But does your conception of vagueness allow you to deny absolutely that a single grain is a heap? — bongo fury

Here are some definitions of "heap" I got from the web:

• An untidy collection of things piled up haphazardly.
• A collection of things thrown one on another
• A group of things placed, thrown, or lying one on another.

These are all consistent with my understanding of the meaning of the word. Based on that, I'm willing to state that a single grain is not a heap. Absolutely? Nothing in language, or anything else, is absolute.

OR, encourage people not to have children, realize that most of life consists of boring routine, and that the supply and demand of the modern economy is maddeningly self-defeating, as the satisfaction from any given output generates the dissatisfaction of large amounts of (so far) unquantified boredom. — schopenhauer1

We've all been through this argument with you before. Many of us don't share your feelings about life. I'm almost never bored. Actually, maybe never. I've done a lot of tedious work in my life, but in most cases I've known that the tedium is necessary in order to complete a job that is worth doing. I like life. I'm not afraid of boredom, cancer, dying, mean people, bad drivers, mosquitoes, ebola, "Two and a Half Men,"

If this just means more boring healthy, safe lives? What is the point? — schopenhauer1

This is about you, not most of us. You need to go get a life. I would have a lot more respect for your opinions on this subject if you would accept and acknowledge that others feel differently and your ideas of what is best don't apply to us.

What you said. — Valentinus

I could tell from your posts that you and I share feelings about management.

In fact, the whole economy should be based on quantity of boredom involved. — schopenhauer1

Never going to happen. Silly. Not even really necessary. What is needed is a way for every able-bodied person to have a job which is safe and which pays them enough for them, and their families, to live a decent life with decent housing in a reasonably safe neighborhood, good healthy food, health care, good education for their children, etc. etc. Let's do that. Then we can worry about boredom.

By the way, the photo of the construction workers installing piping in trenches shows them working in trenches which are steeper than allowed by OSHA. Collapsing excavations is a major cause of work injuries and depths and a bad way to die.

Back to boredom for a minute - As an adult, I worked at a Baskin Robins, as a warehouse worker, and as a cabinetmaker for 15 years before I went back to school and got my engineering degree. For the past 30 years I've worked as an engineer. Pay is better. Work is better. But at least 50% of the work I have done as an engineer is boring or worse. The difference is that I have enough control over my work to recognize that even the most valuable and rewarding work includes long periods of unpleasant work. Sanding is boring, but has to be done well and carefully to build attractive, well-built cabinets. Project management is the bedrock on which a successful engineering project is built. God I hate project management. Hate, hate, hate. But I never would have had a chance to have creative control over design projects without sucking it up and doing what was needed. Did I mention I hate project management.

There are two flavors of emergentism: ontological and epistemological. I think you're referring to epistemological emergence, since you're accepting that higher level properties are the product of lower level properties, but not predictable. Ontological emergence is stronger: it entails the emergence of novel properties that exist exclusively in the higher level that cannot, in principle, be reduced to fundamental physics. Consider mental causation: our minds have causal effects on substances in the world; is this mental activity reducible to particle behavior (reductionism is true), or is the mental activity entail ontological emergence from the material in our brains (reductionism is false)? If you're interested, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on this (here). — Relativist

I took a look at the SEP article, in particular in relation to the distinction between epistemological vs. ontological emergence. I must admit, I don't get it. It seemed like reshuffling words to complicate something that should be much simpler. Anyway, I don't see how the distinctions discussed make any difference to the argument I was making.

I'll spend some more time with the SEP article.

But otherwise, we can use it as it is. With certain embarrassing difficulties on slippery slopes, admittedly. — bongo fury

Yes. I think the vagueness of the word matches the vagueness of what it describes.

Reductionism could be an approach, but I've only seen it used as an ontological commitment- so from that perspective it is either consistent with reality, or it isn't. — Relativist

In my opinion, those who think of reductionism as a yes or no thing are misguided. Anyway, now you've seen it used as a metaphysical approach. I'm not the only one who sees it that way. It's a mainstream, not to say predominant, view.

Its converse is ontological emergentism, which is the claim that some higher level properties are not a product of lower level properties. Consciousness is cited as the most likely example of ontological emergence. — Relativist

My understanding of what you call emergentism is not that higher level properties are not the product of lower level ones, only that they are not predictable from them. Those are not the same thing.

I think it's about vagueness primarily because a heap is vague term. — TheMadFool

Yes, and the word "heap" is intentionally vague. It's a messy word for a messy pile of stuff. If we wanted to be more specific, we could tighten it up. How about this:

Heap (rev 1) - An untidy collection of things piled up haphazardly such that the minimum slope of the sides intersect the ground surface at an angle of 7 degrees or more.

When we understand these and other differences, we can harness the power of humor to benefit everyone. — Amity

Harnessed humor is not humor anymore. On TV they try to harness humor using laugh tracks. As someone else said on this thread, humor is play. You can't harness play either. You can stop it, but that's as far as you can go.

If reductionism is true, then indeed it must work bottom up. That's not to say that scientific research should be directed toward (say) fully accounting for biology with quantum field theory - that's impractical, but it is in principle possible to do so - or at least would be if our knowledge of fundamental physics were complete. If it is not possible, this implies there are some higher level properties that are ontologically emergent (and thus truly unpredictable), which contradicts reductionism.

Reductionism does imply that the current state of the universe was in principle predictable at the big bang. Quantum indeterminacy means that base prediction would have actually been of a huge number of possible states of the universe, of which the current state is but one of that number. — Relativist

You and I seem to agree. If you can't predict the behavior of complex systems from the bottom up, then a reductionist approach is misleading. Since bottom up prediction is not possible, therefore reductionism is wrong. QED.

Well, not wrong really - as I said, misleading. Reductionism is a metaphysical approach. It isn't right or wrong, it's more or less useful in specific situations. It's very useful when dealing with subatomic particles. It gets less so very quickly when you leave that size scale.

So Data wouldn't present a problem to you, because he could tell you he was conscious, and back that up with convincing behavior? — Marchesk

I would consider Data conscious, if he actually existed, because he acts like a conscious being when compared with the other conscious beings I know - primarily humans. Maybe that comes down to the Turing Test.

I'm reading "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." Written in the 1970s. The author, Julian Jaynes, claims that humans did not become conscious until about 3,000 years ago. Before that, the role that consciousness plays now was played by voices in our heads which directed our actions and which were interpreted as the voices of gods speaking to us directly...Yes...I know...

Actually, Jaynes work was taken seriously and even now is not considered pseudo-science by most. I have not been impressed with the quality of the argument. I'm three chapters in. It reads like a Malcolm Gladwell essay. I don't consider that a good thing.

Mad magazine, a US institution famous for the grinning face of jug-eared, tiny-eyed mascot Alfred E Neuman, is to stop being a regular fixture of newsstands — Amity

I was once a big fan of Mad Magazine. In the early 1970s I graduated, if that's the right word, to Harvard Lampoon and the National Lampoon. This discussion reminded me of the Mad Magazine parody HL put out in 1971. I can't believe it's that long ago. I remember it, even at the age of 18, as a brilliant parody. I just looked it up on the web. It still holds up pretty well. Here's a link:

http://johnglenntaylor.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-me-funny.html

I'd also like to direct those of you who are newer to the forum to humorous posts put out by one of the best - and funniest - philosophers on the forum. Just search for Philosophy Joke of the Day.

So the point of all this disagreement is the hard(er) problem. If we learn about our consciousness the same way we do other people, then it might not be a problem. — Marchesk

I've never gotten all this talk about the hard problem. Now that I've heard about the harder problem, I don't get it either. Nothing here seems particularly difficult to me.

But I think our own case is special, because we experience our conscious states, and can only infer them about other people. — Marchesk

And that's the heart of the matter. The point I've been making is that I don't believe it is true, at least I don't think I do. I'll leave myself some room for additional thought. I understand why people think that way. As I said earlier, consciousness is very personal. Just about everyone who considers themselves consciousness has a strong opinion.

I'm wondering why all your mental experiences aren't just being conscious? Feelings included. Are we using different terms? By consciousness, do you mean awareness of what you're experiencing, and that inner dialog is what makes us aware? — Marchesk

Geez, I'm falling behind here. See my response immediately previous to this one.

I am having a good time with this discussion. We're both being thoughtful and friendly and we're homing in on our differences of understanding. Even if those aren't resolved, it's still useful and interesting.

Which is not one I would make. Why wouldn't they be conscious?

Part of the problem here is that experience can mean behavior as well as consciousness, and I would rather restrict experience to consciousness, otherwise it's easy to slip between the two, resulting in arguing past one another in these debates. — Marchesk

Maybe we're at the heart of our disagreement. Maybe "difference of understanding" is better than "disagreement." As usual, it comes down to a matter of definition. You define "consciousness" differently than I do. If I were to say that my definition is more in keeping with the common meaning of the word, that would just start us off on another spiral of disagreement.

You didn't think that dreams were experienced, only remembered. Well, I've had lucid dreams a few times. They are conscious experiences as much as perception is. — Marchesk

It's not fair for me to judge the experience you've had without a better understanding. But that never stops me, does it? I guess I don't see how a lucid dream is any different from any other kind. In the most common kind of dream I have, I experience frustration and anxiety. In your lucid dream, you experience consciousness. Consciousness, frustration, and anxiety are all mental experiences.

I know, I don't find that response particularly satisfying either. It's the best I've got right now.

I would say we aren't experiencing anything when we're not conscious. We're p-zombies in that regard. Experience is consciousness. — Marchesk

Really? When a baby cries for food, it's not because it is experiencing hunger? When a dog is injured, it doesn't experience pain and fear? Dogs and babies don't experience anything? That seems like a pretty radical claim to me.

When you dream at night, usually your body is paralyzed so you don't move around in response to your dreams. You can sit perfectly still and meditate. — Marchesk

You've never had a lucid dream? — Marchesk

From Wikipedia - A lucid dream is a dream during which the dreamer is aware that they are dreaming. During a lucid dream, the dreamer may gain some amount of control over the dream characters, narrative, and environment; however, this is not actually necessary for a dream to be described as lucid.

I don't remember ever having this kind of experience. I don't know how it fits in with our discussion

On the show, Data is always puzzled by some feature of common human behavior. Maybe he could convince someone he's autistic, except the can perform calculation and recitation of facts at a superhuman level if asked, and he usually does so unless told not to. — Marchesk

There are lots of people who are "puzzled by some feature of common human behavior." Someone blind from birth might have trouble speaking coherently about visual experience, which they've never had. There are people who are unable to empathetically understand the emotional experience of others. Would we say these people are not conscious?

Here is where we fundamentally disagree. Inner dialog is just one more form of conscious experience. And it's not necessary to experience color, sound, pain in perception, memory, imagination, etc. — Marchesk

It is not necessary to consciously experience color, sound, pain in perception, memory, imagination, etc. It's obviously possible to experience these without being consciously aware. Animals and babies do it all the time. Actually, so do we all. It's just that we have something else added on top of that.

I judge myself to be conscious because I am conscious, not because I behave as if I am. I judge other people on behavior AND biology, because I don't experience what they do, but I have no reason for supposing they would be lacking. — Marchesk

Again, in my experience and those of others, the essence of consciousness is internal dialog. As for Temple Grandin - I know who she is but I haven't read extensively. Of course there is non-verbal, including visual, awareness. I have visual awareness without being conscious of it. Most of my internal life is non-conscious. I contend that that's true for most, if not all, people. What does Grandin say about awareness vs. consciousness.

it's not behavior. I can pretend to be in pain or feel sad. i can also hide my pain (within reason) or sadness. When you dream at night, usually your body is paralyzed so you don't move around in response to your dreams. You can sit perfectly still and meditate. — Marchesk

Let's talk about consciousness in others rather than in ourselves just for the moment. We'll come back to our experience of our own consciousness later. How do we know someone is conscious? As far as we know, we can't experience their internal experience directly, so we have to use an outward sign, i.e., their behavior. That's true for any mental state.

Language - speech, writing, signed, by whatever method - is behavior. Do we agree on that? And language is the primary way, not the only way, we can evaluate another being's consciousness. There are other methods, for example, some scientists have tried to determine whether a non-human animal is conscious by seeing if the animal can recognize itself in a mirror. I don't know whether or not I buy that, but it's an interesting way of thinking about it.

Are dreams and meditative states consciousness? I don't think I think they are. Or I think I don't think they are. In my experience, becoming consciously aware of dreams is something that happens in memory after I wake up. As for meditation, maybe it makes sense to think of it as awareness without consciousness. I'm not sure about that.

Now, back to our internal experience of consciousness. For me, and, as I understand it, others, the essence of the experience is internal speech. Talking to ourselves. Another essential aspect is that it allows us to stand back and observe ourselves objectively, as if from the outside, just the way we observe others. We judge ourselves conscious just as we judge others - based on our behavior.

To summarize, the harder problem is that human phenomenal concepts do not reveal whether our material makeup or the functional role our neurobiology plays is responsible for consciousness. As such, we have no philosophical justification for saying whether a functional isomorph made up of different material such as the android Data from Star Trek is conscious. Even more confusing, we have no way of telling whether a "mere" functional isomorph is conscious, where "mere" means functional in terms of human folk psychology only, and not in the actual neural functions. — Marchesk

Simulating consciousness is consciousness. Consciousness is a behavioral feature, not a physiological or neurological one. The mind is not the brain. I say that even though I believe that what we call mental states result from physical, electrical, and chemical reactions in the brain and the rest of the nervous system. When you watch a basketball game on television, you don't typically say that the game or the images and sounds we perceive on the screen are the same as the television.That would be silly. It's just as silly to say the mind is the brain. Our minds are the shows our brains are playing.

This applies to other possible physical systems, such as Block's Chinese brain, were a billion Chinese with radios and flags implement the functional role for conscious brain states. And if one bites the functional bullet on this and says that such a system would be conscious, then in all likelihood, countries like India are already performing enough of those roles to be conscious. — Marchesk

Hmmm... Well...I guess I could go along with the Chinese brain being conscious, although I doubt all the people and all the radios and all the flags in the world could make up a system as complex as the brain. Also, the Chinese brain computer would be so slow that all the people would die before the simplest mental process could be created. I'm guessing it couldn't simulate a mind even in a minimal way in the time between the big bang and the heat death of the universe.

As for India being conscious, It's something, but I wouldn't say it's conscious unless you'd say that Adam Smith's invisible hand of the market is conscious. Which I wouldn't.

I should also note that Data would likely not pass the Turing Test as he has certain idiosyncrasies that would probably tip humans off that he's a machine, if the test were sufficiently thorough. — Marchesk

Data could certainly pass the Turing test if he wanted to.

So these fields are essentially inert just so theories then and will remain so? — schopenhauer1

Let me revise a bit - I think that's probably not a realistic expectation the way things are now.

Actually it works bottom up, too, once one realizes that you need two things in your knowledge before you can construct: all the laws, and the initial state (including movement). — god must be atheist

If, by this, you mean that higher levels of organization can be predicted from the laws of lower levels, Anderson and I disagree.

Of course, my analogy does not stand up. There were not the equivalents of the pond and the shore at the moment of creation. The point I am trying to make is that at a certain level of complexity there could be a break in the linearity and inevitability in the causal chain originated by the Prime Cause. One cannot rule out some mechanism, be it quanta, chaos, orcosciosnes that acts in a remotely similar way to my analogy. — Jacob-B

There have been a lot of discussions around this type of issue. They often come down to a question of the validity of a reductionist approach to science. The behavior of a complex, dynamic physical system will be consistent with so called laws of physics. That does not mean that the behavior of the system is predictable, even in theory, by those laws. It works top down, but it doesn't work bottom up.

During one of those previous discussions, someone, I forget whom, suggested "More is Different" by PW Anderson. I found it very helpful. Here's a link:

http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf

Here's some of what Anderson says:

The reductionist hypothesis may still be a topic for controversy among philosophers, but among the great majority of active scientists I think it is accepted without question. The workings of our
minds and bodies, and of all the animate or inanimate matter of which we have any detailed knowledge, are assumed to be controlled by the same set of fundamental laws, which except under certain extreme conditions we feel we know pretty well.....

....The main fallacy in this kind of thinking is that the reductionist hypothesis does not by any means imply a "constructionist" one: The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. In fact, the more the elementary particle physicists tell us about the nature of the fundamental laws, the less relevance they seem to have to the very real problems of the rest of science, much less to those of society. The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. The behavior of large and complex aggregates of elementary particles, it turns out, is not to be understood in terms of a simple extrapolation of the properties of a few particles. Instead, at each level of complexity entirely new properties appear, and the understanding of the new behaviors requires re­search which I think is as fundamental in its nature as any other.

It would be very bizarre for something like Corbalis' theory of gestural speech/mirror neurons to conflate with Terrence Deacon's semiosis theory of the "symbolic species". They are just two very different takes on language formation. One is starting from anthropology /neurobiology and the other is starting from physics/anthropology/neurobiology semiosis/entropy and more integrated approach. I can see how it may be combined, but do these approaches talk to each other and inform each other and recognize each other more than a passing reference perhaps in a paper or in conferences? — schopenhauer1

I am not at all familiar with the theories you reference, but it seems like you and I are talking about the same thing.

Unlike philosophy proper, which is always handled theoretically more-or-less, these fields would purportedly want to actually provide THE explanation for a phenomena (knowing that it can be changed later of course through verification/falsification methods). — schopenhauer1

I think that's probably not a realistic expectation, given the atomized nature of science and the idiosyncrasies of individual scientists.

My father was forced out of school at 13, spent time living on the street, etc before raising five kids on a meagre postman’s salary - rain, hail or shine for 30 years. He spent much of his spare time educating himself - before the internet - and continually reflected on who he was and what he did. He was hardened poor, and yet most ‘uncommon’. — Possibility

Yes, and for my whole adult life and part of my non-adult life, much of it working class work, and yes, i know lots of people who are not college educated though for me the comman man would include many people who go to college. I consider most people the common man - though it's not a term I usually use. — Coben

As I wrote previously, I was asking my questions about work so I could understand what credibility you had to discuss the "common man." You two have given me what I asked for and I'll take your opinions on this subject more seriously.

It feels very patronising of me to make that list. — Brett

I don't see it that way - I just want you to show you have a basis for your comments. During a philosophical discussion, it's reasonable for one party to question the basis of a statement by the other. In this case, I'm being more aggressive because you are being disrespectful and condescending - patronizing - to people you don't seem to know or understand. All I'm asking is that you show me I'm wrong.

However I have to say it seems extremely patronising to do what I’ve just done. — Brett

I'm patronizing or you're patronizing? I just want you and the others to show you have some credentials to talk about the "common man."

However if it makes any difference you I’ll give you some of my work history:

Worked on a construction site

Worked as a cleaner at a girls’ school

Drove a van delivering mail

Cleaned out animal compounds at a marine park — Brett

For how long? Did you have to live off the money you made - pay for your housing, food, car, heat, power, health care? Raise kids?

Chill. — Possibility

I was civil, if blunt. Some posts call for raised voices, rhetorically speaking.

Personally, I don’t like to use the term ‘common man’. What I was referring to was how I interpret the term in relation to the attitude of those who use it. Yes - it can be condescending, arrogant and disrespectful. The term often implies that the person using it does not see themselves in it. It is a way of being self-reflective without including the self. It connotes pity rather than compassion, and implies that the author’s ability to comment on this aspect of being human elevates him from being one of them. In truth, unless we are continually self-reflective, this term refers to all of us most of the time. — Possibility

I was mostly with you until the last sentence, which dips back into the condescension I referred to.

Of course I’ve worked for a living. Does that satisfy you?

I’m not your enemy here. — Brett

You're not my enemy. Just tell me your experience with the "hardened poor" and the "common man" that gives you the credibility to pontificate on his life.

What ignorance and arrogance? — Brett

First - Have you ever worked for a living? Where you actually had to live off what you made? Do you know anybody who isn't isn't affluent or college educated?[/quote]

Oh, don’t be so boring and sanctimonious. — Brett

So, have you worked for a living? Do you know anybody who isn't isn't affluent or college educated?

It's not the disrespect that bothers me the most, it's the ignorance and arrogance.

‘Hardened poor people’: — Brett

The ‘common man’ has always been there and endured it all. — Brett

The "common man" with his "common sense" — Noblosh

when the common man follow an authority closely (like, say, the church) this may — Coben

Sometimes, when the common man follow an authority closely (like, say, the church) this may be insulting to them. — Coben

As well, I only brought up post modernism as one of many ‘isms’ the ‘common man’ has seen and go. Though it seems reasonably clear to me that the nature of post modernism would have little relationship to his daily life, or benefit, and that he’s seen many groups who know what’s better for him fall away and he still remains. — Brett

And this description includes attitudes that the common man has. Skepticism about progress, rejection of many grand narratives. The common man is often cynical of politics in general. And certainly critical of the grand narratives of modernism.... — Coben

Many common men and women did not like modernism and dislike the moves away from traditional art forms - and realism - and traditional ideas about religious faith. They did not do this from a postmodernist viewpoint, but from their own. Modernism is a very intellectual movement and the common man and postmodernism share a criticism of it. At least, often they do. Sometimes, as I pointed out, the common man will agree whole heartedly with postmodernism's acceptance of their tastes as just as valid as elite tastes. — Coben

The common man would most assuredly be for the first part of this quote and against the last part. Those post modern ideas are a direct threat to their view of life. — Brett

I can’t help thinking that the common man is looked down on by people (who I’m reluctant to define: inner city, whatever) because his life just looks so ordinary to those who need constant stimulation, constant new experiences and as a result constant change. And yet it’s the ‘ordinaryness’ that’s behind his survival against all the ‘isms’. Whatever you people might think, he is a survivor. I don’t know why his values are so shunned. — Brett

I tend to interpret the ‘common man’ as simply a lack of self-reflection. It is who we are and what we do when we aren’t paying attention to who we are and what we do. — Possibility

I'm not certain, but I think this thread may be the most pitiful I've read on the forum. Condescending, ignorant, naive, arrogant, disrespectful. Pitiful. Have any of you ever worked for a living? Do you know anybody who isn't isn't affluent or college educated?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TmfBHfiUk

But if it causes the kinds of problems that I have described here then I have to wonder why exactly that is the case, as in why is viewing pornography supposedly better/more exciting than actual sex? Or else why does it make real sex seem less exciting? — Maureen

When I have sex with a person, I want intimacy with someone I like. It's one way, not the only way, of being close to someone you care about. As I've gotten older, I know that I would never want to have sex with someone who isn't my friend. Real sex is play. It's fun. The object is to give pleasure to he other person. Nothing particularly kinky - mostly skin on skin, lips, two people. No pain. Nothing disgusting. I don't need anyone helping out if all I want to do is ejaculate. I've gotten really good at that on my own.

On the other hand - I have a very vivid fantasy life. There are things I imagine doing that I would never want to do in real life - Causing pain. Using vulnerable people. Having power over others. Also - sex can be frustrating. It can be emotionally painful. It can be hard to find someone generous who likes you, is sexually attracted to you, and who shares your tastes. There are a lot of people in the world, probably mostly men, who feel angry and resentful that they can't find someone who wants to be intimate with them. Pornography can appeal to people who have not been able to find satisfaction in sex, love, and intimacy. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

I doubt pornography does much damage. Whatever damage is done comes from living in a society where people can't find a sense that they belong and are valued. Unless it is having effects in your life that are causing problems for you, your friends, or family, I wouldn't worry about it. Keep in mind that pornography - it's value and effects - is probably a lot easier to understand if you are a man than a woman.

The kind of views Bitter Crank holds, which I would argue represent the 'silent' majority, are simply sidelined by both vocal fringes. — ssu

I think I know @Bitter Crank well enough to say that he is not, never has been, and never will be either silent or in the majority.

Nike are legally obliged to maximize profits for their shareholders. — Baden

Yeah, well, that's not true. The officers and board members are legally obligated to act in accordance with their fiduciary duties. That may or may not include maximizing profits. On the other hand, if they don't maximize profits, they are likely to get their assess kicked.

these fields would purportedly want to actually provide THE explanation for a phenomena — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure that is a realistic expectation. I have no faith in any kind of "theory of everything," even in such hard science disciplines as particle physics. Actually, I have my own theory of everything - have I told you about the Tao? Don't get me started.

Do you believe in God, or is that a software glitch? — Wayfarer

That kind of article is just a reworking of the old mind/brain kerfuffle and we know how productive discussions about that usually are.

The word I was thinking about isn't 'nigger' but rather 'negro' (or, in French 'nègre'). They weren't originally pejoratives and indeed were routinely used by black people to refer to themselves in a neutral way. Still, complaining about contemporary uses of them (especially by white people) because of recently acquired connotations isn't a case of objectionable political correctness. — Pierre-Normand

"The N Word" is not "negro." Never was, never will be. When I was growing up, "negro" was the respectable, respectful word used to describe black people. It was a more dignified replacement for "colored people" or "coloreds." And even those were not considered disrespectful, although it was condescending. NAACP stands for "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People." I don't really like the word and some of the black people I know don't like it either.