The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[Philosophy] On Words, Meaning, Harm, and Offense.
_J_
PedantRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
PedantRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
Pulling this out of the Obama thread.
Suppose two persons, Player A and Player B. Player A vocalizes a noise. Player B hears the noise, and feels sad. Player A then makes some marks on a piece of paper. Player B looks at those marks, and feels sad. When we attempt to discern the "cause" of Player B's sadness, there seems to be a contention between these two stories:
1) Player B's sadness directly resulted from the noise / marks.
2) Player B's sadness directly resulted from Player B's interpretation of the noise / marks.
I contend that 2 is the case. Here's the short explanation for why 2 is the case:
Player A hands Player B a note that says, "I dislike your pants."
Player C hands Player B a note that says, "لم يعجبني ملابسك."
Player B is saddened by Player A's note, rather than Player C's note.
Why is this the case? Well, Player B's interpretive framework is such that the note of Player A is taken to convey a "meaning" that upsets Player B. The note of Player C, written in a language not supported by Player B's interpretive framework, is not interpretive to have any meaning of consequence.
Suppose it is the case that "I dislike your pants" and "لم يعجبني ملابسك" are different representations, in different languages, of the same idea. If this is the case, then how do we explain that Player B was saddened by "I dislike your pants" and not "لم يعجبني ملابسك", given that they "mean" the same thing, or "convey" the same notion? It must be the case that the actual cause of sadness was Player B's interpretation of the marks, rather than the marks themselves. Player B's reaction to the note of Player C does not result in Player B feeling sad, whereas Player B's reaction to the note of Player A does result in Player B feeling sad.
The cause of sadness is Player B's interpretation of the marks, rather than the marks themselves.
Therefore, it is not the case that words are harmful, that particular noises or marks on pages or pixels in a screen are somehow, in themselves, harmful or offensive or deleterious. Rather, a particular individual's interpretations of those noises, marks, or pixel configurations can cause a feeling of offense or sadness.
It is, of course, the case that a person's interpretation of a noise, mark, or pixel configuration can be harmful. As shryke notes:
The confusion, however, is over the distinction between words, verbal abuse, and the psychologically damaged person's interpretation of particular noises, marks, pixel configurations, etc. The altered brain structure does not result from the noises. The altered brain structure results from the individual's interpretation of those noises. If the noises, themselves, altered the brain structure then a particular linguistic utterance made in, say, French would always cause the same mental alterations in all people, ever. We know, empirically, that this is not the case. A person who speaks French will react differently to noises that vocalize French words than someone who does not speak French.
This indicates, again, that the individual's interpretive framework is the significant causal factor rather than the noise, mark, pixel configuration, etc.
I think there is merit to this distinction. In addition to its being correct, it places more power on individual agents. It is not the case that one must be subject to the noises made by other people, the marks made by other people, etc. Instead, each particular individual is in control of his or her own interpretation of the acts of others. As one of my friends in undergrad use to say, "People choose to be offended. I choose to not be offended."
This is something that persons can do, given that the phenomena of offense / harm results from one's own interpretations of noises / marks / pixel configurations rather than some inherent meaning or power in the noises / marks / pixel configurations. Once an individual realizes this, they cease to be subject to the linguistic vocalizations of others, and can control their own feelings by structuring their interpretive framework to be beneficial, rather than deleterious to their well-being.
Thoughts?
Suppose two persons, Player A and Player B. Player A vocalizes a noise. Player B hears the noise, and feels sad. Player A then makes some marks on a piece of paper. Player B looks at those marks, and feels sad. When we attempt to discern the "cause" of Player B's sadness, there seems to be a contention between these two stories:
1) Player B's sadness directly resulted from the noise / marks.
2) Player B's sadness directly resulted from Player B's interpretation of the noise / marks.
I contend that 2 is the case. Here's the short explanation for why 2 is the case:
Player A hands Player B a note that says, "I dislike your pants."
Player C hands Player B a note that says, "لم يعجبني ملابسك."
Player B is saddened by Player A's note, rather than Player C's note.
Why is this the case? Well, Player B's interpretive framework is such that the note of Player A is taken to convey a "meaning" that upsets Player B. The note of Player C, written in a language not supported by Player B's interpretive framework, is not interpretive to have any meaning of consequence.
Suppose it is the case that "I dislike your pants" and "لم يعجبني ملابسك" are different representations, in different languages, of the same idea. If this is the case, then how do we explain that Player B was saddened by "I dislike your pants" and not "لم يعجبني ملابسك", given that they "mean" the same thing, or "convey" the same notion? It must be the case that the actual cause of sadness was Player B's interpretation of the marks, rather than the marks themselves. Player B's reaction to the note of Player C does not result in Player B feeling sad, whereas Player B's reaction to the note of Player A does result in Player B feeling sad.
The cause of sadness is Player B's interpretation of the marks, rather than the marks themselves.
Therefore, it is not the case that words are harmful, that particular noises or marks on pages or pixels in a screen are somehow, in themselves, harmful or offensive or deleterious. Rather, a particular individual's interpretations of those noises, marks, or pixel configurations can cause a feeling of offense or sadness.
It is, of course, the case that a person's interpretation of a noise, mark, or pixel configuration can be harmful. As shryke notes:
Words are damaging. Verbal abuse is psychologically damaging. Like, you can see it in altered brain structure and everything.
The confusion, however, is over the distinction between words, verbal abuse, and the psychologically damaged person's interpretation of particular noises, marks, pixel configurations, etc. The altered brain structure does not result from the noises. The altered brain structure results from the individual's interpretation of those noises. If the noises, themselves, altered the brain structure then a particular linguistic utterance made in, say, French would always cause the same mental alterations in all people, ever. We know, empirically, that this is not the case. A person who speaks French will react differently to noises that vocalize French words than someone who does not speak French.
This indicates, again, that the individual's interpretive framework is the significant causal factor rather than the noise, mark, pixel configuration, etc.
I think there is merit to this distinction. In addition to its being correct, it places more power on individual agents. It is not the case that one must be subject to the noises made by other people, the marks made by other people, etc. Instead, each particular individual is in control of his or her own interpretation of the acts of others. As one of my friends in undergrad use to say, "People choose to be offended. I choose to not be offended."
This is something that persons can do, given that the phenomena of offense / harm results from one's own interpretations of noises / marks / pixel configurations rather than some inherent meaning or power in the noises / marks / pixel configurations. Once an individual realizes this, they cease to be subject to the linguistic vocalizations of others, and can control their own feelings by structuring their interpretive framework to be beneficial, rather than deleterious to their well-being.
Thoughts?
0
Posts
I think your friend from undergrad seriously overestimated the amount of control people have over their emotions. Maybe your friend meant "People choose to act as though they are offended."
People are not 100% logical. If a robot A tells another robot B that it looks stupid, robot B will evaluate itself and discover that it's design is 100% in line with it's function and it won't be offended because robot A is not being logical. If robot B's design is not 100% in line with it's function, it will attempt to redesign itself. People don't work that way.
You can't try to have an honest experiment about emotional responses while removing the emotion.
Also, the burden of the insult is not with the victim who decides they are offended, it's with the accuser. Another real world example of this is military culture training. What can happen if I show my feet, even on accident, to a Muslim elder? I didn't intend to offend him, but I did. Now an altercation happens, but is resolved without incedent. We discover I insulted him. Who apologizes first, me or him? Do I really expect him to apologize for him taking offense at my unintentional action?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I was trying to avoid the
1) Holes kill people.
2) Bullets kill people.
3) Guns kill people.
4) Gun store owners kill people.
5) Gun manufacturers kill people.
sort of regression.
When Player A interprets Noise-Z to have Meaning-X and then emotionally responds to that interpretation of meaning I won't deny that a component of that story is Noise-Z. My point is that the interpretation plays a more significant role than the noise. The interpretation actually causes the emotional response. The noise is part of the story, but so is breathing.
I'm not removing the emotion from the emotional response. I'm indicating that the emotional response is a response to an interpretation, not a noise or a mark on a piece of paper.
Some people seem to believe that particular noises or marks or pixel configurations have an Inherent Meaning that is IN the noise, or the mark, or the configuration. Probably because they misread Plato, or something. That is a problematic world view both metaphysically and practically. If the power lies in the noise itself, then one has no ability to control their reaction to it, because that "FUCK" contains something that overpowers their own volition and subjects them to some naughtyness, or something.
If one understands that it's just a noise, or marks on paper, or pixels, then the magic falls away and persons are able to deal with the actual reality of the situation: They're interpreting something to mean X, and reacting to that interpretation.
Hopefully he would realize that his feeling of being offended is silly, and so would not be offended.
There shall probably always be superstitious people. But that doesn't mean we stop producing mirrors.
I bet there's not one person on this board who says this.
I bet you've made assumptions and are misinterpreting what people have said again.
Which is some fantastic irony.
You say that we just interpret noise and scribbles and it's our interpretations that cause the emotional response. But again, people don't respond in a logical way.
I can't go to a person and tell them, "I'm glad your three year old died and I hope your other children die, painfully." and expect them to go through the thought process of, "Well, he just made some noise, I won't take offense to noise."
Because that's not what really happened. The noise is not what was communicated, it was an idea. Words spoken or written are that, ideas transmitted from one person to another. It's the intent behind them and how they are recieved that matters.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Not a passive capacity, no.
A noise. How am I to interpret that? Well, here's one way...and here's another way...I'll go with this way. Oh, shit, that way sparked an emotional response. Better not do that again in the future.
Words are not idea transmitters. We figured that out in 1953.
Edit: And, hell, even if you maintain that words are idea transmitters, one still needs to interpret the word in order to discern what idea is "in" it. Given that system, one still only deals with one's interpretation of the word.
They are not? Then how did I then learn from reading books? Did the act of looking at paper with text on magically transfer knowledge into my head?
So words do not have any real meaning and they do not transfer ideas. Really?
I am going to counter with the fact that words are in place in order to transfer ideas and have no other function (opinions are ideas).
I don't understand this logic. A person says something that you interpret as offensive and you blame yourself for being offended and not him for offending you?
Are you telling me that there is nothing I can say to offend you, you would just tell yourself that it's just pixels on a screen and it's your fault for interpretting my words as offensive?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Again, it's not a transfer of information. I'm not incorporeally FedExing my idea of "duck" to you when I type "duck".
Since apparently neither word nor language does.
Again, "blame" is not a helpful notion.
Player A says, "X".
Player B hears, "X".
Player B then interprets that "X" into some sort of...I guess "meaning" is the term we're going with. If Player B gets offended by the meaning that Player B attributed to that "X", then, well, Player B got offended by the meaning Player B attributed to that "X".
Yes.
it really doesn't matter. whatever event occurs whereby information is communicated or dredged up from your linguistic databanks or whatever is involuntary. you do not have voluntary conscious control over it, full stop.
Ideas are not transferred. Ideas are not discrete entities that are moved around between different Minds.
You have an idea in your mind.
I have an idea in my mind.
But we don't package those ideas and ship them off to different minds. That's just a kookie metaphysical story.
Your experience of learning to read was very different from mine. I did not involuntarily *pop* the ability of reading into my person. It was an intentional, voluntary act of learning to interpret symbols in accord with a particular interpretive structure. I learned the rules of a particular language game, and learned how different word-pieces fit into that language game. The "duck" piece works like this. The "running" piece works like that.
Were you one day involuntarily struck by the Meaning of "duck"? If so, then you are a qualitatively different sort of being than I am.
So how do you learn new ideas then if ideas are not transferred? Ideas are copied from mind to mind, therefore they are transferred.
I can't tell if you're joking or not.
Additionally I would note beforehand that I am by no means decided, nor do I intend to take a position for the sake of this particular question, on the issue of whether or not learning something that makes someone upset is the creator or consumer of the knowledge's fault.
I will first propose as axiomatic that humans have a certain set of inherent, universal reactions to particular stimuli. By universal, I mean that they can be interpreted as essentially the same, within reasonable bounds. The simplest of these to explain would be, what we call, the physical stimuli. It is universal (in my particular sense, which is what I will continue to refer to) that being stabbed in the hand is painful (barring not having the senses required to perceive them). Likewise, that fires are hot, and drinking water refreshing when thirsty.
The reason these are universal, and the reason that we even have a common set of words to describe them with, I would contend, is that we assume when talking to other human beings that they possess certain senses, inherent to our concept of a human. Further, that a human is partially defined by the senses it has, in that the senses are much like a limb: one can make do without, but they are things that make up what a human is. To clarify, two legs would be human, whereas four would be considered alien.
My core point actually is much less contentious than this: that humans are definitely defined by the manner in which our brain operates. It is certainly what is reasonably considered what differentiates ourselves from other species. This definition of what humans are includes many sub-elements that are specifically relevant. Firstly, that sadness/happiness is a universally human concept. No-one lacks the inherent knowledge of such things. These concepts are inextricable from being human. Similarly the concepts of desire and fear. I could go on.
I contend that (to be fair, I have no fairly sampled empirical evidence) having other people suggest that one is bad or inferior (or, inclusively, that one's appearance or possessions are so), is a universal concept that when perceived, makes one sad *. I would suggest that this is indeed universal due to the inherent social nature of humans, and (precariously) that I have seen no evidence to suggest the contrary. I believe that feeling that one is disliked makes one sad universally.
I further contend that one of the assumed senses of a human is that of the perception and understanding of language **. There is considerable evidence to support the fact that all humans understand language as a fundamental concept, and additionally understand some similar concepts of grammar.
Thus, I would argue that it follows that insulting sentences are inherently hurtful.
More succinctly, my argument is thus:
If it is inherent that humans find comments demeaning to them upsetting, and that all humans can perceive comments demeaning to them, then demeaning comments are hurtful.
If a person cannot perceive a hurtful comment through a specific medium (i.e. a language), that does not then mean that the comment was not hurtful. For example, if a knife is thrown and missed, that does not mean that having a knife thrown at you is not hurtful, it simply means that the limitations of the means of delivery has caused it not to hurt the potential recipient.
In any case, the fault is easily lain on the deliverer for any pain that is inflicted. Using similar (but this time implicit) assumptions to the ones I have argued on above, it is easy to see that if someone lays a land-mine that any harm caused by that is of the layer, rather than the person who walks over it. While it is possible that some humans may regularly travel in a way which avoids detonating land-mines, I would take it as given that if someone was not travelling in such a way (i.e. in the normal, expected manner of a human to do so), it would not be the fault of the person who walked over the land-mine "incorrectly".
The bottom line in all this is that if one can reasonably expect (given one's understanding of the situation) that something one does will harm somebody, then by knowingly taking such an action, one is at fault for that consequence.
We don't transfer ideas through language? I must have missed that while learning about thousands of years of written history by reading books and listening to teachers.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Completely serious. If ideas are not transferred (and in fact thinking they are is kooky), how can I learn a new idea?
And how does media work if they cannot "package" ideas and send them out to others?
So are you arguing "ignorance is bliss", or are you saying that someone disliking you is not sufficient cause to be upset?
*As normally interpreted in English by English-speaking speakers, etc.
Plus, Network Nodes count as Hologram Theatres at each of your bases.
Nope. Pick any universal rule of "When X happens, a humans does Y." and I can find a counter example.
Go ahead. This will be fun.
This section misses the point of the OP. Your "having other people suggest" and "when perceived" lines skip over the questions of how Player-A gets to the notion that Player-B suggests something, and the question of what is actually perceived by Player-A. You're trying to collapse the interpretive gap between Player A and Player B, to allow some sort of immediate transfer of "suggestion" from Player-B by means of a clear "perception" on the part of Player-A.
The world doesn't work that way. If Player-B speaks only French, and Player-A speaks only English, there suggestion / perception transfer you're suggesting simply does not occur.
Again, you're trying to pack the "hurt" into the linguistic utterance, rather than the interpretation of the linguistic utterance. That's not how language works. Comparing a word to a knife also belies your flawed understanding of language. Knives have objective qualities regardless of one's interpretive framework. (Persons who speak German, English, French, and Greek can all be cut by the same knife.) But persons who utilize those different interpretive frameworks will not be offended / hurt by the same word.
That's cute, but vague notions such as "reasonable expect" are not arguments against the OP. They're just vague notions meant to articulate popular, mistaken notions about how language and offense work.
When a person goes into irreversible shock, they die.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
When you read a book, it is not the case that you are magically connected to its author's mind, and particular discrete ideas travel through the expanses of time and space from the author's mind's particular spatio-temporal location to your mind's spatio-temporal location.
Let's toss that picture out from the start.
You have an interpretive framework for dealing with language. When you encounter a particular set of symbols, be they written or auditory, you interpret those symbols by means of that interpretive framework. There is a noise, or a mark on a page, and you interpret that mark.
I'm honestly surprised that so many of you are so completely mistaken about how language works. I'm still inclined to think that most of you are just trolling me because you're bored on Thanksgiving, given that you're arguing bizzare Neo-Platonic positions that died off years ago. I don't expect people to have read Wittgenstein, Russell, Quine, Frege, etc. But it's strange that I'm the only person arguing anything even remotely similar to contemporary Philosophy of Language positions.
Let me clarify, then, what is your specific contention.
Is it accepted that firstly humans share common concepts (regardless of how they specifically manifest inside one's consciousness) that are upsetting to them?
Also is it accepted that a human's ability to perceive language (abstracted from any one language) is a basic human sense?
I cannot somehow get into Player B's mind and so directly discern that Player B does not like me.
My notion that Player B does not like me is assembled through my interpretations, by means of inference, of Player B's actions, be they linguistic or non-linguistic.
That bold part is what i'm harping on. I can interpret Player B's actions to indicate that Player B does not like me. Or, I can interpret Player B's actions to indicate that Player B does like me. Since I never get direct access to Player B's attitudes towards me, I only have access to my interpretations of Player B's actions.
That all seems entirely true and empirically verifiable. So, if you think I'm mistaken, at this point, I would be interested to know what I'm mistaken about.
Once one has the realization that one is stuck in one's interpretations, rather than having direct immediate access to another person's intentions, it isn't very difficult to remove "offense" as an emotive response.
What does this even mean? Who said anything about magic or time/space distortion? A person 600 years ago has an idea, they write it down. The idea is then translated and read by me. Now I think the Earth is round. I can even go prove it by looking at a picture from space.
And please don't tell me that my interpretation of space pictures is just how I personally view it and not empirical evidence of an actual spherical planet.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
An individual's emotional responses are, like everything else, a mix of nature and nurture, and how much of each varies by person, as does their ability to modify it actively. A person whose emotions aren't a major component of their personalities is going to find a wide variety of emotional situations trivial, just like water is not likely to be lit by a match, but human beings range from water to high explosives when it comes to emotion, and the more emotional a person is, the less likely they are to have the ability to choose their emotional response.
With great effort, many individuals can eventually learn to control their emotions, but doing so may actually be detrimental, since it may also take away from their positive emotions. As someone who has very deep emotions, but who has learned how to control them partly due to dealing with years of bullying, I can recognize that I have a hard time being -happy- sometimes, because to close off the emotional vulnerabilities, I had to erect emotional barriers, and thus I am and those around me are harmed, if mildly, by what it took to make myself immune to insults.
Besides that, being offended is often very valuable to society. It allows us to gather the emotional force necessary to act on something contrary to our values, and to enact social and legal change. Apathy is damaging to the species.
Moreover, interpretations can be correct or incorrect. If someone tells me a Jewish oven joke, it's very likely that this person has values that I consider harmful. If I interpret this as a meaningless exchange, I am in error. Why would you want to interpret something incorrectly?
If you weren't aware, the statements you made here, while probably true, are condescendingly phrased.
However, if you have any specific links to share then I for one would be very interested in reading more modern arguments.
How does one transition from being offended by X, to not being offended by X? Figure out what's offensive about it, what causes the emotional response, and remove that thing.
One of my friends was raped. Immediately after that event, she was terribly upset by rape-jokes, rape-comments, rape-discussions, etc. At one point we were talking about it, and I was asking a bunch of questions regarding why she had that reaction, and she said some things.
I replied, "You know, they aren't talking about you."
That helped her stop having the reactions she had. She had been interpreting every rape comment to be about her particular rape. Once she realized that every rape comment, ever, was not directed at her she was able to stop interpreting rape comments as personal attacks against her, or references to her personal history.
Self-knowledge is a wonderful thing. If you figure out that X pisses you off because of Y, and you remove Y, then you don't fuck get pissed off by X anymore.
Who has said this? What everyone except you are saying is that the author's idea is transferred to paper through words, and by the meaning of those words the idea is now spread to us (upon reading). Therefore the idea is transferable through a medium. Your outright statement is that this doesn't happen since ideas are not transferable.
You do know that this in no shape or form shows that ideas can not be transferred right? On the other hand it is a nice description exactly how ideas are transferred.