Comments

  • Who Perceives What?
    Do you think we confuse the act of perceiving with the object of perception? — NOS4A2
    I don't know where does this question refer to ... :chin:

    But as an independent question --e.g. a new topic :smile:-- my answer is maybe. It depends who is "we", esp. because you used the word "confuse". Some people might and others not. I don't. Perception is a process and objects are ... well, objects. The one is you, the observer, and the other is outside, independent of you. Even if it is part of your body. Because you are not your body.
  • Who Perceives What?
    ↪NOS4A2

    OK.
  • Who Perceives What?
    Yes, a perceived object can perceive me so long as it is capable of perceiving. — NOS4A2
    Most probably, you mean an entitity, a living organism. Which is a special case. You can't generalize it and apply it to inanimate things, can you? This is what I meant.
  • The Hard Problem of Consciousness & the Fundamental Abstraction
    no progress has been made toward a physical reduction of consciousness. — D. F. Polis
    Why am I not surprised? :smile:
    Good reference, BTW. :up: (Although I disagree with a few things.)
    Here's the link for thos who want to read more: https://www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/download/1042/1035. It's a PDF.
  • Who Perceives What?
    The answer to this question seems obvious — NOS4A2
    What is your answer? I have checked a few other messages/comments that follow your description of the topic but couldn't find it. Maybe you have already exposed it somewhere in this thread, but there are 17 pages in it and I cannot read all your message. Sorry. So, can you give me the link of a message in which you expose your answer?

    Re "direct" and "indirect" perception: There's only direct perception. An indirect perception would be e.g. as if we are perceiving an object through the senses of some other entity. (Which I don't think is pertinent to this discussion.)

    Perception has to do with being aware of things in our environment and inside us (thoughts, feelings, etc.). Even in its simplest form, it involves some degree of recognition and/or undestanding. That is, perception is not just sensing/b]. This is on the physical level and it is the task of the brain. Even simple organisms can perceive things in their environment as stimuli and react automatically or instintively to them.

    Who perceives what? If we were to remove both those things from the man, both the perceiver and the perceived, place them on a table next to each other for observation, what would be there? Would there be one object or two? And could one be said to be perceiving the other? — NOS4A2
    Can a perceived object also perceive you?

    BTW, do you maybe refer to Krishnamurti's "the observed is the observer"?
  • Emergence
    The development of an AGI/ASI, has been posited by many, as the technical singularity moment — universeness
    What does this exactly mean?

    The term "Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)" is exaggerated. There's no actually such a thing as "artificial superintelligence". There's only Artificial Intelligence (AI), which can range from very simple computations to very complex and sophisticated solutions to problems and, with an analogous complexity and capacity in handling of data.

    Below is how ASI is defined/described by a standard source. You can find a very similar definition/description in a lot of the standard sources.

    "Artificial superintelligence (ASI) entails having a software-based system with intellectual powers beyond those of humans across a comprehensive range of categories and fields of endeavor."
    (https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/artificial-superintelligence-ASI)

    The key word is "intellectual", which means having to do the intellect. And here's what intellect means:
    "1. The power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will: the capacity for knowledge.
    2. The capacity for rational or intelligent thought especially when highly developed."
    (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge)
    How can find other similar definitions/descriptions, but rational thinking and/or knowledge will be central concepts and part of it.

    However, knowledge involves undestanding. It's not something mechanical or computational or an ability to store and retrieve data. It also ofetn involves perception.

    AI has no undestanding. It cannot undestand. It cannot perceive. It has no consiousness. It cannot even think. It just follows and process instructions, which may indeed involve going through quite sophisticated and complex routines (algorithms) in order to find solutions to problems.

    You can hear from many people that AI has consciousness and undestands and all that stuff. Well, before believing them and/or taking that kind of information for granted, you must study and acquire a solid knowledge about AI. Then, you must have experience in applying and programming AI, and for this you must be an eperienced programmer. Only then you can judge for yourself and be certain about the validity of their statements. But of, course, you don't need to do all that! :smile: You can only know well the basics and apply simple logic.

    Nothing can surpass human intelligence. And AI is based on and exists because of human inteligence.
  • Emergence
    Anne Sullivan was motivated to learn and teach for human reasons. AI does not have that motivation. There is no caring or feeling for AI. AI can destroy thousands of lives because it has no emotions that would stop it from doing what is programmed to do. It also would not create something new and needed to resolve a human problem for the same no motive reason. Your computer will not wake up one morning and attempt to teach you valuable lessons. It does not care about you or any human. It has no human experience or feelings for determining what is just and what is humane. — Athena
    :up:
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪unenlightened

    I believe you are right, @unenlightened. Besides, I think I was the first to bring in mythology and patriarchy in this thread as part of the "sexism" theme ...
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    the Triple Goddess has aspects of virgin, mother, and crone with the associated colours , white, red, and black. — unenlightened
    Crone, like the bagpie? I don't find it ugly at all. It's a great bird: proud, strong, energetic, intelligent and beautiful.

    It's a complicated topic, and I am not wanting to press it here. — unenlightened
    Right. Better not. :smile:

    influence of the Goddess repressed, as it were in the Greek and Roman pantheons, and relegated to minor and largely negative roles. — unenlightened
    Well, I'm afraid that you do press it here. :grin:

    Anyway, all this is too "deep" for me as far as my knowledge, memory and interest about mythology are concerned. And I don't know if I should take a plunge in the deep waters of mythology.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪javi2541997

    Interesting indeed. Hijabs, long women dresses and customs are totally the opposite of the provocative momen styles in our "Christian" world!
    I know what "sexy" means and is for us. I don't know what it means and is for the Muslims. Maybe a woman without a hijab? :grin:
    (I am bad. Shouldn't make fun of that ... And it's sexism!)
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    I'm not sure that was true, particularly of the many gods religions. It is true of the religions of the Book. — unenlightened
    You have a point there.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ...Between Isis, Athena, and Aphrodite, there’s no doubt women possessed great power in ancient society. — javi2541997
    I can't say much, but it is quite possible. However, we cannot compare goddesses with mortal women. We cannot even compare the status of the empresses or emperors' wives with simple women.
    There were always powerful women in history. In ancient Greece too, of course. But I don't think that they represented women's power, in general. E.g. women could not vote and could not participate in the Olympic and other national or local athletic games. They had their own sports, of course, but separately from men.

    The real question is, what happened between ancient times and the present? When did men take over? — javi2541997
    Got me unprepared! :grin:

    Misogyny is evident not only in Christianity, but also in Islam. — javi2541997
    Oh, certainly. Much worse. Look at their hijabs! They can be sentenced to death for committing adultery and even blasphemy! And all that you mentioned. And more.
    I can't think of any other culture or religion that suppresses women as musch as in Islam.

    Well, it is interesting but I don't want to go so deep inside Quran or Islamic dress ... — javi2541997
    That was very funny! I had to naturally stop there for an instant. (You can imagine the image that I got in my head!) :grin:
    Please go on ...
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪unenlightened

    Interesting. But doesn't all this have to do with Gallic/Celtic myths, the druids, etc. rather than Greek mythology?
    And I believe it is impossble that Greeks culture was influcenced by the Gallc one. Rather the other way around. I can't also think that even the Romans, who were much nearer to the Gallic areas, were e\influence but them. In fact, Romans adopted a lot of the Greek gods, although in most cases there was a change of name.
    Besides, Gallics reached the Balkans and went into war with Greeks only in the 3d cent. BC. And that didn't last long. They were settled somehwre further east ...

    As for the "Triple Goddess" she has nothing to do with the main Greek goddesses, Hera, Athena and Aphrodite.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪javi2541997

    While googling about misogyny in ancient Greece, I fell on a Quora question "Why were the ancient Greeks so sexist against women?", to which I answered, for lack of other valid answers so far, based on what came to know from my research for your topic. I got this interesting comment from a Quora member (non Greek):

    "Just a guess but I think maybe the eruption of Santorini, which tidal wave wiped out the dominant Minoan power, may have affected the rise of misogyny in the surrounding area. Prior to the eruption a voluptuous female goddess was their protector. After the eruption the survivors blamed the goddess and desecrated her images and temples."

    Could be indeed an influencing factor. Who knows?
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪javi2541997

    All this is quite inteesting.

    Plato doesn't give us a God at all. — javi2541997
    Right. As I said, there was no God in ancient Greek religion, phiosophy or beliefs. Only gods.
    Socrates was accused --among other things-- of not believing in the gods in whom the city of Athens believed. Yet, he had religious beliefs and he was a highly moral and rational person. He was teaching that Virtue was the supreme good. I have read somewhere that he believed god was perfectly good and perfectly wise. However, we actually do not know what "god" meant to him. Maybe, it was the daemon that was talking to him ... Well, whatever it was, it had no gender or even human form, contrary to the anthropomorphised by the society gods at his time!

    Religious authorities, with the support of state authotities, were always and still are persecuting non-believers! One must add this to the other immoralities that are or can be attributed to them, including sexism/misogyny.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    If we try to interpret the lexicon of the word “God”, it seems to me that is not a male word. — javi2541997
    In my Geek Lexikon there's no main definition of "θεός" (pr. theós) (= god) or even a single definition. . Instead it has been interpreted in various ways. Indeed, I have found out that there was none in ancient Greece, and that the word was written and pronounced differently in different parts of Greece. The Greeks did not believe in a single God or that the world was created by some entity. Instead they had the gods and goddesses we all know, representing different types of characters. The idea of a single god --called God or Supreme Being-- the Creator of the Universe was yet to be "invented" by the Judeo-Christian scriptures and this is how we got a male God. Only in a few religions God is of a male gender. Traditional Jewish philosophy does not attach a gender to God. In Hinduism, Brahman represents a principle rather than an entity, so it has no gender.

    And so on. We can be here all day. And then some. :smile:
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    We have to highlight that language (at least Latin) was in hands of religious scrivener who interpreted and promoted the language according to the Bible and we already seen that this sacred book is sexist itself. — javi2541997
    Right. Good point. :up:

    research on the different branches of Christianity — javi2541997
    Good idea! :up:

    not because of the text itself, but because of the Christian scholars who have interpreted the scripture throughout time. — javi2541997
    Here they are again! :smile:

    some Evangelicals believe that Adam and Eve were created at the same time — javi2541997
    I like that. More logical.

    .Historically, a great deal of blame has been placed on Eve, but many Christian Feminists have worked to reframe the story, and shift the blame equally between both parties, as both partook of the fruit — javi2541997
    Nice! I always believe that the story of Eve, the apple and the snake was totally unjust. for women. However, at the end both Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden. So God --I mean the story-- made them both and, as a consequence, the whole humanity sinners!. What a hideous story!
    Well, the Bible is full of hideous and immoral stories ...

    Some Christian Feminists made the decision to abandon direct scriptural use in their fight for equality, while others relied on verses that opposed patriarchal ideals, pointing out the inconsistencies within the Bible. — javi2541997
    Interesting.

    Some Christian feminists believe that gender equality within the church cannot be achieved without rethinking the portrayal and understanding of God as a masculine being. I don't understand the opinion of this woman! — javi2541997
    What I underdstand --which of course might not be exactly what thow woman had in mind-- is that the Church has to reconsider the ide that God was/is of a male gender. I have talked about the unreasonable attributes given to the Supreme Being that Christians call "God", which besides the gender, include aging, emotions, vegeance/punishment, etc., which make no sense at all for an eternal and superior being.

    Well, we should know today that all the sciptures were based on human weaknesses, biases, immorality, irrationality and other negative human traits. And we should only view it from that aspect. Like the Greek mythology, which is plenty of stories similar to the Bible.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    The foundations of Christian misogyny—his guilt over sex, his insistence on female subjugation, his fear of female seduction—are all in the epistles of Saint Paul. — javi2541997
    I dislike this guy a lot. He is the one responsible for the myth of the resurrection and the wrong road that Christianity followed, based on fake stories, authoritarianism, hostility and hate that we all witness still today. The passage you brought up reflects part of all that. And it refers only to woman's submission --which is part of the present topic-- but submission to God of every Christian, is one of the main messages that the Christian Church (esp. the Orthodox one) has always tried to conveyed, with great success in the past but less and less success today. The Church --not so powerful as during the Byzantine period but still very powerful today-- is the main responsible for the inequality between men and women. Still today, the Orthodox Christian Church --although it is called the "house of God" for all Chrstians-- together with the whole clergy, is run excelusively by men. There are only special places, like monasteries, that can be run by women. I guess that the Church has allowed that only to keep women's faith alive. I don't know if that faith would exist otherwsise. Society has undergone dramatic changes in the issue of equality of the sexes in the last 50 or so years, but the Church remined unchanged on that area. In fact, in every area. Like an immovable rock.
    (This was not intended ... I just remembered the passage of the New Testament where Jesus said "on this rock I will build my church", addressing to Peter, but my "rock". BTW, the name Peter comes from the Greek word "petra" (= rock)!)
    So yes, a real rock has been built, indeed.

    But this lack of change does not happen only in the Christian Church, of course. Well, we know well how low women are regarded and how much suppressed are in islamic countries. But even in Buddhism, which is not a dogmatic religion, things have not channged either:

    "When there is a talk about women and Buddhism, I have noticed that people often regard the topic as something new and different. They believe that women in Buddhism has become an important topic because we live in modern times and so many women are practicing the Dharma now. However, this is not the case. The female sangha has been here for centuries. We are not bringing something new into a 2,500-year-old tradition. The roots are there, and we are simply re-energizing them."
    (Khandro Rinpoche, a female lama in Tibetan Buddhism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Buddhism)

    All this make wonder ... Was Religion --as a status quo, an establishment, not as a form of spirituality and quest for knowledge-- the main reason for the existence of sexism and inequality and an obstacle in the progress towards solving these issues?
    For one thing, I can see that the drop in the authority, power and influence of Greek Church these days and as a continuing trend, is matched with less sexism and inequality in our society in general.
    What do you think?
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪javi2541997

    Ola!
    I had a look at "Dialects of Greek". Well, this is too much for me. I mean, I never performed well in history although I was a B+ student at school. Maybe because I can't remember names and numbers. I prefer instead know the historical events as facts and esp. the reasons behind them.

    Anyway, what I want to say here is that very often TPF discussions go astray of the subject/topic and remain astrtay --e.g. we can talk for eons about the ancient Greek history in general-- and I prefer to restrict discussions around the central topic. Only in that way one can squeeze the essence, facts, reasons etc. out of a subject and know the most one can know about it. Don't you agree?

    Well, in that spirit, and to also keep ancient Greece in the foreground :smile:, I did some research about sexism and misogyny in ancient Greece. Here ars some interesting "findings":

    “Misogyny is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women. It is a form of sexism that is used to keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the social roles of patriarchy. Misogyny has been widely practiced for thousands of years. It is reflected in art, literature, human societal structure, historical events, mythology, philosophy, and religion worldwide.”
    “Misogyny likely arose at the same time as patriarchy: three to five thousand years ago at the start of the Bronze Age. Monotheism—the belief in one, usually male god—began to replace pantheism and matriarchal religions.”
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny)
    The emphasis on “patriarchy” is mine. It shows the main reason why misogyny existed in ancient Greece.

    "Unfortunately, ancient Greek society was also, in many ways, deeply flawed. Notably, misogynistic attitudes towards women were extremely common, especially among elite educated men."
    https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/06/07/ancient-greek-views-on-women/
    Does "elite educated men" ring a bell? :smile:

    So, since the language of a country and at different periods of its history reftects its civilization, society, customs, morality, etc. we see in it a (roughly) proportional amount of sexism in it.
    Anyway, from that aspect at least, we are better off today! So we mustn;t complain! :smile:
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    No, no -- this is interesting. Don't hide your light under an inbox. — BC
    Ha, ha, ha! OK, then, since there's public in the room! :grin:
    (Only, as far as I am concerned, I will be back tomorrow ... It's late here.)
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    after endless bitching and carping, liturgy and hymns have been neutered in many Christian denominations. The changes in wording have resulted in more bitching and carping. — BC
    In short, a real mess! :grin:

    The less particularity and fewer specifics we assign to God the better. — BC
    True. I liked that. :up:

    There is a distinct difference between vernacular English and formal, literary, and academic English — BC
    As in every other language, I guess. (I don't know though about the Eskimo language! :grin:)

    The proper use of language requires speaking and writing in the right register, depending on one's purpose and audience. — BC
    Right. In fact, I have mentioned about such differences in a comment to @javi2541997, regarding the formation of the modern Greek language.

    The grammar and vernacular core vocabulary of English is Anglo-Saxon (A-S). — BC
    OK. I'm not at all savant in this subject.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    For I have not been studious ... — javi2541997
    Nice passage.

    Dialects of Greek — javi2541997
    Looks interesting. I'll check it.

    Classical Greek culture, including philosophy, began in Ionia, whose name became the word for "Greek" in all the languages to the East. — javi2541997
    Ionians were one of the four maain tribes Greeks derived from. You can check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionians. (I don't know if it is a translation from the Greek page or the other way around.)

    I am learning a lot about Greek language and I am grateful for your effort to help me understand. :up: :grin: — javi2541997
    Thank you. It is my pleasure, Javi. But perhaps we shouldn't abuse this space ... Private messages (INBOX) may be a solution to this. :smile:
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    I am interested in his works and I will check him and his works. — javi2541997
    I don't know how is reading him in a foreign language, as good as the translation may be. For me, a big part of the value of his works lies in his language, about which I already told you. Of course, it feels always great to read ideas from him such as, "I hope nothing. I fear nothing. I am free." How buddhistic.

    do you think that demotic/modern Greek is not "spiritual" or "philosophical" as Ancient Greek? — javi2541997
    It is commonplace language. It can easily be quite ambiguous because of the oversimplification and levelling out or degradation of the words, because the same word --esp. secondary parts of the speech can n\mean different things. Which may become unncessarily repetitive. The ancient language was very exact. Both grammatically/syntactically and semantically.

    Do the Greeks think that modern Greek is just a static language and it is not used to make poetry, for example? does Ancient Greek still maintain a good status among the citizens? — javi2541997
    I don't know what Greeks think about that. Yoiu know, Greeks are not much of a reading public!
    Neither can I judge whether Greek is a static language or not. I guess not.
    But as for poetry, as I said, demotic/modern Greek finds its way and fits well in literature. So, for poetry it is just great. On the condition of course that you master it. I am a translator of tecnnical materials and I have written volumes of words in my 20+ years career in the field. So I'm fluent and I master the Greek language in this area. Yet, it happened once that I read a couple of chapters from a book about everyday life in Byzantium --a translation from some English writer-- and I really felt awe! I could never write like that! One must have read a big volume of literature works to be able to do that. And I haven't.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    what happened to the creation of "modern Greek" is anything but the negative influence of marixist and Leninist "thinkers" that want to re-establish whatever. — javi2541997
    I believe they wanted to bring the official language closest to the language simple, lay people speak, esp. in rural areas and villages. Communism was and always is so closely related to demotic Greek, that in the junta (colonels) period (1967-1974), demoticists were accused of communism and working to undermine the state!

    I like reading demotic Greek in literature, although I'm not at all a literature person. Kazantzakis --one of the most known and loved Greek writers around the world-- was my best writer. He wrote in a very special, "personal" language, a kind of extended, reinforced or deeper --can't find the right word-- demotic Greek. He was of course a communist.

    Back to sexism and language, one thing that is good in demotic/modern Greek is that it is much less connected to and it is offerered much less for sexism than ancient and purist Greek language. I believe this is the case also with old English, old French, etc. The more we go back, the more societies were male-dominated --with some exceptions of course-- and therefore we expect to see more sexism in language.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    the attempt of using a X or E instead of gender using is (at the moment) a Hispanic issue. I wish it doesn't spread to other languages or lexicons... — javi2541997
    OK

    American Philosophy Association says in its rules about submitting papers: "Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language," which it says is, "A pamphlet outlining ways to modify language in order to eliminate gender-specific references"... this is out of control. — javi2541997
    "Guidelines for Non-Sexist Use of Language"! :grin: I know about the issues of sexism in languages, but I couldn't imagine it could go that high in the echelon!
    So, it sounds a serious problem then. Much bigger than one can realize in everyday life! Well, institutions always exaggerate, don't they?

    We have to protect Greek language at all costs! — javi2541997
    Thank you! :grin:
    If you refer mostly to the ancient Greek, I'm afraid it's too late! Modern Greek, a demotic language, influenced by scholarly-leterary people, writers etc. most of whom in Greece are communists --yes, they have to do with the evolution of the Greek language!-- is actually a bastard or hybrid language, which is OK for everyday, common talk, but it has demolished most of the great features of --even the logic behind-- the ancient and purist versions.

    I still see Spanish as non sexist language because whenever we use gender endings exclusively for women, then it means that is far away of being sexist. — javi2541997
    I see what you mean.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    The problem with Spanish words - according to some authors - is the fact that we have "gender" endings. — javi2541997
    All Latin languages --Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French-- have endings. English and Greek languages have too. In Greek, even the second names are different for male-female persons.

    [Re "x" ending] I also think it is stupid and lacks of logical value, even disrespects the integrity of Spanish language... — javi2541997
    Of course. As far as I am concerned, it's the first time I heard about it. Is it used for any other language than Spanish?

    ***

    BTW, I thought later that there is a parallel for "Latino" in English: "Man". When written with a capital, it refers to the human race/species and with a small letter it refers to the male gender, although this is considered "sexist" --alluding to male domination-- by some people.
    However, the English language has a much worse and well known problem in this area: the use of "he/she" and "his/her". It is so bad that in order to avoid saying/writing "he or she" and "his or hers", which is quite tiresome if not annoying when used repeatedly, they resorted to a severe syntactical violation: switching grammar number for the same subject by using "they" and "their". "Each one has their opinion". It's very ugly, disturbing and confusing! Well, until one gets used to it! :smile:

    Once I used just "he" in expressing some thought in a comment in TPF and I got a bad reaction from a female member! I explaned that I just used it in a generic form. Yet, I'm aware of that problem since a long time ago and I used to write e.g. "he (for brevity) ..." just once and then used only he or his. I still use it, but I have also started to use "their" as a solution --something which I really hated to see-- because I found out that it is a regularly used and accepted form in the English language.

    ***

    The Greek language does not have any of these problems. It has 3 genders. The neuter gender takes a different ending than the one for male and female names and adjectives. This allows to use that gender to cpver both male and female cases. (The German language also has 3 genders.)

    ***

    Moral of the story: There's always a linguistic solution if one does not want to sound sexist! :smile:
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    I started this OP with the aim to make constructive arguments against all of those who want to destroy language and lexicon just for "gender" or feminists issues. — javi2541997
    I can undestand that the construction of "'s" alludes to sexism, after I read the following etymology in Wiktionary:
    "From Middle English -s, -es, from Old English -es (“-'s”, masculine and neuter genitive singular ending), from Proto-Germanic *-as, *-is (masculine and neuter genitive singular ending)."
    Indeed, the feminine gender is missing from the equation. But, of course, you don't stick on that and you see the issue from a general viewpoint, an overall view and talk about.

    Indeed, we must not forget that almost all sectors of human science(s) have been reserved to and dominated by the the male gender, at least until the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Litterature is not included in them, but it was a field certainly dominated also by men. I saw an excellent film lately --The Professor and the Madman-- referring to an extremely talented lexicographer and philologist --James Murray-- who worked on creating the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, a project thats started in the 1879. The place where this endeavour started and from which the man got the approvel to start working for this project was the Oxford University Press, in which started to admit women only in October 1920! I cannot talk of course how much the English language has been influenced gender-wise by that men-dominated society, but I can guess a lot. And I believe the same holds for every country in the Western world. including Spain, which has the focus in this post.

    As for "Latinx", I can't say much, except that, as a linguist and a professional translator, I find it not worthy of serious consideration, if not ridiculous. Dictionary.com (former Oxford LEXICO) defilnes "Latino" as (1) "A native or inhabitant of Latin America" and (2) "A person of Latin American origin living in the U.S." What's the problem with it? Gender is not involved at all.
    (Of course, we find similar definistions in other dictionaries too.)
    So, this is maybe another reason why to consider "Latinx" --besides stupid-- a sexist name.
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    ↪javi2541997

    Gracias. I'll come back to this after I read your reference ...
  • "Sexist language?" A constructive argument against modern changes in vocabulary
    I understand that you would have felt upset, but yes the quotes I shared in my OP are real and they are defended by some "specialists" in this matter... The paper I had read yesterday, ... Interesting and good arguments to all of those who wants to destroy a language and its lexicon — javi2541997
    Ola! Can you give me the reference about your OP and the rest so that I can know what you two are talking about?

    I guess Alkis Piskas can help us to make deep arguments towards this debate using and understanding an old language/lexicon as Greek. — javi2541997
    Thank you for using me as a reference :smile:
    I know that you are interested and you react positively to my comments in general. And I, in turn, I am always interested in and I like yours.
  • "Survival of the Fittest": Its meaning and its implications for our life
    ↪Wayfarer

    Thank you for participating in this discussion.

    Worth reflecting that Charles Darwin was greatly influenced by 'the Scottish Enlightenment'. — Wayfarer
    This is very interesting. Good that you brought it up. :up:
  • "Survival of the Fittest": Its meaning and its implications for our life
    ↪NOS4A2

    Thank you for participating in this discussion.

    I think it does have implications for institutions, which may last for generations. — NOS4A2
    This sound interesting and I would like to know more about it.

    I don’t think it supports racism unless one believes in race or is in some way a methodological collectivist. — NOS4A2
    No, it doesn't support racism. It's racism that supports it. :smile:
    Racism supports the superiority, supremacy and dominance of one race or group over another.
    Sometimes, with huge consequences, like genocides. Just replace "fittest" with "superior".

    His [Spencer's] moral and political philosophies contradict the implications adopted by others, for instance eugenics, showing that his haters have wrongly and undeservedly cast him with aspersions from which his reputation has yet to recover. — NOS4A2
    I have not read his work, but I believe that what you say may indeed be true. We have talked here about misconception and abuse of the SOF principle.
    On the other hand, we cannot ignore some important references referring to his works and the effect they have had on history.

    "Social Darwinism is a loose set of ideologies that emerged in the late 1800s in which Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was used to justify certain political, social, or economic views. Social Darwinists believe in “survival of the fittest”—the idea that certain people become powerful in society because they are innately better. Social Darwinism has been used to justify imperialism, racism, eugenics and social inequality at various times over the past century and a half."
    https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/social-darwinism

    "In the United States, social Darwinism and American exceptionalism allowed nativists to dehumanize and criminalize immigrants, portraying them as “'unassimilable aliens,' 'unwelcome invasions,' 'undesirable,' 'diseased,' [and] 'illegal."
    https://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/journal/past-issues/issue-9/huang/

    "Many Social Darwinists embraced laissez-faire capitalism and racism. They believed that government should not interfere in the “survival of the fittest” by helping the poor, and promoted the idea that some races are biologically superior to others."
    https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/the-gilded-age/gilded-age/a/social-darwinism-in-the-gilded-age
  • "Survival of the Fittest": Its meaning and its implications for our life
    ↪PhilosophyRunner

    Thank you for participating in this discussion.

    Natural selection is all about the survival of the genotypic line over successive generations. The genes that survive are fit, those that do not are not fit. — PhilosophyRunner

    Natural selection is of course the main element in the evolution of life. But it leaves out a lot of other important elements that are also involved in this evolution.

    Big catastrophic events and massive desctuctions, , etc., resulting sometines to extinction, have nothing to do with "natural selection".
    All there are unintended events. But was also have intended actions that lead to the same results: genocides, killing wildlife, etc.

    And then we have somthing else, wuite important. which is in conrast to natural selection: it's "artificial selection". It plays also an important part in the evolution of life.

    "Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans use animal breeding and plant breeding to selectively develop particular phenotypic traits (characteristics) by choosing which typically animal or plant males and females will sexually reproduce and have offspring together."
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding)

    So, from one side, man kills wildlife and from another side he raises domesticated animals and creates hybrids that can survive better. Neither of these are "natural selection".
  • "Survival of the Fittest": Its meaning and its implications for our life
    ↪T Clark

    Thank you for your response to the topic.

    All this looks interesting, but unfortunately I cannot undestand much of it since I totally lack the necessary background. I hope though that there are people in here who can and will appreciate more your post.
  • "Survival of the Fittest": Its meaning and its implications for our life
    ↪Vera Mont

    OK.

    Thank you for your contribution to the topic.
  • "Survival of the Fittest": Its meaning and its implications for our life
    As an interesting tidbit in terms of Darwin’s ethics, he is well enough known for his anti-slavery/abolitionist stances. A far cry from what we often interpret by survival of the fittest. — javra
    I have never questioned Darwin's ethics. Neither do the references I have found --some of which I have brought in here-- that are opposed to some aspects of his work.
    If I create a system or theory that has flaws or is prone to misinterpration and abuse, it doesn't mean that I did it with the purpose to harm, i.e. I am unethical.

    I think this was clear from my part, because I have talked about the misinterpretation and abuse of the principle of "survival of the fittest". Yet, I believe it was a mistake by Darwin to introduce a theory based on that name, which alludes to strength, power and that kind of things. But even if this didn't happen, and the name "natural selection" was kept, there are other elements in his theory that allow it to be easily misinterpreted and abused. Lack of a clear differentiation between Man and animals or organisms, in general, was also a big mistake with bad consequences. I halve talked about that.

    To my way of seeing, getting the captain of the ship you are a guest on (in the middle of a vast ocean you could easily fall into) angry by questioning his moral character takes, should I say, a great deal of gall. Kudos to him. — javra
    OK. Kudos to him! :smile:
  • "Survival of the Fittest": Its meaning and its implications for our life
    Darwin himself didn't mix in with any of of the extreme views. He did meticulous, painstaking research, observation, sampling and recording, which, as I understand it, he was reluctant to publish, because it remained forever incomplete. He did good science — Vera Mont
    I have no doubt about that. And, as I do not recall well about the work(s) a I read from him in college, I'm not in a position to judge it (them) at present. That's why I brought up references from people who know better. Yours too is welcome, of course.
  • "Survival of the Fittest": Its meaning and its implications for our life
    To science! Not to the political world — Vera Mont
    The references I brought up talk also about influences ouside science.

    Darwin’s influence is far from limited to science. His work has influenced a wide range of topics including political and economic thinking.
    https://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/politics-economics

    The uses of natural selection argument in politics have been constant since Charles Darwin’s times.
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/abs/darwins-politics-of-selection/D261B9D9684DA736266F790A6E7728A7

    And, of course, we must not forget about Nazis and eugenics, which are connected with Darwin.

    You can find yourself dozens of references on the subject.
  • "Survival of the Fittest": Its meaning and its implications for our life
    ↪javra

    Thanks for the clarification. :smile:
  • "Survival of the Fittest": Its meaning and its implications for our life
    But I believe it's a question for today, and not only for biology ...
    — Alkis Piskas

    So why drag Darwin into it?     — Vera Mont
    Because Darwin is still relevant today. Because his evolution theory and his works in general had a huge impact on the scientific world and our lives. I believe more than we can ever think of.

    And regarding science today ...

    "Modern thought is most dependent on the influence of Charles Darwin"
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought1/

    "Charles Darwin is centrally important in the development of scientific and humanist ideas because he first made people aware of their place in the evolutionary process when the most powerful and intelligent form of life discovered how humanity had evolved."
    https://leakeyfoundation.org/the-importance-of-charles-darwin-2/

    The notions that underpin Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution can provide us with tools to tackle the challenges of the contemporary world. His work is worth revisiting.
    https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2021-11-21-the-relevance-of-charles-darwin-in-the-contemporary-world-of-viruses-climate-crisis-and-artificial-intelligence/
  • "Survival of the Fittest": Its meaning and its implications for our life
    A) When contextualized by the modern field of biological evolution, the term “survive” can in a very rough way be equated to the term “outlive” (as in, "children typically survive their own parents", as you've mentioned) - this rather than holding the meaning of “continuing to live”. — javra
    Agree.

    Since “survival of the fittest” is applied in the context of biological evolution, this phrase could then be reworded as “the outliving of those forms which are fittest”. — javra
    Agree.

    When the term is thus evolutionarily applied, an organism that lives its whole life without reproducing does not evolutionarily survive - for there is no form it serves as ancestor to that outlives it. — javra
    Right

    when thus understood, "fitness" strictly applies to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of Darwin and Mendel, ... — javra
    You lost me here! :grin:
    But it's OK. Not important.

    For example, an organism with very short lifespan that successfully reproduces galore will have a relatively great fitness - despite not continuing to live for very long. — javra
    Right.

    one could potentially conclude that the biological phrase “survival of the fittest” can translate via its biological semantics into “the outliving (of ancestors) of that form which most outlives (its ancestors)” or, again via semantics typically applied to the field of modern evolutionary theory, into “the survival of that form which most survives”. — javra
    As I mentioned to @Vera Mont earlier, words and semantics here are no that important as are concepts and principles. In fact, we are talking about a whole theory. What I mean is that e.g. the word "fittest" may have different meanings, but what is important is the whole theory that lies behind it.
    A simpler example: For the Americans, the word "football" refers to two completely different games: the international one, which is played exclusively with the feet, and their own, which is played mainly with the hands. (What a linguistic perversion! :smile). Now, one can disregard semantics and consider what we are interested in: the game of the American football itself.

    So, while “survival of the fittest” could have made sense in a Darwinian model of evolution (given that "fitness" did not then entail a quantitative representation of a form's reproductive success), in the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution this phrase does run a significant risk of being interpreted as a tautology among biologists in the field. — javra
    I see what you mean,

    I consider all this an exellent analysis! :up:
Home » Alkis Piskas