The Weird Metaphysics of Censorship

NOS4A2

In a letter to the editor of the New York Times in 1940, Bertrand Russell made the important point that “in a democracy, it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged”. He wrote this after being declared morally unfit to teach philosophy and math at the College of the City of New York.

Russell’s statement indicates that he believes the outrage surrounding him and his work is a problem of the censor, who undoubtedly lacks a thick enough skin for democracy. But the censor believes the problem is with Russell and his expression, which may effect the very fabric of society.

The thinking used to justify the inquisition of Russell illustrates the common overestimation of the power of speech. The judge presiding over his case ruled that Russell’s appointment would, at some untold time in the future, “adversely affect public health, safety, and morals”, as if Russel’s teachings and character were a contagious disease. The judge argued that the court was obligated to step in to “protect the community's safety and welfare”, as if they were under attack by some invading force. That era’s outrage-machine had convinced itself that a looming, existential threat existed in the expressions of an old English pacifist.

It’s a shame because we’ll never know if Russell’s teaching position would have affected public health, safety and morals like the censors predicted. He was denied the position ex ante, and without proof of any real, actual consequences beyond the ones found in the judge’s skull.

But if the arguments against Russell sound familiar, it is because they are. Censors commonly use fear of future catastrophe, moral or societal breakdown as justification for their censorship. The mere act of teaching “affects public health, safety, and morals”, as in the case of Russell. The act of expressing philosophy “corrupts the youth”, as in the trial of Socrates. Making contrary world-views explicit leads to “disorder and mischief” against the one true faith, as in the inquisition of Galileo. Nowadays laws teach us that others can be “incited”, encouraged, roused into various fits of immorality—hatred, discrimination, lawless action—by our speech.

Physics and biology would imply that there is no power or force in speech beyond the medium it is presented on. A book filled with writing has no more power or force or energy than an empty one. The spoken word affects the world around us like any other sound from the mouth. The censor’s assumption that words and expression can alter the world around us is closer to sorcery than anything else.

If this is the case, why do we let censors get away with their weird metaphysics, used as it is to justify the censorship and murder of human beings?

↪NOS4A2

There are arguments in favour and arguments against. It's about getting the right balance. I'm more on Russell's side in that case. But one thing's for sure, a few favourable cases here and there against censorship does not by any means justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater as absolutists suggest.

The censor’s assumption that words and expression can alter the world around us is closer to sorcery than anything else. — NOS4A2

And that is not only false, but patently absurd, as the counterexamples I've previously raised in response to this ludicrous claim of yours demonstrate. Karl Marx, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Socrates, William Shakespeare, Martin Luther, the Four Evangelists... none of the aforementioned were sorcerers. They were just world-renowned wordsmiths.

unenlightened

The thinking used to justify the inquisition of Russell illustrates the common overestimation of the power of speech — NOS4A2

The advertising industry illustrates how very widespread this estimation is, and how much money hard nosed business women are prepared to put where their mouths are by way of amplification. Indeed no one would bother to hire a professor in the first place if their speech was not influential. It would be a weird metaphysics to imagine speech to be anything other than powerful.

NOS4A2

↪S

And that is not only false, but patently absurd, as the counterexamples I've previously raised in response to this ludicrous claim of yours demonstrate. Karl Marx, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Socrates, William Shakespeare, Martin Luther, the Four Evangelists... none of the aforementioned were sorcerers. They were just world-renowned wordsmiths.

No they weren’t sorcerers, because they cannot change matter with their words. Had no one read or heard their mystical words, nothing would have been changed. You can try this with your own words. The societal changes, the altered matter, begin with the listeners not the speakers.

NOS4A2

↪unenlightened

The advertising industry illustrates how very widespread this estimation is, and how much money hard nosed business women are prepared to put where their mouths are by way of amplification. Indeed no one would bother to hire a professor in the first place if their speech was not influential. It would be a weird metaphysics to imagine speech to be anything other than powerful.

Sure, people believe and respond to advertisements. Then again, people don’t. Are these contradictory results because of the words? Or those who hear them?

unenlightened

↪NOS4A2

Sure, not everyone can be educated either, but enough can that it matters what poison they drip into your ears.

NOS4A2

↪unenlightened

Note the purely metaphorical language to describe this poisoning process. This is also how the sophists of Ancient Greece described it. Is it possible to describe it in biological or physical terms?

No they weren’t sorcerers, because they cannot change matter with their words. — NOS4A2

Well, there's a silly way to interpret the statement that they changed the world with their words, and there's a sensible way to interpret that statement.

You're obviously going with the former.

Had no one read or heard their mystical words, nothing would have been changed. — NOS4A2

They weren't mystical, but otherwise yes, and that's the point. They did read or hear the words, and the world was changed as a result. If they had not have, then it wouldn't have. The works of Shakespeare, for example, are taught in schools, so obviously his writings had an effect on the world through their influence on people.

You can try this with your own words. The societal changes, the altered matter, begin with the listeners not the speakers. — NOS4A2

So? If the words didn't motivate them, then the societal changes they action wouldn't have occurred. It's easy to refute your claims and suggestions through a reduction to the absurd.

NOS4A2

So? If the words didn't motivate them, then the societal changes they action wouldn't have occurred. It's easy to refute your claims and suggestions through a reduction to the absurd.

The problem is we treat the words as agents and the humans as the objects they act upon. Words motivate us, incite us, inspire us, encourage us. It’s a habit of language, but likely a folk psychology. But It’s the other way about. We act upon the words: we read them, hear them, understand them.

The problem is we treat the words as agents and the humans as the objects they act upon. Words motivate us, incite us, inspire us, encourage us. It’s a habit of language, but likely a folk psychology. But It’s the other way about. We act upon the words: we read them, hear them, understand them. — NOS4A2

There's no problem here besides the peculiar one that you've invented. There's no contradiction there: words have an effect on us like you just described, and we act on them. Words aren't treated as agents: you made that part up.

NOS4A2

↪S

There's no problem here besides the peculiar one that you've invented. There's no contradiction there. Words have an effect on us and we act on them.

You say this yet your words remain completely ineffectual. Perhaps moving them around in a different order or combination will illicit the effect you desire.

DingoJones

↪NOS4A2

Is there a middle ground you would consider, where the speaker and listener both contribute to the effects of speech? This would be an alternative explanation as to why speech effects peoples actions sometimes and other times not rather than explaining that as you are doing. (Saying that speech never effects peoples actions).

You say this yet your words remain completely ineffectual. Perhaps moving them around in a different order or combination will illicit the effect you desire. — NOS4A2

Have you taken leave of your senses? My words just influenced you to reply with the above. In fact, you could not have done so if I hadn't said what I did just now. So they can't have been completely ineffectual.

And don't bother attacking the ridiculous straw man that words must always have the exact imagined or desired result every single time without fail. You'll just be wasting time.

unenlightened

Is it possible to describe it in biological or physical terms? — NOS4A2

Some idiot might attempt it. Bla bla neurones, bla, pathways, bla behaviour, bla. I prefer mental terms like 'belief'. People tend to believe professors and thus are influenced in their actions. So if your professor is Hitler...

NOS4A2

↪DingoJones

Is there a middle ground you would consider, where the speaker and listener both contribute to the effects of speech? This would be an alternative explanation as to why speech effects peoples actions sometimes and other times not rather than explaining that as you are doing. (Saying that speech never effects peoples actions).

Again, I don’t think there are any effects of speech beyond the measurable. I believe humans have agency, not the words. We act upon words and not the other way about.

NOS4A2

↪unenlightened

Some idiot might attempt it. Bla bla neurones, bla, pathways, bla behaviour, bla. I prefer mental terms like 'belief'. People tend to believe professors and thus are influenced in their actions. So if your professor is Hitler...

I agree with the phrase “we believe the teachings of professors”, because this gives agency to the student and not the teachings. But disagree with “we are influenced by the teachings of professors” because agency exists in the teachings, not the student.

I believe humans have agency, not the words. — NOS4A2

No one here believes that words have agency, so you don't need to keep negating that words have agency. It's as senseless as me saying to you that humans aren't fish.

NOS4A2

↪S

No one here believes that words have agency, so you don't need to keep negating that words have agency. It's as senseless as me saying to you that humans aren't fish.

Then why do you advocate for censorship? If the words have no agency, what is there to fear?

Then why do you advocate for censorship? If the words have no agency, what is there to fear? — NOS4A2

Agency is not the issue. It's a category error with regard to words, and a category error that no one has made. I'm not sure you understand what that word means. I advocate for censorship in a very limited sense in accordance with the United Kingdom laws on freedom of speech, which includes the United Nations Declaration on freedom of speech, because of the effect which they can have on people. Because of the potential consequences, and because of past cases which set the precedent. It's a risk assessment, a cost-benefit analysis, as you already know.

NOS4A2

↪S

Agency is not the issue. It's a category error with regard to words, and a category error that no one has made. I'm not sure you understand what that word means. I advocate for censorship in a very limited sense in accordance with the United Kingdom laws on freedom of speech, which includes the United Nations Declaration on freedom of speech, because of the effect which they can have on people.

So why censor words and punish those who speak them if the words they speak are unable to act upon other human beings?

The UK law on freedom of speech includes article 19, sure, but contradicts it in the very next clause by limiting freedom of speech with a wide array of regulations.

Terrapin Station

And that is not only false, but patently absurd, as the counterexamples I've previously raised in response to this ludicrous claim of yours demonstrate. Karl Marx, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill, Socrates, William Shakespeare, Martin Luther, the Four Evangelists... none of the aforementioned were sorcerers. They were just world-renowned wordsmiths. — S

What would be patently absurd is to say that their words are what altered the world. Non-speech actions alter the world, and we need to look at the causes of those non-speech actions. Words can have an influence, but they don't cause the actions in question. (And we're back in the middle of the thread we already beat to death.)

Terrapin Station

The advertising industry illustrates how very widespread this estimation is, — unenlightened

And illustrates the overestimation very well. If that weren't the case, no one would ever go out of business. They'd merely need to advertise and they'd make tons of money.

So why censor words and punish those who speak them if the words they speak are unable to act upon other human beings? — NOS4A2

It's hard to tell whether you're being silly with your choice of words and the way that you're interpreting them, or whether you're saying something agreeable. I don't condone driving over the speed limit, but not on the basis that the car itself will somehow gain agency and drive itself into people of it's own accord.

The UK law on freedom of speech includes article 19, sure, but contradicts it in the very next clause by limiting freedom of speech with a wide array of regulations. — NOS4A2

It doesn't contradict it.

What would be patently absurd is to say that their words are what altered the world. Non-speech actions alter the world, and we need to look at the causes of those non-speech actions. Words can have an influence, but they don't cause the actions in question. (And we're back in the middle of the thread we already beat to death.) — Terrapin Station

No, it's not patently absurd to say that their words altered the world, so long as that's not interpreted in a silly way. Words do have an influence, as you say, and that entails that they're causal, because again, I don't interpret influence in a silly way.

So there's only a problem here because you've decided to go against the grain with a silly interpretation. So much for nonconformity.

And illustrates the overestimation very well. If that weren't the case, no one would ever go out of business. They'd merely need to advertise and they'd make tons of money. — Terrapin Station

That doesn't work as an attempted refutation. That some businesses overestimate the effect that advertising will have to the detriment of their business doesn't do anything at all against his point.

NOS4A2

↪S

It's hard to tell whether you're being silly with your choice of words and the way that you're interpreting them, or whether you're saying something agreeable. I don't condone driving over speed limit, but not on the basis that the car itself will somehow gain agency and drive itself into people of it's own accord.

I can’t tell whether your false analogies are child-like or if you actually believe them to be analogous. I’m saying that words have zero power over human beings and in fact it is the other way about. If this is the case, why would we ban the words?

It doesn't contradict it.

Only if, like you, you ignore the rest of the law.

Terrapin Station

No, it's not patently absurd to say that their words altered the world, so long as that's not interpreted in a silly way. Words do have an influence, as you say, and that entails that they're causal, because again, I don't interpret influence in a silly way. — S

If we're going to call actions that preceded actions that were performed because someone decided to perform them "causal" as well as calling actions that preceded actions that were performed because they were forced "causal," how are we going to protect against conflation, for one?

Terrapin Station

That doesn't work as an attempted refutation. That some businesses overestimate the effect that advertising will have to the detriment of their business doesn't do anything at all against his point. — S

The overestimation is that advertising is going to be effective, because of a belief that it strongly influences consumer decisions.

I can’t tell whether your false analogies are child-like or if you actually believe them to be analogous. I’m saying that words have zero power over human beings and in fact it is the other way about. If this is the case, why would we ban the words? — NOS4A2

You were talking about words having agency and acting on people. That's a straw man deliberately using inappropriate language suggesting a category error, so I gave you a taste of your own childishness with an analogy which does the same thing. You frequently do this, like with your talk of sourcery. Do you realise that it's a fallacy to do that?

I don't care about you saying that words have zero power over human beings when that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You've been given a million examples evidencing this, and any response from you which just misinterprets that claim as I understand it is just missing the point. If you want to argue with yourself, go and argue with yourself. If you want to argue with me, you'll have to actually listen to what I'm saying and interpret it appropriately.

DingoJones

Again, I don’t think there are any effects of speech beyond the measurable. I believe humans have agency, not the words. We act upon words and not the other way about. — NOS4A2

That doesnt really answer my question. Perhaps I could have framed it better, but remember Im not for censorship, even of hate speech.
Agency is not what Im asking about. Lets use your terms: do you think that there are any measurable effects of speech? If so, then have you considered that what we are talking about here (in this thread) is something that involves both the speaker and the listener?

DingoJones

I don't care about you saying that words have zero power over human beings when that flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You've been given a million examples evidencing this, and any response from you which just misinterprets that claim as I understand it is just missing the point. — S

What do you mean by “power”, that makes it sound like a compulsion of some kind, is that what you mean?

The Weird Metaphysics of Censorship

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions