasant emotions, so it felt good like a walk along a river on a nice day. That is what I want. To be both mentally stimulated and physically pleasant. Reading the link confirmed it is possible.

Nevertheless, I think many other states of being have been lumped together with “being offended” to make them all seem like an overreaction to simply, as it were, being slighted. Obviously, in taking offense, there is the sense of being shocked, affronted, annoyed, or displeased. And this implies that we merely resent our pleasure, comfort, or decorum being upset; that our feathers have simply been ruffled. Thus the pejorative implication that the insult may be simply “perceived”, and such mild reactions imply that the party offended are those that usually “can’t be bothered”, the privileged, the “status quo”, those “easily offended”, and so where is the real harm? — Antony Nickles

I think you thought things out very well. Now I wish I knew where I put my copy of "Emotional Intelligence". It seems to me that someone who is repeatedly offensive lacks emotional intelligence. There is no point in arguing the matter with such a person, because the behavior will not change. It is like telling someone s/he stepped on your toes, and the person snapping back, "move your toes". This person desires to dominate and control, and I don't want to submit to that nor engage in an argument about it.

I think there is an important difference between "I think that is wrong because____" and "You are wrong".
That is so simple, but not everyone gets it.

If someone is speaking informally I have no qualms with openly attacking their position in an informal manner IF attempts at a more formal and distanced dialogue fail. It all depends on judgement. — I like sushi

Perfect! You used the right words to clarify the thought I had, but I did not have the necessary words to express my thought.

I want to develop in myself the habit of responding formally with better logic skills. I can not do that with people who do not understand the difference and jump into arguments without having enough information to discuss the subject, so they attack the person instead of the reasoning. They are playing an aggressive game I don't want to play.

Ouch, I am sooo sorry, but I think I have some sexist ideas associated with my judgment. I say that because I am uncomfortable with that thought. But I think women have played an important role in developing civilizations, and a man who understands what you said is totally awesome! Unfortunately, there are not enough of them. I do not want equality with the average male. But imagine a civilization that operates on a higher level.

In the US, the Statue of Liberty, Lady Justice, and the spirit of America are female, but we have lived under male domination with ministers telling their flocks that Trump is chosen by God to rule over us. What is going on here? He is not my idea of the dignified man I think should be representing America.
Doing battle in the WrestleMania ring might be different from the negotiating skills of diplomacy.

Yes, in a manner of speaking. I think you can successfully convey thought, but its incidental to two, separate, sets of similar-enough internal dictionaries looking up the same words in the same context. But hte thought itself cannot leave the mind. I would like to hear how if you do disagree..

But that is a desire to avoid (as you noted) our ongoing responsibility for (and to) what we say, which also creates the philosophical fantasy that one puts their meaning into words, and the rest is only interpretation and what we “read into them”, say, “take” offense at. — Antony Nickles

But that is factually true. You cannot 'get' anything from my words which aren't already in your mind. It isn't possible, on current knowledge. There is absolutely nothing in 'trying to offend' which includes the other person's offence. It just isn't there... There's a stark difference between things which can offend, and offence.

Your essay, which is related to the topic, is interesting and I’m glad to have read it. Thanks for sending.

You're very welcome - I will probably flesh it out with objections that I couldn't get to due to word count. Might post somewhere on the forum here once I do.

Generally, respect of others is important. It is complicated when ideas are so much in conflict. Part of the art may be about seeing the positive arguments in disagreeing ideas This can be a basis for fruitful exchange of ideas; as opposed to attacking those who see differently from oneself.

I have the good fortune of having come across a face to face group where respect is seen as being extremely important. Being in such a group is so helpful from my point of view. Of course, there are differing ideas but listening to and appreciating differing perspectives can be a starting point for generating useful discussion, as opposed to mere 'war of ideas'.

Offence in itself is complicated. Is it an offence to argue against ideas ot against the person who is preventing them? The dynamics of projection may be important and those who attack others' ideas in a vehement way may be fighting conflict in their inner experience and views An attempt to listen and understand another person's perspective may be about the art of an open mind in critical understanding.

Of course, there are differing ideas but listening to and appreciating differing perspectives can be a starting point for generating useful discussion, as opposed to mere 'war of ideas'. — Jack Cummins

I like that phrase 'war of ideas'.

Offence in itself is complicated. Is it an offence to argue against ideas ot against the person who is preventing them? The dynamics of projection may be important and those who attack others' ideas in a vehement way may be fighting conflict in their inner experience and views An attempt to listen and understand another person's perspective may be about the art of an open mind in critical understanding. — Jack Cummins

I think the people I admire most are those with a lot of self-confidence, a good sense of humor, a positive attitude, good listening skills, and all this contributes to good reasoning. Hmm, after giving this some thought, that is a lot to ask of others, but they surely would be more fun, than those without these qualities.

My thought of people engaging in a war of ideas is, these are grumpy people with a negative attitude, and not even more knowledge of the subject would make them fun to be with. But here is a catch 22. Everything would go better for everyone if we all felt good about who we are, and we didn't take ourselves too seriously, and we really enjoyed sharing ideas. You know, not a war of ideas, but the delight of children discovering something new.

(try to disrespect a marine, or an abuelita). — Antony Nickles

What do you mean by that? I would think a marine might handle a bad situation very well and would go well with my reply to Jack. As I thought of this whole subject, I realized the people I want in my life have a lot of good qualities, and all these qualities contribute to good communication. This makes me want to know about the Marines' training.

My study of the history of education from old books about that history says the priority purpose of the earliest education was behavior. What did it mean to be a good Spartan or a good Athenian or Cherokee, etc.. How were they taught? Your mention of a marine makes this wondering even more interesting to me because it speaks of needs today.

What interests me is that the “object” in your examples is the act, identified as what it is without the speaker (though there is the individual to hold to account). We are all able (though some more astutely than others) to judge a slight, an insult, a tone, and what is inconsiderate or provocative behavior. Of course there are tricky cases, and the variables of circumstance, and mistakes (in judgment), but some will take this to the absurd that we can’t decide in any case, and begin to talk about “what I meant” as if it were tied to something inside them. But that is a desire to avoid (as you noted) our ongoing responsibility for (and to) what we say, which also creates the philosophical fantasy that one puts their meaning into words, and the rest is only interpretation and what we “read into them”, say, “take” offense at.
4 days ago — Antony Nickles

I want to clarify, I am thinking of everyone, the whole of society, and even things like economics and advertising. :heart: The more you all make me think, the more I realize, and this is why I come to forums. It just happens the thinkers here are better at giving me that wonderful feeling I get when I see a bigger picture. In two other forums I have a negative experience, because what I want is not what they have to give. :lol: It is rather dumb to keep trying to get something from others when they don't have that to give.

Adam Smith, the father of economics, assumed well-bred men function with a high degree of virtues, and could understand the need to do business with good ethics and good moral judgment. Today's advertising has hit a low in ethics, and I think this is having a negative effect on the whole of society.
You would not run into someone's home and scream at people, but we have tolerated the internet and TV advertisers preying on us with unpleasant attention-getting behavior, and we are okay with extortion. You know, doing something unpleasant to others unless you are paid not to harass them.

This is about the culture we experience daily, our relationships, and the sense of power or lack of it. This affects our whole economy and politics. I want to leave my family a better world, so I think a lot about good moral judgment and the enlightenment and democracy that are based on the idea we can do better.

I would think a marine might handle a bad situation very well — Athena

I realize now my examples played on generalizations (and perhaps stereotypes) and not in a necessarily favorable light so that was a mistake. Obviously not every marine (or grandmother) is going to react poorly when they are disrespected, even about their sense of self. I was just thinking of examples where offense might be taken other than those usually thought to be concerned about such things (who are more likely to be dismissed as without cause).

Adam Smith, the father of economics, assumed well-bred men function with a high degree of virtues, and could understand the need to do business with good ethics and good moral judgment. — Athena

I always think of Cicero’s assertion that it is not that others are swayed by a person adept at the tricks of speaking (as Plato warned), but that speaking well is a reflection of one’s character; that thinking, as it were, is an ethical practice (where Heidegger ultimately landed).

Discussions and debates also contribute to teamwork involving a conjecture--- so the more polite we are to each other, the more gets done and the more gets properly filtered. There is no point in suppressive techniques unless the conjecture has already been through the filter and doesn't require an easy team effort.

I always think of Cicero’s assertion that it is not that others are swayed by a person adept at the tricks of speaking (as Plato warned), but that speaking well is a reflection of one’s character; that thinking, as it were, is an ethical practice (where Heidegger ultimately landed).
15 hours ago
Barkon
194
Discussions and debates also contribute to teamwork involving a conjecture--- so the more polite we are to each other, the more gets done and the more gets properly filtered. There is no point in suppressive techniques unless the conjecture has already been through the filter and doesn't require an easy team effort. — Antony Nickles

I like both statements because both are a higher standard of morality than lives centered on self-interest.

Last night I listened to a lecture about emotional intelligence. I think we might enter this subject with Descartes' ideas of animals being mechanical and of humans as mechanical, like the rest of the animals, but then going a step further with thoughts and emotions forming another level of reality. For better or worse, we can manifest a more complex reality of thought and feelings. There can be no knowledge without language. When that knowledge becomes the written word, that is another step in consciousness. When the written word is shared in gatherings and then with the printing press, it becomes widespread knowledge that is another step in consciousness.

Here is a problem- I have read science must be completely detached from feelings/emotions, and I think education for a technological society has been so prejudiced against feelings, that we are smart but no longer wise. That has been my biggest problem in some forums. I perceive this prejudice against feelings as shutting down our awareness of ourselves and others, and even our imaginations. That kills our creativity and wisdom. Does that statement seem right?

That has been my biggest problem in some forums. I perceive this prejudice against feelings as shutting down our awareness of ourselves and others, and even our imaginations. That kills our creativity and wisdom. Does that statement seem right? — Athena

Not to me. These functions are optimized in different places. I don't think reading/crunching numbers is one where 'feelings' are helpful as opposed to hypotheses and conclusions (one will ultimately 'feel' things about, and throughout that process but the outputs should essentially be stripped of them, on this account).

However, something like politics often requires feelings along with good, robust critical thinking skills and often statistical understanding (these requiring a removal of feeling to be truly useful, on this account).

It is probably the case that in each fora there are over and understeps to these ideas (again, on this account) but the basic concept of separating feelings from factual (i.e universally presentable) findings seems useful and "the case", as it were.

Discussions and debates also contribute to teamwork involving a conjecture--- so the more polite we are to each other, the more gets done and the more gets properly filtered. There is no point in suppressive techniques unless the conjecture has already been through the filter and doesn't require an easy team effort. — Barkon

I have a dear, younger friend who earns the big bucks in high-tech research. The teamwork you speak of is essential to her job.

I so wish America would ditch its autocratic industrial model and switch to Deming's democratic model. It would be nice to do that before we have an economic crash that takes us down, like Rome went down.
Not only could this save our economy, but it would be great for families as well.

The most pointed attempt I know to “prove someone wrong” would be Austin’s reading of Ayer in “Sense and Sensibilia” which we read through here. But even there, Ayer is just a straw man of the argument for “sense data” that Austin uses to actually figure it out, not just prove Ayer “wrong”—it is actually fair and (somewhat) understanding. The most generous and in-depth reading that I know of (while still a complete reversal) has to be Wittgenstein’s examination in “Philosophical Investigations” of his own earlier positions. Austin is waaay more readable though (plus it’s only like 70 pages). — Antony Nickles

Some days my brain works better than other days. This morning I understand the reason I have trouble understanding what you said is I don't know enough. I regret I missed out on reading "Sense and Sensibilia" . It must be a good book because ThriftBooks is selling it for a relatively high price. :gasp: Wittgenstein's book is even more. I will resist the urge to buy the books until I have read the pile of books I have. Can you explain more about it?

If I'm following correctly you're saying:
Offense can't be given.
Thought can be given.
Meaning can't be given.

Is that right? — praxis

I think that is an example of poor emotional intelligence. We might be at the beginning of a new shift where emotional intelligence increases to right the wrongs of the past. Right now, the daily news may be creating a backlash to the opinion that emotions are bad and are to be suppressed or completely ignored. I am thinking of beginning a new thread about what economic crashes and wars have to do with our emotional and economic well-being.

I am working with the notion of a New Age, a time of high tech and peace, and the end of tyranny. The transition is difficult, and I am not sure we will succeed.

I think that is an example of poor emotional intelligence. — Athena

At core it seems to imply that an individual is an independent being. Nothing could be further from the truth.