If meaning is a matter of establishing the coordinates of position on a map everyone somehow has in their possession, then all the patter of disagreement can be put down as some kind of misunderstanding about a place on the map. — Valentinus

Good analogy. I am saying that those discussions that refer to areas of the map, not pin-pointed places, should be recognised, and treated differently, as is surely and obviously appropriate.

I think the use of general terms is that they work very well in everyday language, because context makes them clear and precise. The trouble philosophy sometimes encounters is that it takes terms that have a clear meaning in everyday situations, like 'truth' for instance ("is it true that you hit your sister?"), and then try to use them devoid of context, in a philosophical discussion. Sometimes this can be resolved by making a painstakingly precise definition of the word for the purpose of the philosophical discussion. Unfortunately, that is not often done and people just blunder ahead, accusing anybody that asks 'what do you mean by truth' of being deliberately obstructive. But there are cases where it is not even possible to give a satisfactory definition of the notion that is being discussed. I think 'free will' is an example of that.

It demonstrates the limits of language, which is an important and powerful philosophical concept to grasp. Thus, in the very process of failing in one philosophical endeavour, we get insight into another important philosophical notion. — andrewk

I agree with pretty much all of this. But I think perhaps we might sometimes avoid the problems with poorly-chosen topics and poorly-defined terms by recognising at the start that we are discussing vague and general things, which means we will necessarily use vague and general terms to accurately describe them. [Yes, accurately. It would be inaccurate to describe something vague, and give the impression of a precise description.]

The more I think about it, the more I think that the many discussions brought to a halt by misunderstanding over the meaning of the terms used might be our fault. That general terms exist is indisputable (unless you know different?). That general things exist for those terms to describe is indisputable (ditto). Are we so inattentive that we cannot see when we are doing this, right at the start, and maybe spend the first part of the discussion deciding how we will handle the intrinsic imprecision?

The word "atheist" for instance, has so many different meanings that it becomes virtually useless in these discussions. Agnostic seems to be heading that same way.

So I understand whereof you speak. — Frank Apisa


:up: So, instead of being "useless", maybe "atheist" is a general term, with all the vagueness that enables it to do its intended job? — Pattern-chaser


↪Pattern-chaser


Yeah, I guess if its "intended job" is to confuse and obscure... — Frank Apisa

No, if "atheist" is a general term such as we are describing (I'm not 100% convinced it is, which is why I said "maybe"), then its intended job is to describe something that is not precisely defined, so it describes that something imprecisely. Your reference to (intentional) "confuse and obscure" looks like a simple attempt to discredit the idea and the existence of general terms. But I'm sure I misunderstand...?

This is a well thought out and well written post. It's also one that I disagree with. For me, the biggest frustration on the forum is long, wandering discussions that never get anywhere because terms are not defined at the beginning. I would say half the threads have this problem. — T Clark

I'm almost embarrassed to reply to this, in case anyone thinks I am opposing your views. I find that I agree with both of us! :smile: But I cannot help wondering if some of the problems you describe are down to us choosing general/vague things to discuss, then getting annoyed that there are no more precise terms for us to use? Are we just in denial about vague and general words, and their use/utility? :chin:

That is, general terms are abstract. As abstract they are nothing in themselves and without utility except as code for a specific but not-particularized quality. — tim wood

Yes, I think many (most?) such terms are abstract. But "without utility"? I think not. An umbrella term for a number of related things must prove useful in some circumstances, surely? Granted they are without utility in a binary-thinking context, where precision of vocabulary and concepts are paramount. But the search for certainty is mostly wishful thinking, and remaining exclusively in that context restricts the things we can think about and discuss.

Don't you sometimes want to do what I did all the time as a 17-year-old, batting around general concepts, to see what came out? General discussions, using general terms, have some value, don't they? Note for incurable binary thinkers who may be reading this: no, I do not recommend dropping precision vocabularies in philosophy. I only suggest that adding general discussions to our debating might give us something we don't currently use, maybe something valuable?

The word "atheist" for instance, has so many different meanings that it becomes virtually useless in these discussions. Agnostic seems to be heading that same way.

So I understand whereof you speak. — Frank Apisa

:up: So, instead of being "useless", maybe "atheist" is a general term, with all the vagueness that enables it to do its intended job?

but this leaves open the questions of God and the whole. — Fooloso4

I can't quite see what the "questions" are, that you refer to? :chin:

When there is no definite information, we speculate. It's what we humans do. :smile: But speculation is not, of itself, persuasive, as you say. It can be interesting, though, and it can spawn ideas that eventually turn into something a lot more definite.... :chin:

One problem I have is with the move from the absence of a reasonable explanation to some story of powers, or forces, or realms, or reality, or Being, or beings. or a particular being or relationship between two special beings: God and man. In such stories man often has some unique privilege or place is the larger whole. It could be argued that such a possibility cannot be ruled out, but why should it be ruled in? Do we have good reason to think that this is the way things are other than the comfort this way of thinking may bring to us? — Fooloso4

Yes, this way of thinking leads to such sayings as "if God is good, how come she allows tuberculosis into the world?" And the answer, of course, is that God is the God of everything, not just humanity. If She is the God of tuberculosis too, should She not care for the tuberculosis bacteria just as much as She cares for donkeys or humans? So yes, I agree with you: there's no reason to suppose that, if there is a Creator, that She created the universe for humans to use as their plaything.

I wonder if it's useful to judge spiritual experience as you do? Experience, not just the spiritual sort, is , er, experienced. It happens, and we accept it.

Analysis can come later, if you're that way inclined, but will analysis change the experience? In any way at all? No, it won't. Is a spiritual experience different if the estimated statistical probability of it happening is very high, or very low? No, it isn't. Is a spiritual experience less meaningful because someone here says that only scientifically-justified things are worthy of your attention? No. And so on....

N.B. I have described one benefit of religion. There are more, but many of them are more difficult to argue, so I chose the simplest one. :wink:

Members of religions work together. If the religion is widespread enough, then we end up with large numbers of us working co-operatively, which is the benefit I describe. Religons with few members obviously cannot offer this benefit. Other social institutions can/could also deliver this same benefit, provided they can attract sufficient numbers of humans to their 'cause'.

Yes, I suppose it does, but I wasn't even addressing that. My comment was as fundamental as it looked. By "work better" I meant work optimally, to the greatest benefit of our species. But, since I can see no other way to judge it, I might suggest that working optimally is morally superior...? :chin:

I had to get away from that other place. Way too much hatred. — Frank Apisa

I escaped from a forum that had turned into a sciencist talking-shop. 'Unscientific' topics were trolled by members and moderators (!) until discussion was prevented. This place seems a lot better. :up: Very little hatred either! :wink:

Hang around and we'll get to know each other. — Bitter Crank

From me too. :smile:

I think religion (using the exact words from the OP title) is "better for us", because it encourages us to behave better. — Pattern-chaser


What if you don't agree with a lot of the ethical stances of the major religions? — Terrapin Station

[My highlighting.]

Sorry about the delay in replying. There are good reasons ... which you really don't want to read through! :wink:

I take your "you" to be singular, just as I took the OP's "us" to be plural. So I considered the question to refer to us communally, ignoring the individual perspective. So it doesn't matter if you or I don't agree with the ethical stances of various religions. It matters only that large numbers of people are drawn together by religion, and this encourages them to work together, in a communal and co-operative way. We humans are most (only?) successful when we work together. We are social animals. Religion is "better for us" because it helps us work together socially/communally, to the benefit of our whole species.

I don't think that I was arguing about the correctness. — CaZaNOx

OK, but it looked to me as though you were. The OP asked us to consider, not theism and atheism themselves, but whether theism or atheism is "better for us".

Make YOUR Opinion Count! Vote Whether Atheism or Religion is Better for us. — OP title

I thought this was an interesting contrast, which needs no explanation of the terms. We all know what they mean.

it's only a listing of the position — CaZaNOx

Which none of us need, do we? I think after all these centuries of discussion, we all know what theism and atheism are. :wink: But which is "better for us"? :chin:

Positions that negate this and therefore are atheistic Positions include:
Deism(God exists but doesn't interact/only creates once) — CaZaNOx

The OP is asking which is "better for us", theism or atheism. It is not asking which one is right or correct.... :chin:

I think religion (using the exact words from the OP title) is "better for us", because it encourages us to behave better. Better for our species. Sometimes even better for the world we live in (although this is rarer).

Interesting to note that Islam is not one of the religions listed.... :chin:

My religion is Gaian Daoism, but there's little point in adding this designation to the list, I feel. :wink:

We all want respect, one way or another. — Bitter Crank

:up:

Not sure exactly what you're asking. In math, we always called 2+2=4 a given number fact. It's not something that has to be proved or verified. — T Clark

That's because it's presented axiomatically. It is defined to be true. There's nothing wrong with this, but we should be aware that it's being done. The truth of "2+2=4" depends on number theory and arithmetic, for a start. Maybe other stuff too. And all of this 'stuff' is human-created. That it proves useful in describing some parts of the real world is not magic. We created maths to help us think about the real world. Why would we be surprised when it proves useful for that task? :smile:

Why do people offend on purpose? — Joseph Walsh

I don't know. I can only assume they are sadists, and enjoy the pain or discomfort their words cause? The whole idea is foreign to me; I can't empathise with someone who deliberately hurts others.

Many of the comments so far posted suggest those who take offence should, er, not. Why? Why should people have to learn to tolerate this unpleasantness? It's not as if the unpleasantness contributes in any way, shape or form to any meaningful and useful discussion.

If God is real, why is the world bad? — csalisbury

Because you are taking a human-centric view, and God is the God of all living things. If you get ill, you think it's "bad", but if you were the germ(s) thriving within your fevered body...? God cares for all things, not only you and your ape-brothers. :wink:

To me, the individual/society spectrum is the defining one in politics. But I don't argue with what else has been posted here. This could turn into a thoroughly worthwhile thread....

All good points. It would seem that British participation in the forthcoming elections makes as much sense as allowing 90-year-olds to vote on Brexit, when they will never live to experience the result of their actions. [Many have already died since the referendum.] So I agree with you, that Brutish [Freudian slip?] participation in the EU elections looks like a Bad Thing for all concerned.

If our elected representatives cannot find a way to implement the result of the first referendum - and it seems so far that they can't - is there any alternative to a second referendum? Must Parliament not return to the people and say "we tried to implement your wishes, but we have failed to find agreement. All the available options we can find are these: XXX YYY ZZZ. As we cannot choose between them, we return to the people for your decision."

What (democratic) alternative is there?

moral truth. It has nothing to do with what makes you feel good. It has everything to do with living in a community and not causing harm where possible. One should not harm community members when we depend on the community for survival, wants, and needs. — Noah Te Stroete

Well put. I'm not convinced that the strictures societies place upon their members are moral laws, though. I think they're just pragmatic strictures, put in place because they were found (by society) to be necessary for social and co-operative living. I suppose we can call them what the hell we like, but I see more pragmatism than morality. YMMV, of course. :wink:

You're a fragment of the sociocultural awkwardly expressed through the mostly compliant body of an ape. Your perceived individualism and autonomy is largely formed of retroactive confabulations designed to make the marriage between the fragment and the ape less acrimonious. There's plenty you can't do but manage to convince yourself you don't want to. — Baden

:smile:

what is our emotional relationship with this state of ignorance — Jake

Denial.

↪Pattern-chaser
"Politeness or violence is the choice we're faced with. I choose politeness. Violence achieves nothing worthwhile."

Rudeness and violence are not the same thing, nor are politeness and violence each other's opposites. — Ilya B Shambat

No, they aren't opposites. They are the choices we have in this particular context. But rudeness is a form of violence. A mild form, admittedly, but violent just the same. If you think "violent" is too strong, then substitute "conflict" instead. The meaning remains the same. And the violence/conflict still offers no benefit to anything or anyone.

But Trump is lying to his audience. There's nothing more to it than that. I'm not happy about it, but what he's doing is not complicated or mysterious. :chin:

And I can see no connection between what Trump is doing and 'political correctness', except that he mentions it. He mentions lots of other things too, and he lies about them too. I think the lying is the problem?

So you don't accept that intolerant speech enables, permits, supports and encourages intolerant action(s)?

You go on to ignore the distinction between speech and actions that I made — DingoJones

Yes, I should have been clearer in what I wrote. Because (intolerant) speech enables, permits, supports and encourages (intolerant) actions, the two cannot be separated. The speech (sometimes) gives rise to the actions, so if you permit (intolerant) speech, you also permit the (intolerant) actions with which it is indivisibly associated. Drawing the distinction is unjustifiable and incorrect.

From the Cambridge English dictionary:

politically correct
adjective
uk ​ /pəˌlɪt.ɪ.kəl.i kəˈrekt/ us ​ /pəˌlɪt̬.ə.kəl.i kəˈrekt/ abbreviation PC
​
Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided.
​
A politically correct word or expression is used instead of another one to avoid being offensive:
Some people think that "fireman" is a sexist term, and prefer the politically correct term "firefighter".

Thesaurus: synonyms and related words

Polite and respectful

chivalrous chivalry civility civilized civilly couth deferential deferentially euphemism gallant gallantly gracefulness graciously graciousness keep a civil tongue in your head idiom polite tactfully urbane urbanely well mannered

[All highlighting mine.] I'm not trying to cite a dictionary as an authority, but simply as a good description of political correctness as a positive thing. I don't insist that PC is always right, or that it is always correctly applied ( :wink: ). But I suggest that PC is a Good Thing overall, and that any problems it brings with it can be easily and politely dealt with. :smile: :up:

And yet the intolerant speech, and the thinking/opinions that lie behind it, enable and permit the intolerant actions you decry. :chin: I think this is why many civilised nations identify hate speech as something unacceptable, and use it to limit freedom of speech where it is spreading or supporting hate.

Here in the UK, during the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland and Eire, the key to stopping the violence was in defusing the enabling behaviour of those who would never plant a bomb, but would speak out in favour of the cause(s) of those who do. The silent majority (if we can call them that) where the ones who had to be won over before the killing could be stopped.

If you permit "intolerant speech" in the name of 'freedom of speech', you permit the passive, enabling, support of "intolerant behaviour". You might decide freedom of speech is important enough that we should do this. I disagree. Happily, my country does too. Mostly. In theory. And sometimes, in fairness, in practice.

I dont think your quite getting it. If the point at which you are on the issue is figuring out what “PC” means, you need to do more research. Take a look at the things that actually get done in the name of “PC”. It is in theory and in practice about some people forcing other people to talk in certain ways. Even if this is to enforce “polite” engagement, it is still forcing people...and its forcing one persons views upon another since not everyone agrees about the importance of being polite, the value of being polite, what is considered polite and what kinds of things are not polite by necessity. — DingoJones

You don't think I get it, but you are posing a specific example relating to my question:

Is it acceptable to be intolerant of intolerance? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

In this example, you ask whether it is appropriate to force people to be polite? The first thing to note is that all human societies impose certain restrictions on their members. Murder (not being allowed) is a common example. There are many others. There is no point bewailing the 'wrongness' of this, if that is what we feel. Humans, acting collectively, do things like this. This is; what ought to be is a different matter. So the only real issue in this example is: is politeness an important enough thing that society would add it to the list (murder, child abuse, etc)?

So I think I do get it. Whether politeness should be enforced depends upon the perceived benefits it delivers. And this is not a logical/factual decision. Societies 'think' and act according to (human) social principles. In philosophical terms, we should apply the label 'subjective' to such decisions.

Wikipedia says "The term political correctness is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society. Since the late 1980s, the term has come to refer to avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race." I think this describes reasonable consideration for others, and I see no reason to do anything but support it.

Wikipedia carries on to say "In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive or unwarranted." If such attention is actually excessive and unwarranted, it is not justified or justifiable, in my view. If such behaviour is coercive, it's probably wrong. It makes no worthwhile contribution to anything.

But there's one thing we should consider (and maybe after considering it, we will reject it): is it OK to force people to treat others decently? If these people are currently not treating people decently, there appears to be a problem, a wrong-doing. But if we try to force such people away from their bullying practices, are we justified, or are we showing that we are no better than they are? Perhaps the core question here is this:

Is it acceptable to be intolerant of intolerance? :chin:

“Politically correct” is exactly about controlling language, which words can be used and in what places. — DingoJones

If that is true, then I wholeheartedly support your opposition to it.

Agreed. ... But does your post offer a reply to mine, or just a continuation of the discussion? I see only the latter. Maybe that's because I'm reading it wrong? :chin:

One of the points I made in the OP is that political correctness degrades people's character. They cannot tell their honest opinions, so they become insincere. — Ilya B Shambat

I think you are referring to the false definition that characterises 'PC' as something negative, so that it may be attacked, and thereby dismissed. Politeness has a strongly positive purpose; trying to force others into doing it 'your way' is strongly negative and unconstructive. If you are arguing against the coercive behaviour, I agree with you completely. If, on the other hand, you seek to maintain freedom of speech as the freedom to insult, then I disagree. Politeness or violence is the choice we're faced with. I choose politeness. Violence achieves nothing worthwhile.