t may be the way most people use the word, and it may be the conventional meaning of the word, and you may have a superior understanding of the relation of that usage to guilt or any other term; but there is also a usage that treats it as a feeling, and that is how I have stipulated it to be used in this thread. So in this thread you are wrong. Shame is a feeling and I cast shame on you for attempting to prevent the discussion from taking place in the terms I have already set out. It's equivocation. You don't have to like it, but then you don't have to participate. If you do participate, then you need to use the word the way I am using it, or you will confuse an already difficult topic. — unenlightened

What I've demonstrated is that it is impossible that there is such a feeling as "shame". This is why we can have shameless guilty people, guilt without shame, because shame, as it is commonly described, as being self-conscious of guilt, is actually not something we feel at all. Being conscious of one's guilt does not cause a feeling of "shame", so defining the term in this way is not a true definition. It just makes some people feel better, more secure, thinking that guilty people will naturally feel shame. So people like you, who think they are referring to a feeling called "shame", really do not know what they are talking about, because they've never felt shame, nor has anyone else. Notice your quote in the op refers to being "ashamed". That a person might feel shame itself, rather than "ashamed" is an illusion. And limiting your thread to such a definition of "shame" will produce a dead end because you prevent us from addressing the real nature of shame.

And so from the social view, we arrive at the vice of pride and the virtue of humility. From this, as the Ginzburg piece suggests, one can arrive at other virtues and vices quite easily. The social image of virtue is conveyed by social myths and parental approval, so one learns for instance to be ashamed of one's fear, and hides it with a performance of bravery. And so on. — unenlightened

Yes, I think that's the positive face of shame. I think the problem comes, like with most of our vices, when a source of virtue malfunctions (which it sounds like you also agree with). Vanity, for instance, seems like a secondary reaction to too-strong shame. If the shame of disapproval, meted out moderately, leads to corrections of behavior, then an overwhelming, shaking level of shame can produce, as a defense, an overly perfect fake self. It's like a statue you hide inside of that deflects any scary disapproval rays. Your shame hides inside it with you, but now everything is frozen. Your shame has hit a critical limit, and overflowed, so it remains with you, but it no longer truly interfaces with external feedback, which is what it does when its working well. To get into psychological jargon, what you have, vis-a-vis the real world, is dissociation.

There's something of the protective statue to fascism, and something of the too-much-shame origin story to the economic and military humiliations of 1910s-1920s Germany.

(The other thing is shame which doesn't lead to a change of behaviors, but to identification with the shamers. That's when you develop a self-deprecating identity which makes you part of the in-group by laughing at the outsider, even though that outsider is you. Once that locks into place, the brain/mind/soul links it to survival (since the individual needs to be part of the group), and thinking well of yourself, or doing things that people who think well of themselves do, can begin to feel as dangerous as much more serious offenses.)

But it's not like that - it hurts! Why does it hurt, when all that has been damaged is an idea? — unenlightened

Excuse me, it's not my style to call anyone an idiot.

Anyway, suppose I ridicule your French Omelette three stars. You'll be embarrassed if this is "seen" by members of your reference group - gourmet friends, for example - or you consider me an authority on this field. We're not talking about a simple idea. We're talking about the image of yourself that links you to a reference group - family, friends, or big chefs. It is your life project that is being questioned and your own identity. Remember Huis clos. Garcin is in hell and is watching his former colleagues blame him for being a coward. And he can't do anything about it. This is hell. This is shame. You can't say "But I'm not a coward!", because to the other you are a coward and this is what you really are. (NOTE: You are not ashamed of having done something wrong. You are ashamed because others have seen what you are).

Ah. Ok, I'll take your word for that. — Banno

Am I lost in translation?

Is shame to be counted amongst the virtues? — Banno

Yes, in a strong communitarian society - Homeric, for example. No, in a strong individualistic society - like the neo-capitalist. In the first one it's a question of survival. In the second, it's a path to neurosis.
I think shame is an inescapable fact and you have to learn to deal with it. It's the human condition.

What I've demonstrated is that it is impossible that there is such a feeling as "shame". — Metaphysician Undercover

That's because you give a special meaning to the word "shame." How do you call the feeling of embarrassment of a young woman who is ashamed of her first period or the young man who is ridiculed in public by his girlfriend for not being very good in bed? I see a difference with the girl who betrays her best friend with her boyfriend or the young man who feels bad because he has hit his girl. Is it not?

That's because you give a special meaning to the word "shame." — David Mo

I was distinguishing between "shame", as that which is cast upon a person by others, and the feeling of being "ashamed", "embarrassed". The latter is the consequence of the former. The feeling of being ashamed, requires the act of shaming, and this is why a person who knows oneself to be guilty can be in that state of knowing oneself to be guilty, without being ashamed or embarrassed, shameless. That is when the person has not been shamed

So if there is a feeling which one gets, when one knows oneself to be guilty, but the person has not been shamed and therefore cannot be ashamed or embarrassed, the feeling which causes the blush we associate with embarrassment, this feeling is something other than shame. The feeling is related to the keeping of a secret. Since the keeping of a secret might be either for good or bad purposes, we cannot call this feeling, which pushes the person toward exposure of the secret, "shame", because that implies that keeping the secret is wrong, guilt. But the feeling, which leads to the exposure of the secret is the same whether the secret is held for good purposes or for bad purposes.

I see a difference with the girl who betrays her best friend with her boyfriend or the young man who feels bad because he has hit his girl. Is it not? — David Mo

What I said above ought to partially answer this question. And this example with different degrees of wrongness, or degrees of guilt, will help demonstrate what I said, that the feeling which one has when hiding a secret from others ought not be called "shame". This is because it is the same feeling, or more properly the same type of feeling, regardless of the degree of guilt involved with the secret being kept. Furthermore, there may be no guilt at all involved with keeping the secret, if the secret is kept for good reasons. The name "shame" implies guilt, but the same type of feeling occurs when one is keeping a secret for good reasons, and there is no guilt.

You don't have to like it, but then you don't have to participate. If you do participate, then you need to use the word the way I am using it, or you will confuse an already difficult topic. — unenlightened

I am sorry Unenlightened, I am willing to follow your instruction, for participation in your thread, and I apologise for any unnecessary persistence. However, we must maintain the following important point which I regret that I missed earlier:

I think, purely for the purposes of this thread, I will stipulate at this point that the shame under discussion is some kind of unhappiness with the image one has of oneself, and that guilt is a possibly and possibly not associated kind of unhappiness with (the image one has of) what one has done or not done — unenlightened

We must maintain that separation between this feeling you have named "shame", and any necessary association with guilt. Any person who uses "shame" in this thread as if it implies guilt, I will charge with equivocation, and justification for that charge is found here.

Accordingly, I will revoke the following, and other related statements in my last post:

Since the keeping of a secret might be either for good or bad purposes, we cannot call this feeling, which pushes the person toward exposure of the secret, "shame", because that implies that keeping the secret is wrong, guilt. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have clearly removed the association between the feeling you describe as "shame", and what we call "guilt", so there is no reason not to call this feeling which I described as the feeling one gets from keeping a secret, as "shame". So long as "shame" does not necessarily imply guilt, I have no problem with calling this feeling "shame".

Now I will question the relationship you describe here:

Rather it is to note the tradition that shame is the primary mark of humanity, and that it results in the urge to hide, to self efface. — unenlightened

As I understand this feeling of shame, it results from hiding something, keeping a secret, thereby producing the urge to reveal as the unhappiness referred to earlier. What you do, is describe a relationship between pride and shame, almost to the point of a dichotomous opposition. To put this into my perspective, pride is the feeling of having nothing to hide, laying it all out there. Shame is the feeling of having something to hide, and this only occurs if there is a reason for hiding that thing. The reason for hiding something, is what produces the unhappiness you refer to.

It is a confliction, because there appears to be a natural tendency towards being proud, laying it all out there for the world to see, as this makes one feel good. This "pride" is closely related to confidence, so the reason for hiding something, which manifests as the actual secret and the feeling of shame, can be understood in terms of a lack of confidence. The lack of confidence is what you describe as "the urge to hide". Notice the distinction, yet the relationship between, the act of hiding something, keeping a secret, and the urge to hide oneself. This I propose as the characteristics of the feeling "shame". The difficulty of keeping the secret, when pride is what brings enjoyment, is the root of the unhappiness.This difficulty appears to be lessened by hiding oneself, and so the urge to hide.

Once again, I'm sorry for my earlier obtuseness, but I think it is very important for any clear understanding of the subject, that we do not conflate two very distinct senses of "shame". They are very distinct, because one is the feeling when the person is hiding something, keeping a secret, and the other is the consequences when the secret is exposed, revelation. Therefore if you refer to the biblical story of Genesis, or any other stories to elucidate the nature of "shame", we need to respect this difference. We cannot relate "shame" to the fruit of tree of knowledge, because this is the "shame" of exposure, revelation, and that would not be the "shame" you are talking about, but equivocation by the rules of your thread.

Therefore we must relate "shame" to the feelings which are involved with keeping the secret, the secret existing prior to that incident. These feelings of "shame", the unhappiness and uncomfortableness of keeping a secret, the need to tell someone, are the feelings which inspire the creation of language. Notice that in this case the reason for keeping the secret, the lack of confidence, and therefore the root of that shame, is the inability to communicate. That is why this shame, this unhappiness which led to that first exposure of knowledge is associated with innocence.

They are very distinct, because one is the feeling when the person is hiding something, keeping a secret, and the other is the consequences when the secret is exposed, revelation. Therefore if you refer to the biblical story of Genesis, or any other stories to elucidate the nature of "shame", we need to respect this difference. We cannot relate "shame" to the fruit of tree of knowledge, because this is the "shame" of exposure, revelation, and that would not be the "shame" you are talking about, but equivocation by the rules of your thread.

Therefore we must relate "shame" to the feelings which are involved with keeping the secret, the secret existing prior to that incident. These feelings of "shame", the unhappiness and uncomfortableness of keeping a secret, the need to tell someone, are the feelings which inspire the creation of language. Notice that in this case the reason for keeping the secret, the lack of confidence, and therefore the root of that shame, is the inability to communicate. That is why this shame, this unhappiness which led to that first exposure of knowledge is associated with innocence. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have to disagree with this exclusion of the Genesis story as an incidence of ‘shame’. It is an exposure or revelation of fragility or susceptibility to harm that is made only to Adam and Eve themselves - not to anyone else. Their unhappiness at this knowledge and their lack of confidence as a reason to keep the secret results in them attempting to cover up or hide what is not even apparent to anyone else.

I was distinguishing between "shame", as that which is cast upon a person by others, and the feeling of being "ashamed", "embarrassed". — Metaphysician Undercover

You distinguish between the norm that has been broken and the feeling. That's not what I meant. I was distinguishing between two different feelings. Guilt involves an external victim: you feel guilty because you have hurt a person, an animal, etc. In shame the damaged one is the self (your self-esteem). Other important differences can also be established: shame implies your inner self (you are cowardly, shy, etc.). In guilt something you have done: a crime, a fault.

These differences are not trivial. They have important different implications. For example, guilt can be redeemed by the victim or by society. Shame is an indelible stigma.

In my examples: the girl's feeling due to her first menstrual flow is shame: she has not hurt anyone and her feeling is caused by something internal (not only in a physical sense). The feeling of the boy who has hit his girl is guilty: there is a victim and he can ask her to forgive him because it is out of his character and it will not happen again.

In general shame is involved with honor, and guilt with evil.

pride is the feeling of having nothing to hide, — Metaphysician Undercover

Pride is rather the feeling of possessing something that the society praises. In its borders it becomes vanity. I hide my shame (cowardice). I exhibit my pride (triumph).

I have to disagree with this exclusion of the Genesis story as an incidence of ‘shame’. — Possibility

Shame and guilt are mixed up in Genesis. This is very common in human justice as well. Adam and Eve were ashamed of what they had become. They feel guilty of having violated the divine standard. If they had become like Yahweh (this is what frightened him) they would not be ashamed: they would be powerful (pride). Nor would they feel guilty because they should be able to dictate their own rules. What a pity!

Is shame to be counted amongst the virtues? — Banno

I don't think so. One can use virtue as almost synonymous with 'property' - one might talk of the different virtues of kinds of wood or medicines, and I think one talks of animals as symbolising human virtues in this way, such that one does not need to ask if this lion is brave any more than whether this leopard has spots.

But in this context, it is not a human virtue to have an opposable thumb, and I think the capacity for shame is about as prevalent. I'm not ready to characterise virtues yet, but I'd suggest that as others have indicated here there is probably something cultivated, and in this sense unnatural about them, the way a desert apple is an unnatural variety of crab-apple.

Thus shame is the human virtue that distinguishes us form other animals the way bravery distinguishes the lion and not therefore not a human virtue in the sense that one would admire anyone for their readiness with the red face.

have to disagree with this exclusion of the Genesis story as an incidence of ‘shame’. It is an exposure or revelation of fragility or susceptibility to harm that is made only to Adam and Eve themselves - not to anyone else. Their unhappiness at this knowledge and their lack of confidence as a reason to keep the secret results in them attempting to cover up or hide what is not even apparent to anyone else. — Possibility

I'm not a biblical scholar, but this appears as a misinterpretation to me. There are no people other than Adam and Eve. Eve has come into possession of "the secret", and reveals the secret to Adam. So the supposed "shameful" act here is the revealing of the secret. Once the secret is out, there is no attempt to hide it from future generations. The problem is that they are supposedly "shamed" for revealing the secret, but what are the feelings which led Eve to reveal?

You distinguish between the norm that has been broken and the feeling. That's not what I meant. I was distinguishing between two different feelings. Guilt involves an external victim: you feel guilty because you have hurt a person, an animal, etc. In shame the damaged one is the self (your self-esteem). Other important differences can also be established: shame implies your inner self (you are cowardly, shy, etc.). In guilt something you have done: a crime, a fault. — David Mo

I find it very difficult to understand things by these terms, the way that you separate guilt from shame. The problem is that there are cases when a person knowingly hurts another, and therefore knows this to be a wrongful act, but does not feel guilt. This is what we call shamelessness. So your description of "guilt" is not correct.

Because of this, it is questionable whether there is such a thing as the feeling of "guilt", perhaps what you call "guilt" is just a special type of shame. But if we look at guilt directly, we see that it requires necessarily a judgement, and there is a clear division into two types of judgement. One type is when others judge you as "guilty" for having done wrong, and the other type is when you judge yourself as "guilty" for having done wrong. The first requires an exposure of your actions, to others, and recognition by the others that the act is wrong, and so there is a type of "shame" involved for you, with this exposure.

The second involves recognizing one's own acts as wrong, and this is a bit more complicated because there are two distinct and somewhat opposite directions in which one can proceed from this point. The person might be compelled to reveal one's actions to others, "confess", or the person might be compelled to hide one's actions from others. These are two very conflicting feelings, 'I must confess', and 'This must be kept secret', so we cannot class them both together as "the feeling of guilt". Therefore we tend to refer to 'I must confess' as the feeling of guilt. But this leaves 'this must be kept secret' as a feeling distinct from guilt, despite the fact that the person recognizes oneself to be guilty. The feeling of the need to keep something secret might be called "shame", but notice that it is completely different from the "shame" mentioned above which results from exposure.

n my examples: the girl's feeling due to her first menstrual flow is shame: she has not hurt anyone and her feeling is caused by something internal (not only in a physical sense). The feeling of the boy who has hit his girl is guilty: there is a victim and he can ask her to forgive him because it is out of his character and it will not happen again. — David Mo

In this example, the girl and the boy both appear to feel the need to keep a secret, so they both feel "shame" in the same sort of way. However, if the boy is actually feeling the need to expose himself, to "confess", then he is feeling guilt. Notice that the two, the need to keep the secret, and the need to confess, cannot be the same feeling, because they are opposed to each other. However, so long as the secret is kept, there may be confliction between the two feelings (the urge to confess along with the desire not to), and there may also be further complications to keeping the secret (what a web we weave...), and this is why this type of "shame" is so discomforting.

If we go back to the girl, I believe she is also feeling the same type of "shame", to a different degree. The "shame" in both these cases involves the discomforts of having to keep a secret. She does not have the self-imposed judgement of "guilt" against her, which might increase the discomfort with the urge to confess, but she still has the discomfort and "shame" involved with the burden of keeping a secret. We ought to represent the keeping of a secret as a burden, and it is this burden which is associated with the discomfort of this type of "shame".

I hide my shame (cowardice). I exhibit my pride (triumph). — David Mo

I would describe this in a different way. The feeling of shame is caused by hiding something within. But shame may be overcome by pride, and this leads to exposure. In relation to guilt then, (as one reason out of many, for hiding something), the urge to confess is a feeling of pride. This leads us toward authenticity, which is to accept oneself as you are, to accept one's past mistakes as part of who you are, hiding nothing, revealing your entire person.

Is shame to be counted amongst the virtues? — Banno

I would think that the pride which is somewhat opposed to, and inevitably overcomes the shame in healthy human beings, is better to be counted as the virtue.

It is not a complement to be called "shameless". In fact it is a way of shaming someone.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-51504992?fbclid=IwAR3CcLMAeZxAFsZsjCrtzxE3hsqFy0kK8nxEs9ywt5RukGRVmm53V15RRfY

This is the difficulty we are in: philosophers like to declare priorities and foundations, and I am suggesting that shame is fundamental to human society. But it is obvious, I think that societies also induce and use shame as a means of control, as in the above link.

If the shame of disapproval, meted out moderately, leads to corrections of behavior, then an overwhelming, shaking level of shame can produce, as a defense, an overly perfect fake self. — csalisbury

I think I want to say that one can be shamed because one already has that capacity as it were. And that it is a capacity that develops from identification of the sort that recognises itself in an image, as in a mirror. First, I am X. Then the college says X is unclean or Mummy says X is naughty, or whatever, or perhaps even I myself say it.

So what you call an overly perfect fake self is a photo-shopped colour inverted touched up image derived from what is already an image. Which is to say, in the final analysis that morality is unreal because it is conducted, for good or ill, entirely in imagination.

I think I want to say that one can be shamed because one already has that capacity as it were. And that it is a capacity that develops from identification of the sort that recognises itself in an image, as in a mirror. First, I am X. Then the college says X is unclean or Mummy says X is naughty, or whatever, or perhaps even I myself say it. — unenlightened

Yes, I think that's an accurate description of how shame often (usually?) functions. I would be reluctant to say that identification underlies shame. I think shame is one of those things that gets transformed through its encounter with identification (in which case it can look just like what you describe) but can also exist in some other ways before it.

To draw that out: Why does it matter what Mummy says is naughty? thats just a set of phonemes after all. How does 'naughty' (word) become [naughty] (concept)?

Say: Mummy is mad (or disgusted or something else) and that's overwhelming (and threatening). The atmosphere just vibrates with it, and thats scary and suffocating. She looks at you direclty and accuses you of being naughty. Suddenly the whole atmosphere condenses in (1) a word and (2) a source. Naughty means : the feeling of the suffocating atmosphere + mom's glance at you.

Only after 'naughty' precipitates out of something like that can it begin to function as a free-floating predicate. You can almost see the psychological system of airlocks here : Instead of mom's direct glare and the impossible atmosphere, you have a snorkel of mediation. 'Naughty' isn't something applied directly to me but to some x (first defense). Even if I'm being naughty, I ---> x & x ----> naughty gives me a little room to breathe, and space to change. (specuation: Schizophrenia might involve, at some level, having trouble developing the I that relates, at a minimal distance, to predicates, and instead leaves the self as direct rippling of what 'healthy' people experience as a conceptual web that interacts with - tho is separable from - their self.)

The price of this changing of direct shame into the shaming of some predicate is that, in the future, you can be shamed 'at a distance' through syllogistic net-casting. Mum's direct shame was right at me, but the college's 'all x's are y' is something new. It's almost like the space bought through identification, while partially protecting you, also opens you up to more distant sources of shame.

Does that make sense? It seems obfuscatory, but I was really trying not to be.

(addendum: I would completely agree that the false self is post-identification and only takes place after the thing it inverts itself against is also filtered through the identity lens)

You have leaped over what I want to look at. Sartre is moralising here for reasons of his own. There is a sense in which every image is false, and there is a sense in which every self-image must be distorted. But why is that such a problem? I have an image of myself as a smart cookie, and then David comes along and shows that I am an idiot. "Ok, I'm not as smart as I thought." *shrugs*.

But it's not like that - it hurts! Why does it hurt, when all that has been damaged is an idea? — unenlightened

I think the hurt, the shame, comes with a feeling of unworthiness, of not counting, even of worthlessness. This feeling does not seem to be the same as guilt, or even really akin to it.

So, I could never be ashamed of my nationality; if I could feel anything negative about that it would be a sense of guilt at being complicit in its sins of commission or omission.

This is what we call shamelessness — Metaphysician Undercover

What "we" do you mean? Whenever I've read about it I've seen the words shame and guilt used the way I do. It is true that the word shame can be ambiguous in ordinary language, but it is a matter of dissolving that ambiguity through analysis. And that is what psychologists and anthropologists do, starting with Darwin and ending with contemporary studies of empirical psychology.
But I don't think you're using words as is commonly done in ordinary language.

The problem is that there are cases when a person knowingly hurts another, and therefore knows this to be a wrongful act, but does not feel guilt. — Metaphysician Undercover

One type is when others judge you as "guilty" for having done wrong, and the other type is when you judge yourself as "guilty" for having done wrong. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're confusing the feeling with their circumstances. We're talking about two different feelings and their definitions.
If you know you are guilty but you don't feel anything there is a criminal problem (you are dangerous) but not a problem of definition: you don't feel a specific feeling: guilt. There is no case. The same thing if others say you are guilty and you don't feel guilty. We can talk about the feeling of guilt only when you experience the twinge or discomfort that points to your emotional state.
I must insist: we are talking about feelings, not about justice, public opinion or moral rules.

These are two very conflicting feelings, 'I must confess', and 'This must be kept secret', — Metaphysician Undercover

The "shame" in both these cases involves the discomforts of having to keep a secret. — Metaphysician Undercover

It makes no difference whether or not you want to confess guilt or shame to distinguish them . The word "confession" is usually referred to guilt. You confess your guilt in the hope that it will alleviate, the social response that your misbehavior provokes at least. But confessing shame will not relieve you, but may deepen it because your feeling of shame is caused by that exposure. More exposure, more feeling. This is why some pedophiles are forced in some places to publicly confess their guilt for the neighborhood in which they live. That is why one of the typical penalties of times past was the pillory: shame as punishment, not as regeneration of the guilty.

In all this it is clear that we are talking about different feelings: shame arises from exposure to public opinion, the guilt from inner remorse.

But shame may be overcome by pride, and this leads to exposure. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is very difficult for the shame of being seen as a pedophile to be overcome by pride in being seen as a pedophile. It's not really reasonable that something that causes shame can also cause pride.

I think we should focus on the features of the usual definition of shame and guilt. The damaged object of guilt is an external Other; there is no external damaged object in shame. It is the Self.

Shame is caused by an external look (being seen). Guilt is caused even without this external exposure (the voice of guilt is internal: the consciousness).

Perhaps we can start with these points.

I am suggesting that shame is fundamental to human society. — unenlightened

Traditionally it was thought that shame was the social feeling of primitive societies and that it was evolving towards guilt. The former would be communally closed and the latter more open. Today this theory is being questioned. For example, Bernard Williams has pointed out how societies typically considered as shame societies, like the Homeric one, included feelings similar to guilt in their internalization.

In reality, shame has a double aspect: positive because it socializes and negative because it subjects the individual to the dictatorship of public opinion, which can be more terrible than justice. One or the other can be emphasized.

In reality, shame has a double aspect: positive because it socializes and negative because it subjects the individual to the dictatorship of public opinion, which can be more terrible than justice. One or the other can be emphasized. — David Mo

I think this is the same aspect; there is no difference between socialisation and the dictatorship of public opinion apart from approval/disapproval. I'm trying to stay away from the anthropological tradition because it seems to me rather fixed in its view of the Capitalist Industrial West as the pinnacle of civilisation, and because I want to start again from the beginning, as philosophers usually do. The dual aspect I want to emphasise is the social/psychological one. So, for example, someone like Malcolm X was able to resist and negate the shaming socially applied to black people in the US with a simple affirmation that there is no shame in being black. An incomplete revolution, but a strong one.

Say: Mummy is mad (or disgusted or something else) and that's overwhelming (and threatening). The atmosphere just vibrates with it, and thats scary and suffocating. She looks at you direclty and accuses you of being naughty. Suddenly the whole atmosphere condenses in (1) a word and (2) a source. Naughty means : the feeling of the suffocating atmosphere + mom's glance at you. — csalisbury

Right. I'm not sure about this, but unless you can push me a bit harder, I am going to maintain that shame is not necessarily traumatic. It is difficult, because we live in traumatic times and traumatised societies, but everyone here is focussing on the socialisation.

And the whole socialisation thing is to me a perversion - or perhaps just distortion - of another process - of individualisation.

So, I could never be ashamed of my nationality; if I could feel anything negative about that it would be a sense of guilt at being complicit in its sins of commission or omission. — Janus

I think if you cannot reach the first line of the piece I linked at the beginning, you are going to be at a disadvantage in this thread. I don't think it is a matter for argument, but for sympathy, so I respect your position but have nothing to say to it.

Edit: But it occurs to me to ask if you have ever been ashamed of the state of your room?

What "we" do you mean? Whenever I've read about it I've seen the words shame and guilt used the way I do. It is true that the word shame can be ambiguous in ordinary language, but it is a matter of dissolving that ambiguity through analysis. And that is what psychologists and anthropologists do, starting with Darwin and ending with contemporary studies of empirical psychology.
But I don't think you're using words as is commonly done in ordinary language. — David Mo

Have you never heard the word "shameless" used to refer to a person who has done wrong, knows oneself to have done wrong, yet is not at all ashamed, i.e. feels no guilt? That is what I mean by "shameless".

So, if we say that there is a "shame" which one feels when one knows oneself to have done wrong, but does not reveal this wrong doing to others, and there is also a "shame" which one feels when one's wrong doings are revealed to others, then that is a reason why there is ambiguity in the use of "shame". These two feelings cannot be the same feeling.

To disambiguate one might insist that the feeling is the same feeling, it is like the feeling of guilt, and this feeling of guilt. is exactly the same whether the individual is keeping the secret, or whether the secret has been exposed. The person knows oneself to be guilty and therefore feels guilt, regardless of what is revealed. But this is a falsity which misrepresents the situation because "guilt" is not a feeling, it is a reasoned judgement. And this is why one can judge oneself to be guilty, yet not have the feeling which is supposed to be associated with guilt. That feeling is "shame" and we call this shamelessness.

Therefore a proper disambiguation requires that we separate the feeling which one has when hiding one's guilt, from the feeling which one has when one's guilt is exposed. When expressed in this way it ought to be blatantly apparent to you that these two feelings cannot be the same feeling. How could it be possible that a person could feel and act the same way when hiding something from others, as they feel and act when that something has been exposed? Despite the fact that we call both of these feelings "shame" there is an important need to recognize that they are completely different types of feelings, with completely different associated sub-feelings, if we want to properly dissolve that ambiguity.

You're confusing the feeling with their circumstances. We're talking about two different feelings and their definitions.
If you know you are guilty but you don't feel anything there is a criminal problem (you are dangerous) but not a problem of definition: you don't feel a specific feeling: guilt. There is no case. The same thing if others say you are guilty and you don't feel guilty. We can talk about the feeling of guilt only when you experience the twinge or discomfort that points to your emotional state.
I must insist: we are talking about feelings, not about justice, public opinion or moral rules. — David Mo

The point is that there is no feeling of guilt. That is to take the analysis in the wrong direction, a ruse. Guilt is simply a judgement. That is why the person with the "criminal problem" can know oneself to be guilty without any feeling of guilt. There really is no feeling of guilt. So if we proceed to talk about feelings which are associated with guilt, we talk about feelings like "shame". But right away we are confronted with the ambiguity, the difference between the feeling of "shame", when the guilt is exposed, and the person is shamed by others, and the feeling of "shame" when one is hiding one's guilt from others.

It is very difficult for the shame of being seen as a pedophile to be overcome by pride in being seen as a pedophile. It's not really reasonable that something that causes shame can also cause pride. — David Mo

Shame and pride are distinct, as opposing, so they cannot have the same cause. Shame is associated with the urge to keep a secret and pride is associated with the urge to reveal what has been kept as a secret. That is why pride can overcome shame, when "shame" is used as the internally sourced feeling. Even a pedophile might see the need to confess.

I think we should focus on the features of the usual definition of shame and guilt. The damaged object of guilt is an external Other; there is no external damaged object in shame. It is the Self.

Shame is caused by an external look (being seen). Guilt is caused even without this external exposure (the voice of guilt is internal: the consciousness).

Perhaps we can start with these points. — David Mo

There is clearly a problem with the division proposed here. If the internally sourced form of "shame" which I described above, is simply replaced with the term "guilt" as you propose, to distinguish it from the externally sourced form of "shame", then it is necessarily associated with thoughts of wrongdoing, as "guilt" implies. But this does not properly describe the internally sourced feeling of shame which is independent from any judgements of wrongdoing. That is why "guilt" is the ruse, because you turn outward, toward the conscious judgement, instead of continuing inward toward the source of the feeling, in your attempt to understand the feeling.

So if we keep going inward, away from such judgements of wrongdoing, we can find the feeling to originate in the need to keep a secret. This is evidenced by your example of the girl in menstruation. We cannot associate this with guilt because there might be a good reason for keeping the secret rather than a bad reason. Therefore we cannot judge this internally sourced feeling which is associated with the need to keep something secret as a bad feeling, which "guilt" implies.



There is a Catholic tradition called "confession", which is for the most part absent in modern society. Confession is the means by which people release their inner shame, reveal their secrets, without being shamed by others. It is important to separate the inner feeling of shame from the shame which is cast onto us from others, in order to cope with the inner shame. This is because fear of the shame which will be cast onto oneself by others (punishment), is an enormous part of the inner shame which is associated with keeping the secret, as it increases the perceived need to keep the secret.

It is important to separate the inner feeling of shame from the shame which is cast onto us from others, in order to cope with the inner shame. This is because fear of the shame which will be cast onto oneself by others (punishment), is an enormous part of the inner shame which is associated with keeping the secret, as it increases the perceived need to keep the secret. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I think we are about in agreement here. It is hard to disentangle because the language of feeling is always associated with behaviour that is very often the defence against that feeling, and/or the projection of it.

I wonder if anyone can relate to just a very simple realisation that one has been inconsiderate, say, and the rejection of that as a way of life for the future. Something a child might do on their own, without pressure from anyone. I think this is the capacity that is exploited to produce a conformist, when we would do better to raise kind and thoughtful individuals who do not need to be told what to be ashamed of.

Edit. It's not that i deny or discount the pressures of the social, and for the child at least, they are irresistible. But these pressures must, I think, operate on an already prexisting sensitivity. One can shame a dog but not a cat, because cats are not social in the same way. So what is that sensitivity to oneself, what is that responsiveness and responsibility without the social pressure?

These two feelings cannot be the same feeling. — Metaphysician Undercover

In a way that's true, but does feeling ever come in discrete packets? Mine doesn't. Shame and jealousy have a lot of the same emotional notes: anger, sadness, distaste. How do I know I'm feeling shame?

Plus emotion is communicable. The crowd feels jubilant, so I do. All the cool kids feel ashamed of their advantages, so I do.

Strong feelings mean something. Discovering what that something is may take time and reflection.

Have you never heard the word "shameless" used to refer to a person who has done wrong, knows oneself to have done wrong, yet is not at all ashamed, i.e. feels no guilt? That is what I mean by "shameless". — Metaphysician Undercover

A person who is not ashamed is a person who doesn't give a damn what others think of him. A person who feels no guilt is a person who feels no remorse for the wrong he has done. E.g., X is not ashamed to go naked in public. Y doesn't feel guilty about not taking care of his sick mother. In both cases, they simply do not have the feeling that any "normal" person would have in the same circumstances. Two feelings that are different in one case and in the other because there are a victim or not.

A person who feels shame stops feeling it if he is sure that he will never be seen behaving in a shameful way. He can look at himself naked in front of a mirror and will only feel shame if he can imagine himself being looked or finds that his neighbour is looking at him. A person who feels guilty about hitting his child does not need to imagine being watched.

He will feel guilty even if no one has seen him and even if he is hiding in the darkest corner of the house. This is the main difference between one and the other.

A person who doesn't feel guilty can be ashamed for the same action. This is very common. This shows that they are two different things.

But this is a falsity which misrepresents the situation because "guilt" is not a feeling, it is a reasoned judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is really revolutionary.
One reasoning alone is not the feeling of guilt. That is proven by cases of absolutely impassive criminals who know they have done wrong but feel no guilt at all.They lack the emotion. (There are brain damages that produce this effect).
What happens is that you call both things "shame" as if there was no difference. I don't know if you realise that your opinion is absolutely opposite to a few centuries of philosophy and psychology which differentiate more or less clearly between the two things.

There is clearly a problem with the division proposed here. If the internally sourced form of "shame" which I described above, is simply replaced with the term "guilt" as you propose, to distinguish it from the externally sourced form of "shame"(...)But this does not properly describe the internally sourced feeling of shame which is independent from any judgements of wrongdoing. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not the one who's mixing the two. It's you. Shame always has an external source, real or imagined: let's call it public opinion, for short. Without being seen or imagining yourself being seen doing the wrong thing in the wrong place, there is no feeling at all. Therefore, the source of shame is always external and restricted to local circumstances.

The source of the feeling of guilty is inner. Even in an isolated island you would feel guilty to have done the wrong thing. It is unconditioned and universal.

Shame and guilt are associated with cognitive processes. One cannot feel shame if one is not aware of one's situation. And you cannot feel guilt without similar reasoning and realising your position in relation to a conception of duty. But that does not mean that they are reduced to reasoning. Both are moral feelings (that is what they are called in psychology) that arise around cognitive processes, but they have their own structure.

What you are right about is that there is one thing in common with both: they are aversive emotions and affect self-respect. It is not that they arise from the need for secrecy, but that the self-devaluation they involve causes the individual to try to hide them even from himself, passing them on to the unconscious. Which is a well studied source of neurosis.

I propose a simple case for analysis:

A young woman is looking at herself naked in the mirror. She finds herself beautiful. She doesn't feel X or Y.
But suddenly she discovers through the mirror that her neighbor is looking at her. Then she feels a horrible feeling of X.
The neighbor rushes at the young woman. Tremendously excited, he tries to rape her. The young woman resists and the neighbor retreats in fear.
But when he gets home he feels terribly bad. Although no one will believe the girl if she denounces him, he realizes that he has done her some moral damage that he should try to repair. Now he feels Y.

Although the girl and the man prefer to keep the secret, there is a fundamental difference between the two. The girl's feeling comes from being humiliated herself. The man's feeling comes from having hurt another person.

If you don't see this difference, I don't think we can go on.

The girl's feeling comes from being humiliated herself. — David Mo

And feeling humiliated for being seen naked is a aspect of a certain culture. Is shame for hurting people also cultural?

And of course there are paths that lead to freedom from shame (at least on the conscious level).

How is becoming free of shame-X different from becoming free of shame-Y? How are these paths similar?

But it occurs to me to ask if you have ever been ashamed of the state of your room? — unenlightened

No, never. Annoyed by it, by the rapid escalation of entropy and the hassles that entails, perhaps. If I were to feel ashamed by it, I think the response would entail feelings of inadequacy or unworthiness, and if I cared about it, but could nonetheless not manage to motivate myself to tidy up the room, then I might feel worthless on account of that.

Is shame for hurting people also cultural? — frank

Guilt is also cultural. In a different way than shame.

And of course there are paths that lead to freedom from shame (at least on the conscious level). — frank

Maybe. But different paths from guilt. Can you specify?

How is becoming free of shame-X different from becoming free of shame-Y? How are these paths similar? — frank

Y (guilt) needs reparation to the victim and to society (if any). X (shame) needs a work of restoration of the esteem of the Self. These are different processes. X is basically psychological, Y is basically social.
(Can we talk without names?)

I highly recommend this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shame/201305/the-difference-between-guilt-and-shame
And this: https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/guilt/guilt-vs-shame-whats-the-difference-and-why-does-it-matter/
They may be debatable at some very particular point but clear about the distinction between guilt and shame.

For a more academic and debatable article, which maintains the difference with other criteria, see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6143989/