Quote 2 Response: Unfortunately there are are a lot of people who are ignorant and choose not to inform themselves before they make important decisions.
It's like Socrates mentioned, the wise person admits they know nothing, ergo they have to find the answer to what they do not know.
Most adults don't want to look unknowing and instead choose to sound like they know what they're talking. Sadly, they know nothing.
I enjoy admitting that I don't know something and am compelled to research. By doing that, I learn something new, such as vocabulary.
I wonder, though, if a lot of time a deep thinker wants us to interpret what they're meaning in our own way. For example, Nietzsche purposefully wrote in abstract and mysterious ways without connecting all the dots to his philosophy in order for us to determine for ourselves what the was saying exactly. Johann Goethe seemed to be of the same ilk.
ReQ1: Respect for another person should be earned not given. However, respecting oneself and offering civility to others is the basis for any functioning society.
We can be kind to those we don’t respect or value. We can also be civil with others. It ties into the other question on ego bias. If I say that I hate or detest X collective or individual, my bias would always swing towards a negative outcome, but if I treat myself with respect and act in a civil manner then better outcomes are possible.
By civility we mean that we can be kind and not hurl insults or folding chairs. We can feed someone who we may not like. Civility can be found in the reservation of our inner inclinations.
As an example, a colleague or coworker has been causing mayhem and chaos at the office. They spoke with the boss and got processes changed or something. Now you have to stay later and do something useless or less effective than the other system. When you see this person in the hallway, you have a choice to be civil and say ‘good morning, hi X person, yeah the copier is on the fourth floor’. Alternatively, we can say something rude or vicious. We don’t have to respect them but we can choose to no disrespect them and be civil about how we conduct ourselves.
Question 2, re: filtering the outside world. Yes, of course we do that. This is why the scientific method tries to account for this bias in experiments.
The definist fallacy is very useful to be aware of in our ‘post-truth’ age. Words are being redefined all the time to push an agenda, especially on the left. ‘Racism’ and ‘gender’ and ‘genocide’ are prime examples.
True, I’m sure, but for the most part, the right is in a rearguard fight since the left dominates the cultural narrative and has the most control over public discourse. It’s the left that redefines words like ‘woman’ and gets it accepted across society, not the right. Which side is constantly telling us whether or not our language is correct or not? Conservatives generally want to conserve, ie. maintain accepted meanings, whereas liberals take it as part of their job to disrupt language in order to shape social outcomes.
If we look there has always been a heterodoxy that is attempting to change the field of play. The orthodoxy has always tried to maintain a status quo. If we look at any language the modification of meaning has changed over time. Look at weird it used to be associated with magical, now it means odd or out of keeping with our normal.
Look at the change in art from Michelangelo to Picasso. The old artists wanted to keep things one way and the younger artists having no other options fought for change.
Conservative means that they are in support of a status quo and fight against reforms. But the point of the left ‘dominating’ the narrative, would beg the question why do they have so many people on their side? What happened with the current institutions that made reforms more attractive?
I’m not saying anyone is right or wrong, but we see the world through our own lens and enough people acting in apparent egocentric self interest are pushing for so many reforms. Why?
You’re talking about organic linguistic change, which happens over long periods of time. That’s not what we see coming from political ideologues who attempt to commandeer meaning and use definitions to tell us what to think. And the dominance of the left does have to do with popularity, ie. the popularity of the secular liberal worldview coming out of the Enlightenment, which happens to favor a reformist mindset, so if you are a ‘liberal’, you’ll more likely accept whatever comes forward in that name, even utter craziness. It’s a cultural bias, and not necessarily rational or beneficial to human well being or flourishing. Conservatives, too, are not necessarily rational, revering tradition, but at least they can point to hundreds or maybe thousands of years of something actually working. Thinking conservatives, just like thinking liberals, will accept change or reform but not for its own sake.
But words are meaningless on their own. The problem is not with words, but with people lacking understanding, lacking general intelligence if you will -- with people imitating it instead. This, I am positive, is what Salinger meant by "phonies".
Well, I think George Orwell is close to the mark. "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.” Those who wish to transform society know perfectly well how powerful words are, that words shape minds. I don't think you can easily separate intelligence from language. We swim in language, without it, we barely have intelligence, or it would have no impact. Our needs drive us, not our intelligence, such that language will serve the former far more easily.
Well, that's the problem -- they can't understand that they lack the capacity for understanding because they, well, lack the capacity for understanding! It's a catch 22.
Lacking the true general intelligence, they resort to imitating it -- not as a conscious choice, but because this is the only way they know to function. And, yes, that would make them appear as phonies, but this, again, is not their conscious choice -- this is what they are. And that's why they cannot see it.
"Why can’t you understand what I am saying? You can’t hear me [because] there is no truth in you. When you lie, you simply speak your native language." ~Jesus (John 8:43)
"Indeed, it is they who are the corruptors, but they fail to perceive it... Indeed, it is they who are fools, but they do not know." (Quran 2:12)
"In [the Logos -- the Understanding] was life and the life was the light of men. And the light in the darkness shined; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:4)
"Even though the Logos always holds true, people fail to comprehend it even after they have been told about it." (Heraclitus, 500 BC)
That's why, "The world is full of actors pretending to be humans." ~J.D. Salinger
Don’t be afraid. You are here because you want to understand. And just like many others before you, if you keep going down that path you will eventually discover many unsettling truths about the world and the people. And you will go through an existential crisis like everyone else before you. And just like them, eventually, you’ll be fine.
That first quote is how I felt about Joan Didion after reading South and West. Not only did I want to call her, I wanted to literally do that trip w her
RE: question 1. Respect should be reserved for those who deserve it.
A caveat: those that earn it.
Quote 2 Response: Unfortunately there are are a lot of people who are ignorant and choose not to inform themselves before they make important decisions.
It's like Socrates mentioned, the wise person admits they know nothing, ergo they have to find the answer to what they do not know.
Most adults don't want to look unknowing and instead choose to sound like they know what they're talking. Sadly, they know nothing.
I enjoy admitting that I don't know something and am compelled to research. By doing that, I learn something new, such as vocabulary.
Good point. Sometimes the context of what the authors says can be lost in translation.
I wonder, though, if a lot of time a deep thinker wants us to interpret what they're meaning in our own way. For example, Nietzsche purposefully wrote in abstract and mysterious ways without connecting all the dots to his philosophy in order for us to determine for ourselves what the was saying exactly. Johann Goethe seemed to be of the same ilk.
ReQ1: Respect for another person should be earned not given. However, respecting oneself and offering civility to others is the basis for any functioning society.
We can be kind to those we don’t respect or value. We can also be civil with others. It ties into the other question on ego bias. If I say that I hate or detest X collective or individual, my bias would always swing towards a negative outcome, but if I treat myself with respect and act in a civil manner then better outcomes are possible.
By civility we mean that we can be kind and not hurl insults or folding chairs. We can feed someone who we may not like. Civility can be found in the reservation of our inner inclinations.
As an example, a colleague or coworker has been causing mayhem and chaos at the office. They spoke with the boss and got processes changed or something. Now you have to stay later and do something useless or less effective than the other system. When you see this person in the hallway, you have a choice to be civil and say ‘good morning, hi X person, yeah the copier is on the fourth floor’. Alternatively, we can say something rude or vicious. We don’t have to respect them but we can choose to no disrespect them and be civil about how we conduct ourselves.
Question 2, re: filtering the outside world. Yes, of course we do that. This is why the scientific method tries to account for this bias in experiments.
The definist fallacy is very useful to be aware of in our ‘post-truth’ age. Words are being redefined all the time to push an agenda, especially on the left. ‘Racism’ and ‘gender’ and ‘genocide’ are prime examples.
On the right too. It’s almost as if everyone is engaged in it.
True, I’m sure, but for the most part, the right is in a rearguard fight since the left dominates the cultural narrative and has the most control over public discourse. It’s the left that redefines words like ‘woman’ and gets it accepted across society, not the right. Which side is constantly telling us whether or not our language is correct or not? Conservatives generally want to conserve, ie. maintain accepted meanings, whereas liberals take it as part of their job to disrupt language in order to shape social outcomes.
If we look there has always been a heterodoxy that is attempting to change the field of play. The orthodoxy has always tried to maintain a status quo. If we look at any language the modification of meaning has changed over time. Look at weird it used to be associated with magical, now it means odd or out of keeping with our normal.
Look at the change in art from Michelangelo to Picasso. The old artists wanted to keep things one way and the younger artists having no other options fought for change.
Conservative means that they are in support of a status quo and fight against reforms. But the point of the left ‘dominating’ the narrative, would beg the question why do they have so many people on their side? What happened with the current institutions that made reforms more attractive?
I’m not saying anyone is right or wrong, but we see the world through our own lens and enough people acting in apparent egocentric self interest are pushing for so many reforms. Why?
You’re talking about organic linguistic change, which happens over long periods of time. That’s not what we see coming from political ideologues who attempt to commandeer meaning and use definitions to tell us what to think. And the dominance of the left does have to do with popularity, ie. the popularity of the secular liberal worldview coming out of the Enlightenment, which happens to favor a reformist mindset, so if you are a ‘liberal’, you’ll more likely accept whatever comes forward in that name, even utter craziness. It’s a cultural bias, and not necessarily rational or beneficial to human well being or flourishing. Conservatives, too, are not necessarily rational, revering tradition, but at least they can point to hundreds or maybe thousands of years of something actually working. Thinking conservatives, just like thinking liberals, will accept change or reform but not for its own sake.
I couldn't agree more, kind Sir!
But words are meaningless on their own. The problem is not with words, but with people lacking understanding, lacking general intelligence if you will -- with people imitating it instead. This, I am positive, is what Salinger meant by "phonies".
Well, I think George Orwell is close to the mark. "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.” Those who wish to transform society know perfectly well how powerful words are, that words shape minds. I don't think you can easily separate intelligence from language. We swim in language, without it, we barely have intelligence, or it would have no impact. Our needs drive us, not our intelligence, such that language will serve the former far more easily.
Well, that's the problem -- they can't understand that they lack the capacity for understanding because they, well, lack the capacity for understanding! It's a catch 22.
Lacking the true general intelligence, they resort to imitating it -- not as a conscious choice, but because this is the only way they know to function. And, yes, that would make them appear as phonies, but this, again, is not their conscious choice -- this is what they are. And that's why they cannot see it.
"Why can’t you understand what I am saying? You can’t hear me [because] there is no truth in you. When you lie, you simply speak your native language." ~Jesus (John 8:43)
"Indeed, it is they who are the corruptors, but they fail to perceive it... Indeed, it is they who are fools, but they do not know." (Quran 2:12)
"In [the Logos -- the Understanding] was life and the life was the light of men. And the light in the darkness shined; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:4)
"Even though the Logos always holds true, people fail to comprehend it even after they have been told about it." (Heraclitus, 500 BC)
That's why, "The world is full of actors pretending to be humans." ~J.D. Salinger
Don’t be afraid. You are here because you want to understand. And just like many others before you, if you keep going down that path you will eventually discover many unsettling truths about the world and the people. And you will go through an existential crisis like everyone else before you. And just like them, eventually, you’ll be fine.
Like to Tony Soprano once said, "those who want respect, give respect."
Love philosophy bites. Look forward to reading and thinking about it everyday.
That first quote is how I felt about Joan Didion after reading South and West. Not only did I want to call her, I wanted to literally do that trip w her
He is raw in his writing. He understood the core problem with human nature that few others (and, perhaps, nobody he knew personally) could see.
https://open.substack.com/pub/silkfire/p/the-imitation-game/