Virtues and Good Manners
I may get thrown out of some forums but today I am thinking I am going to be more consistent in demanding good manners and I will post about virtues more often because I believe we can have better lives when we understand the virtues and the importance of good manners.
Relatively few offensive people post in this form and I want to know what do you all think? When we are offended, what is the best way to handle this. This is not just about individuals but society as the whole. We need a culture that brings out the best in people and I think this might being by creating social pressure that encourages everyone to be a better person.
I like this AI explanation:
Relatively few offensive people post in this form and I want to know what do you all think? When we are offended, what is the best way to handle this. This is not just about individuals but society as the whole. We need a culture that brings out the best in people and I think this might being by creating social pressure that encourages everyone to be a better person.
I like this AI explanation:
In ancient Greece, paideia referred to the total education and development of children intentionally guided by a community. It encompassed not only formal instruction but also the broader cultural influences that shaped an individual's character and prepared them for responsible citizenship. The Greek concept of paideia aimed to create a "higher type of man," one embodying universal human nature rather than individualism. The goal was to cultivate well-rounded citizens who were knowledgeable, virtuous, and capable of contributing to their community.
Comments (102)
And I believe you're right. But the question is, how did you come across to believe that the above sentiments, beliefs, and philosophies, are in fact right? Was it from embracing them, wholeheartedly, as a second truth? Or perhaps, did those who gave you the life and education that allowed you to not only be born but receive such information, possibly have been a bit less than faithful to the so-called truths and virtues you preach?
Quoting Athena
Your idea of the "best in people" is not defined. So I presume that to be the most "virtuous, charitable, forgiving, easygoing, affable" sort of designation. Sure, no one wants a neighbor from hell, after all. But that's just your own desire for, not peace or goodness, but preservation of all that you've become accustomed to. Not to say, someone else accustomed to the opposite would wish the same (example being, an impoverished person who experiences hardship regularly would not wish for the same sentiment you express). However, as I'm sure you can see, the two different scenarios and persons in each unique scenario view the idea of "creating social pressure" I.E. hardship quite differently.
Anyway - overall in total agreement, and the model of 'paideia' is certainly one that we should all aspire to.
I have no issue with disagreements. I disagree with myself.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, I think that's the preferred approach. I always assume people are doing the best they can, even the rude ones. But we dont have to engage with everyone.
Isn't this kind of thing against the forum rules?
Begging your pardon, of course.
This is generally my practice too, both here and elsewhere.
Quoting Tom Storm
You're more charitable than I. Looking at my own behavior, it's apparent that I am often not doing the best I can, so I tend to assume that's true for others as well.
The other thing that helps with civility, when disagreements occur, is an attitude of genuine curiosity. This puts the discussion into an entirely different dimension than "dueling refutations." But what is genuine curiosity? See under "humility" -- not one of the Greek virtues, but many today regard it as an improvement over megalopsyche.
Not long ago I happened to come across a very short clip where John Milbank was contrasting culture with manners. Being 44 seconds long, it's not particularly deep, but I think I get the basic idea from his other work, which is that a [I]code[/I] (i.e., largely procedural) of civility, a step below legalization, actually supplants notions of virtue. Or more accurately perhaps, the elevation of procedural rights grounded in the autonomous agent over any notion of the human good means that rules as a sort of social lubricant to avoid friction between individuals replaces notions of virtue as the harmonious internal and external ordering of the person, within themselves, but also as they are ordered to the world and their society.
Manners and virtue obviously aren't in conflict per se. But manners might become seen as "fake," "inauthentic," and arbitrary when detached from virtue? Isn't that sort of the idea with the "phonies" in The Catcher in the Rye or the ticky tacky people of Malvina Reynolds' Little Boxes, or the Beat writers, etc.?
Well, at least one random person on Reddit agrees with this judgement. I quickly found:
lol, they certainly aren't afraid of putting it in stark terms.
Patrick Deneen argues that the liberation from custom favors the "elite." I am not so sure about this. I think he may be conflating "most well off or flourishing," with "has the most wealth and power," here in a pernicious way. But it's a relevant and interesting analysis:
Aristotle also has a relevant section in Book IX of the Ethics where he talks about how forms of government affect friendship. So, in the corrupted forms of government, you see different corrosive effects on true friendship. Tyranny leads to friendships based on fear and flattery. Oligarchy leads to friendships based on jealousy and advantage. Democracy (by which means a sort of mob rule) tends towards a sort of false equality and refusal to recognize distinctions in virtue. By contrast, the constitutional polity sets and equal ground for friendship, good will (the ground of manners), and concord (joint striving towards a common good). This rings true for some first hand accounts of Soviet life I've read at least.
An interesting idea here is that true friendship, the willing of the good for the other for their own sake, requires virtue as a prerequisite, since, without virtue, we cannot even consistently will the good for ourselves. I think "well-rounded" are harmonious are the right ideas here.
You made the point better than I could. There is the thorny issue here of identifying virtue. Classically conceived, the virtues should be as beneficial for the poor man as the rich woman, etc. Manners, in being structured by the current social order (which may or may not be virtuous), can be more or less aligned to virtue.
Actually, in theory the virtues should be [I]most[/I] beneficial for those beset by bad fortune. Good fortune can lift anyone up, to at least some degree. Whereas the idea is that virtue allows people to flourish even under dire situations. The idea being that it is better, at least everything else equal, to be temperate instead of gluttonous, prudent instead of rash, courageous instead of cowardly, or, in terms of "physical virtue," strong instead of weak, skilled instead of unskilled, etc.
But, we might wonder how well this idea "cashes out" in the modern context.
Thank you for making the effort to try to humanize this group of logicians. I would suggest not looking at it as handling your being offended, but that someone else has done something wrong, say, impugned your character, said something vulgar, etc., and that the appropriate response to each wrong may be different but would probably be specific based on the type of act, possibly also informed by the situation (demonstrated by recent suggested responses to newly-recognized ills). Deciding what your response will be based solely on your level of offense may leave you with just self-righteousness and being indignant instead of realizing that what is actually appropriate is an accusation, or reprimand, or refusal of that treatment, or being an ally, or calling HR. Just coming in hot also doesnt really leave room for a mistake on your part, or the possible mitigating circumstances, excuses, acts of reconciliation, etc. that are baked into calling someone out.
I also believe there are appropriate virtues for philosophers: patience, open-mindedness, being more curious than rushing to judgment, being rigorous but fair, not generalizing, allow for disagreement but dont find it first before acknowledging common ground, dont take your annoyance with an issue out on anyone who seems to bring up something similar, dont attack the weakest part of an argument, try to understand their terms and what interest they have in their point pretty sure weve got these written down somewhere.
https://www.thegentlemansjournal.com/article/the-etiquette-of-port/
Hum, interesting :nerd: . Repeatedly, an individual has made an important historical discovery and been crushed by those in seats of power, preventing an advancement in history for many years. I don't think the same thing happens in philosophy. We get that my point of view may not be the same as yours. We may argue our point of view without attacking others for their point of view. The last straw in the History forum was someone refusing to accept information about what the Twelve Tablets have to do with Roman education because those Tablets are not with us today. All we have are written records about them. The guy had zero interest in exploring what we can know from the records. He just wanted to prove me wrong based on the fact that we do not have the original Tablets. How stupid. What do these guys do? Look for posts they can argue against, even when they care nothing about the subject?
Is there a history of philosophers trying to prove each other wrong?
Okay in the weeks I have been gone, I was working on a thread about the history of education, and in ancient times, education was mostly about behavior. The best way to present this is to present that history. There is nothing I would enjoy doing more than discuss the history of education, but I am cowering in the corner, begging not to be hit. I want to be more cautious this time. The discussion would be good only if that is what others also want. It just is not fun if the only thing others want to do is prove me or others wrong.
I do not understand your post. Isn't what against the forum rules?
YES! Our times are a little tenser than I would like. And as I sit here with books about the history of education, and a memory of my grandmother and her generation, I am thinking we might learn something from the past. We don't have to reinvent this wheel, but we need to know the power of education and what war and technology have to do with changing education. It isn't just about me, but the whole nation. Possibly the whole world. Young men learning to make bombs may not be as important as learning about life and our cultural experience of ourselves.
Using AI is either explicitly against the rules, or is simply frowned upon, for the same reasons as using a summary of a topic, such as Wikipedia. Original thought or primary texts are preferred (though this includes one philosopher reading another, like Heidegger on Nietzsche).
I also think @bongo fury was making a joke, in bringing you up short and then apologizing.
Edit: from the Guidelines:
AI LLMs are not to be used to write posts either in full or in part (unless there is some obvious reason to do so, e.g. an LLM discussion thread where use is explicitly declared). Those suspected of breaking this rule will receive a warning and potentially a ban.
AI LLMs may be used to proofread pre-written posts, but if this results in you being suspected of using them to write posts, that is a risk you run. We recommend that you do not use them at all
I think the entire history of philosophy is self-referential and defined against itself. Even someone seemingly unique like Descartes or Wittgenstein are working within and against an established framework. But I would specifically think of Kant and Hume, Marx and Hegel, Hobbes and Locke, and Ayers and Austin (and Austin/Derrida) as examples of direct conflict.
And I think here even there is too much focus on finding something wrong and dismissing what someone says, instead of working harder to understand, treating it as if there might be more to it than immediately registered.
This seems problematic. Your concept of 'good manners' is probably not close to universal, so 'demanding' anything along those lines is probably not going to help anyone. That's not to say I have a problem with your conception of 'good manners' though. Just pointing out that if someone disagrees that your demands are reasonable, that's up to them and not you and your demands to respond to.
I have found you rather curt and unimpressive as a polite interlocutor at times. This may be an example of why this is the case. I just don't consider that a lack of 'good manners'. We simply have different views and perhaps see each other in slightly-less-than-ideal lights for various reasons.
Where this gets interesting is when someone is being any number of things which are defined as impolite. I'm thinking here of things like trolling, obtuseness, personal attacks in a context that doesn't call for it, needlessly long-winded bollocks with reference to the Co-operative Principle of conversation (Grice), lying or other forms of deceit for instance.
Are they bad manners, bad nurturing, differences in culture or ignorance? It's quite hard to say in a lot of cases, when where those words are appropriate, because we only have our own view point to judge from.
Quoting Athena
Unfortunately, I think the 'correct' way (and this in terms of living a happy life, avoiding conflict and all the rest) is to suck it up buttercup. Offense is taken, not given. If someone has said something that gives you a bad taste, either have a discussion and try to mitigate that taste, or walk away. I see no other options.
if you are harmed, that's a difference that matters. But being offended is not being harmed.
The biggest problem of dialogue on these forums is the lack of ability to read emotions. I have managed to have a couple of video chats with people on this forum and it seems far easier to get the emotional intent across but not so easy to articulate in the moment.
Both have benefits. Hopefully one day I will be equally competent in both forms of communication.
I am curious. Can you give me an example of one of these guys personally attacking another one?
I am really wanting to know about Descartes' notions about animals being mechanical and humans being beyond what is mechanical. That should be its own thread, and if you know about that, would you please start and thread and let me know.
I may be wrong, but I want my last days to be pleasant. I want to discuss things that interest me with those who are informed and are also interested in the subject. I hate it when it appears someone knows nothing about a subject and appears to be uninterested in the subject, but for whatever reason, starts attacking the person who posted.
I like using :grin: the faces to communicate my feelings if I want to communicate a feeling. For sure, we interpret people differently when we think we are on friendly terms with someone. Good manners are important because they work with total strangers, who may not react well to kidding. Good manners are more formal, and that works well when we live in large populations.
This doesn't negate the fact that it's impolite to offer offense to others.
Offense can be given in many waysthrough direct insults, indirect or implied slights, a condescending tone or delivery, hurtful humor, acts of disrespect, deliberate provocation, or insensitivity to someones circumstances. Claiming that offense is only taken is a weak attempt to dodge responsibility.
Your point is taken, that we should be mindful how we interact with people, and I agree. But being impolite is not causing offense. it is being impolite. Being offended is its own genus and arena of thought, to my mind. I recently wrote a short essay on this topic with focus on slurs if you have any interest. It is incomplete as I was too ambitious - but i still got a 92 lol
Is this my thinking that you sent over to me?
If you packaged your thoughts and sent them to me did you send their meaning as well?
I'd be interested if it isn't too theoretical.
I'm curious about this idea, but I feel uneasy about it. While it seems true that how we react is our responsibility, it also seems clear that if someone is persistently described by others as less than human, inferior, dumb, or inadequate and is verbally abused, they will inevitably be affected. This is simply how people are. We respond to and internalize our interactions, conversations, and even name-calling, just as we respond positively to constructive feedback.
There may well be a case for teaching people to change their reactions, to emotionally detach from other's judgments and ill will, but that, to me, seems to require an enormous change management process. We appear to be dealing with an embedded intersubjective history of human interaction that may not simply be set aside with some rationalism.
People get offended where no offense was intended, or reasonably interpretable from the utterance; and
Intentions to cause offense routinely fail.
This shows a relationship between two things, which must, on both ends, co-operate, for someone to be reasonably offended. But it also shows that offense is not in the utterances.
Quoting Tom Storm
Ok, here you go. Nothing amazing but explains in more detail why I think the things I do, hereabouts mentioned.
On your further comments, I think you're describing (and it sounds like you see this too) what people do in the face of certain speech/activity. This doesn't tell me about what those aspects of speech are, or how they operate. Again, a failure to offend seems to put paid to the idea that you can offer one offense in an utterance. You can goad someone into becoming offended, sure, and as noted, we should avoid that. But this doesn't tell me anything about the utterance, I don't think. If you substitute offense for humour, it should be pretty clear that only internal expectations can create the result of an utterance.
If I'm following correctly you're saying:
Is that right?
I would say intent and thought can be given - but their actual meaning and relevance is up to the hearer (well not 'up to' but reliant on).
I'm interested enough to read your essay but don't want to link my phone, from fear of spamage.
At this point I'm primarily interested in how you separate thought and meaning.
I'm sure you realize that thoughts can be incommensurable.
Thank you. I am enjoying comparing a past I read about and in some cases experienced, with today, and the talk of the young people who are just becoming adults. Some believe the new young people give us hope. I remember reading long ago that our societies swing from one extreme to another.
I know, as a matter of fact, we have been through some difficult social transitions. :lol: Checking the spelling of "transitions" led to learning today that it means sexual transitions and laws regulating personal choices. I was thinking of the transition to women's rights. That was the big issue when I was young. Each cohort has its defining issues. I think Economic crashes like the Great Depression and more recent recession, and wars were damaging to society as a whole.
But my grandmother's 3 rules bring out the best in us.
1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people. This is about our character; it doesn't matter if the person we are interacting with is the mayor of a bum.
2. We protect the dignity of others.
3. We do everything with integrity.
I think these rules would resolve a lot of problems.
I have to admit I tend to react and say things spontaneously, falling way short of being the refined person I want to be. So I try to avoid people who bring out the worst in me. It is so much easier to be the person I want to be, when I am engaging refined people who are as I want to be.
I think you're identifying a different issue (but a good one to discuss, for sure).
The problem with my position, when objected to, is not the separation of thought and meaning - but words and meaning.
I can hope you interpret me correctly. I cannot ensure it (probably because of the incommensurability of thought). All i can do is retrieve words and sentences (utterances) which reflect, as far as I'm concerned, what I mean to say - once these leave my mouth, the meaning is lost until it reaches your mind, and you interpret it against the 'meanings' you have in your internal dictionary for those words and sentences (utterances). This is why you can fail to make someone laugh, or get offended. My meaning might be "disgusting black freak", but because I used words for which that interpretation is esoteric, I fail to offend person A.
I do not think thought and meaning can quite come apart, but they can be... stretched... from one another.
I was raised by a divorced mother who worked for low pay. As a teenager I dressed in black, smoked, and I was ready for a fight. The first guy I almost married became a Hells Angel. It was important to be tough. :lol: In my later years, I have a different understanding of being tough. But I know poverty and rough neighborhoods. My sister and I are sensitive about what separates us from mainstream society.
Dick and Jane textbooks and later TV and music, influenced my ideas of what to value. In this way, I was in step with my cohort.
My school teacher grandmother was perhaps the most influential person in my life, and I always hung out with older people, except for my teen years. The older women in the Toastmistress Club were great mentors. Everyone should have a mentor. And the Greek gods and Goddesses became very important in my struggle to be independent. They taught me how to be my own hero. Thanks to my grandmother, who taught me the importance of reading.
The most pointed attempt I know to prove someone wrong would be Austins reading of Ayer in Sense and Sensibilia which we read through here. But even there, Ayer is just a straw man of the argument for sense data that Austin uses to actually figure it out, not just prove Ayer wrongit is actually fair and (somewhat) understanding. The most generous and in-depth reading that I know of (while still a complete reversal) has to be Wittgensteins examination in Philosophical Investigations of his own earlier positions. Austin is waaay more readable though (plus its only like 70 pages).
To be clear, are you now saying that thought cant be given, only words can be given?
I PM'd my email address where you could kindly send your essay. Thanks for the offer.
I just wanted to make clear that, in my post here, I was only trying to point out what I take as the real problem and the responsible party, which, yes, was also to say that those wrongs have their own separate criteria for identification, and individual redresses, but I did not want to imply that what some call being offended is trivial or inconsequential.**
People say how you feel is your choice, but that is just biologically impossible (thus the dismissiveness), that is if we take it as if we should, say, choose not to feel anger. I take the point to be that you have (some, sometimes) control to not express your anger, as in: let it get the best of you, dictate your reaction, not hold your tongue, lose your cool, etc. Part of my point above was that we wouldnt want our being offended to dictate our reaction, or serve as our justification, because, as I pointed out, the punishment should fit the crime. This cold deliberateness is why we hand over dispensing justice to the Stateand also so we dont have the (emotional) blood on our hands.
Nevertheless, I think many other states of being have been lumped together with being offended to make them all seem like an overreaction to simply, as it were, being slighted. Obviously, in taking offense, there is the sense of being shocked, affronted, annoyed, or displeased. And this implies that we merely resent our pleasure, comfort, or decorum being upset; that our feathers have simply been ruffled. Thus the pejorative implication that the insult may be simply perceived, and such mild reactions imply that the party offended are those that usually cant be bothered, the privileged, the status quo, those easily offended, and so where is the real harm?
**But sometimes responses are categorized as being offended to minimize the offense, say, keep it on the level of a possible insult rather than, say, a personal crime. Acknowledging that we are responsible for our reactions, we are, again, not judging the emotion, say, deciding whether it is true outrage or self-righteousness. The judgment is of the bad act; the first responsibility is the bad actors. Being disrespectful or scornful may just be rude (at a dinner party), but it may be a much more serious matter, say, when it comes to someones sense of self (try to disrespect a marine, or an abuelita).
If someone is speaking informally I have no qualms with openly attacking their position in an informal manner IF attempts at a more formal and distanced dialogue fail. It all depends on judgement.
Examples:
- Formal: I am not sure I agree with your position on this point due to X and Y.
- Informal: You are probably wrong about this mate, because of X and Y.
Of course there are more severe degrees and everyone has a lien of tolerance for the style they encounter. I would find the second a little disappointing as the 'mate' from someone I have never met seems misplaced, but I would not judge on one sentence alone.
Quoting praxis
This is a good list of examples. I noticed that the dictionary divides between objects that offend (smoke, or the smell of fish) and just offending a rule or principle (without an object). I would say yours fall into the first category, although what is disrespectful is perhaps what is commonly accepted (or set) as a rule, as are manners, and thus being rude (humor of course being a slippery fish here).
What interests me is that the object in your examples is the act, identified as what it is without the speaker (though there is the individual to hold to account). We are all able (though some more astutely than others) to judge a slight, an insult, a tone, and what is inconsiderate or provocative behavior. Of course there are tricky cases, and the variables of circumstance, and mistakes (in judgment), but some will take this to the absurd that we cant decide in any case, and begin to talk about what I meant as if it were tied to something inside them. But that is a desire to avoid (as you noted) our ongoing responsibility for (and to) what we say, which also creates the philosophical fantasy that one puts their meaning into words, and the rest is only interpretation and what we read into them, say, take offense at.
I did not read all of that but enough to believe people can disagree and remain pleasant. I am not going to fuss over right and wrong, or true or false, but speak of my experience because that is most on my mind. What I read was pleasing, like good music. It did not excite unpleasant emotions, so it felt good like a walk along a river on a nice day. That is what I want. To be both mentally stimulated and physically pleasant. Reading the link confirmed it is possible.
I think you thought things out very well. Now I wish I knew where I put my copy of "Emotional Intelligence". It seems to me that someone who is repeatedly offensive lacks emotional intelligence. There is no point in arguing the matter with such a person, because the behavior will not change. It is like telling someone s/he stepped on your toes, and the person snapping back, "move your toes". This person desires to dominate and control, and I don't want to submit to that nor engage in an argument about it.
I think there is an important difference between "I think that is wrong because____" and "You are wrong".
That is so simple, but not everyone gets it.
Perfect! You used the right words to clarify the thought I had, but I did not have the necessary words to express my thought.
I want to develop in myself the habit of responding formally with better logic skills. I can not do that with people who do not understand the difference and jump into arguments without having enough information to discuss the subject, so they attack the person instead of the reasoning. They are playing an aggressive game I don't want to play.
Ouch, I am sooo sorry, but I think I have some sexist ideas associated with my judgment. I say that because I am uncomfortable with that thought. But I think women have played an important role in developing civilizations, and a man who understands what you said is totally awesome! Unfortunately, there are not enough of them. I do not want equality with the average male. But imagine a civilization that operates on a higher level.
In the US, the Statue of Liberty, Lady Justice, and the spirit of America are female, but we have lived under male domination with ministers telling their flocks that Trump is chosen by God to rule over us. What is going on here? He is not my idea of the dignified man I think should be representing America.
Doing battle in the WrestleMania ring might be different from the negotiating skills of diplomacy.
Quoting Antony Nickles
But that is factually true. You cannot 'get' anything from my words which aren't already in your mind. It isn't possible, on current knowledge. There is absolutely nothing in 'trying to offend' which includes the other person's offence. It just isn't there... There's a stark difference between things which can offend, and offence.
Your essay, which is related to the topic, is interesting and Im glad to have read it. Thanks for sending.
Generally, respect of others is important. It is complicated when ideas are so much in conflict. Part of the art may be about seeing the positive arguments in disagreeing ideas This can be a basis for fruitful exchange of ideas; as opposed to attacking those who see differently from oneself.
I have the good fortune of having come across a face to face group where respect is seen as being extremely important. Being in such a group is so helpful from my point of view. Of course, there are differing ideas but listening to and appreciating differing perspectives can be a starting point for generating useful discussion, as opposed to mere 'war of ideas'.
Offence in itself is complicated. Is it an offence to argue against ideas ot against the person who is preventing them? The dynamics of projection may be important and those who attack others' ideas in a vehement way may be fighting conflict in their inner experience and views An attempt to listen and understand another person's perspective may be about the art of an open mind in critical understanding.
I like that phrase 'war of ideas'.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I think the people I admire most are those with a lot of self-confidence, a good sense of humor, a positive attitude, good listening skills, and all this contributes to good reasoning. Hmm, after giving this some thought, that is a lot to ask of others, but they surely would be more fun, than those without these qualities.
My thought of people engaging in a war of ideas is, these are grumpy people with a negative attitude, and not even more knowledge of the subject would make them fun to be with. But here is a catch 22. Everything would go better for everyone if we all felt good about who we are, and we didn't take ourselves too seriously, and we really enjoyed sharing ideas. You know, not a war of ideas, but the delight of children discovering something new.
What do you mean by that? I would think a marine might handle a bad situation very well and would go well with my reply to Jack. As I thought of this whole subject, I realized the people I want in my life have a lot of good qualities, and all these qualities contribute to good communication. This makes me want to know about the Marines' training.
My study of the history of education from old books about that history says the priority purpose of the earliest education was behavior. What did it mean to be a good Spartan or a good Athenian or Cherokee, etc.. How were they taught? Your mention of a marine makes this wondering even more interesting to me because it speaks of needs today.
I want to clarify, I am thinking of everyone, the whole of society, and even things like economics and advertising. :heart: The more you all make me think, the more I realize, and this is why I come to forums. It just happens the thinkers here are better at giving me that wonderful feeling I get when I see a bigger picture. In two other forums I have a negative experience, because what I want is not what they have to give. :lol: It is rather dumb to keep trying to get something from others when they don't have that to give.
Adam Smith, the father of economics, assumed well-bred men function with a high degree of virtues, and could understand the need to do business with good ethics and good moral judgment. Today's advertising has hit a low in ethics, and I think this is having a negative effect on the whole of society.
You would not run into someone's home and scream at people, but we have tolerated the internet and TV advertisers preying on us with unpleasant attention-getting behavior, and we are okay with extortion. You know, doing something unpleasant to others unless you are paid not to harass them.
This is about the culture we experience daily, our relationships, and the sense of power or lack of it. This affects our whole economy and politics. I want to leave my family a better world, so I think a lot about good moral judgment and the enlightenment and democracy that are based on the idea we can do better.
I realize now my examples played on generalizations (and perhaps stereotypes) and not in a necessarily favorable light so that was a mistake. Obviously not every marine (or grandmother) is going to react poorly when they are disrespected, even about their sense of self. I was just thinking of examples where offense might be taken other than those usually thought to be concerned about such things (who are more likely to be dismissed as without cause).
Quoting Athena
I always think of Ciceros assertion that it is not that others are swayed by a person adept at the tricks of speaking (as Plato warned), but that speaking well is a reflection of ones character; that thinking, as it were, is an ethical practice (where Heidegger ultimately landed).
I like both statements because both are a higher standard of morality than lives centered on self-interest.
Last night I listened to a lecture about emotional intelligence. I think we might enter this subject with Descartes' ideas of animals being mechanical and of humans as mechanical, like the rest of the animals, but then going a step further with thoughts and emotions forming another level of reality. For better or worse, we can manifest a more complex reality of thought and feelings. There can be no knowledge without language. When that knowledge becomes the written word, that is another step in consciousness. When the written word is shared in gatherings and then with the printing press, it becomes widespread knowledge that is another step in consciousness.
Here is a problem- I have read science must be completely detached from feelings/emotions, and I think education for a technological society has been so prejudiced against feelings, that we are smart but no longer wise. That has been my biggest problem in some forums. I perceive this prejudice against feelings as shutting down our awareness of ourselves and others, and even our imaginations. That kills our creativity and wisdom. Does that statement seem right?
Not to me. These functions are optimized in different places. I don't think reading/crunching numbers is one where 'feelings' are helpful as opposed to hypotheses and conclusions (one will ultimately 'feel' things about, and throughout that process but the outputs should essentially be stripped of them, on this account).
However, something like politics often requires feelings along with good, robust critical thinking skills and often statistical understanding (these requiring a removal of feeling to be truly useful, on this account).
It is probably the case that in each fora there are over and understeps to these ideas (again, on this account) but the basic concept of separating feelings from factual (i.e universally presentable) findings seems useful and "the case", as it were.
I have a dear, younger friend who earns the big bucks in high-tech research. The teamwork you speak of is essential to her job.
I so wish America would ditch its autocratic industrial model and switch to Deming's democratic model. It would be nice to do that before we have an economic crash that takes us down, like Rome went down.
Not only could this save our economy, but it would be great for families as well.
Some days my brain works better than other days. This morning I understand the reason I have trouble understanding what you said is I don't know enough. I regret I missed out on reading "Sense and Sensibilia" . It must be a good book because ThriftBooks is selling it for a relatively high price. :gasp: Wittgenstein's book is even more. I will resist the urge to buy the books until I have read the pile of books I have. Can you explain more about it?
I think that is an example of poor emotional intelligence. We might be at the beginning of a new shift where emotional intelligence increases to right the wrongs of the past. Right now, the daily news may be creating a backlash to the opinion that emotions are bad and are to be suppressed or completely ignored. I am thinking of beginning a new thread about what economic crashes and wars have to do with our emotional and economic well-being.
I am working with the notion of a New Age, a time of high tech and peace, and the end of tyranny. The transition is difficult, and I am not sure we will succeed.
At core it seems to imply that an individual is an independent being. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Oh, but it is a long-standing American myth. I think especially the 1950-1960 cowboy TV shows and the John Wayne portrayal of a man fed into the myth. But the Western movement may have also given us the notion that we are individuals who can go it alone. Many of us move when the neighbors get too close. We are not as social as I have heard people of other countries are social. That mythology requires an unsettled West with lots of land and resources just waiting to be taken. It does not work in today's world. Now we need to get along with others and share. Those values were taught in old textbooks, but I don't think they are standards in textbooks for a technological society.
We have been running on the belief that true science is amoral and has nothing to do with our feelings. @AmadeusD is a man of his time.
Hmm, the problem with this is that it is not. What is a lack of emotional intelligence is thinking that someone else can say something which carries with it a reaction in yourself, and then that somehow that reaction is on the other person. This is immature, unrealistic thinking. It is standard for those who live in fairly land where the realities of life aren't quite landing and wishful thinking is the order of the day. Or, I guess, those who acknowledge all this and just wish it were difference, hence both possibilities of wishful, and delusional thinking.
In the real world, as I have clearly explained, offense cannot be given. It is not possible. There is no mechanism available for it. It isn't a move open to humans. The fact that you chose to not response to me, but to someone objective to me serves me quite well in understanding why you think the way you do: avoiding the point. A good way to illustrate how this is not possible, is discussing how being offended 'on behalf' is not possible. The same lack of thinking leads to both erroneous claims.
Offense is a reaction inside a person's mind, to something they have interpreted, yes? Yes. That's what it is, and we know this. Where in this discussion could there be room for A's actions to carry with it B's reaction? Causing offense? Yes, sure. But causes need not be related to effects. Quite often, social media users will be caused to be offended by something which was not aimed at them, isn't reasonably readable that way, and ultimately has nothing to do with them. It caused their offense, but the offense wasn't in any way attached to the cause. Tricky? Sure. So let's go over transitive offense to try to clear this up.
Now, I was thinking last night (and talking to my wife) about 'necessary and sufficient' conditions for something being 'on behalf" and took two criteria in mind
1) acknowledging an insult (I need restrict this to insults proper, and not something that is 'potentially insulting' for reasons that will become clear), and,
2) caring, in some fashion, about the effect it could have on the person/group it's aimed at.
Totally reasonable conditions, and there's the fact I cannot get around which is that despite any protests of language, talking about 'being insulted' is describing something which clearly actually happens. Again, I'm fairly sure it's not 'on behalf' but nevertheless, I accept that this phrase is standard (it just means the state of experiencing insult, not that you were acted upon as that is not possible, in this sense).
Now, in discussing the actual issue I still have two pretty glaring objections to the claim:
1: "On behalf" appears to be strictly transitive. To do something 'on behalf' of someone seems to mean "in place of" someone. Voting on behalf, acting on behalf, defending someone when they are not there etc... But this requires that there is something to be transposed through you. If party A is not offended, this is where I would say it is not possible for you to be offended on behalf as there is no offence for you to carry through. This also seems to imply that consent is required. Where someone doesn't even feel the thing, that doesn't seem possible.
2: On behalf implies you are conveying the person/group's view (which, if neutral, couldn't be offence - nb: when talking about groups let's assume there's a democratic consensus that could reasonably be conveyed)). If your view doesn't align, it would be very hard to say you were conveying the view of the group, rather than your view in light of the group.
However, if they were offended, and I wasn't, I could still convey their offense on behalf, whether or not I cared/understood/empathized. Lawyers do this constantly, as do several others types of people like parents, advocates to charity or similar.
I think what someone would say - that empathy is an example - unfortunately betrays this issue - if you're empathizing with someone's plight, that means you feel a certain way, and you are incensed/upset/whatever about the issue from a 3p perspective - not feeling their feelings. Not invalid, not unimportant or anything like that - but it seems that it's more akin to "feeling sorry for" or "feeling angry for" and not "on behalf" (which seems to be a conveying of the actual subject's view/feeling/intent).
I feel bad when I see a child laughed at for having no one turn up to their birthday (actually, i completely fall apart and become somewhat inconsolable for a time). But I'm not conveying anything about the child. I am expressing how i feel about it. It destroys me, because my view is that no kid should have to deal with that inter alia. I feel bad for the kid on my own account.
This then also shades into things that can be insulting rather than are insults. In those cases, I don't even think you can be reasonably become offended (though, clearly you can unreasonably become offended). If you read a sign that, in your mind specifically, without recourse to any other individual is "potentially offensive" to (lets just stick with, for ease) trans people then that is an emotion all of your own, based on your own views and your own internal circumstances, I should think.. Here, you, personally, think trans people should be referred to in X way, and that this isn't the case pissed you off. Those are your feelings of offence about that group, as I see it.
A reverse eg: I am pretty openly bisexual. I always have been. People used to point out to me things(or lack of things, i guess) which they assumed I would be offended by and I simply didn't read them the same way. I didn't see why It would be offensive and refused to pretend I did. In those cases, these people are definitely not offended for me. They are offended because of their personal view about how bisexuals should be represented/included/what have you. Granted, I think people are grossly oversensitive and find offence literally everywhere, but these examples aren't those. Perhaps it would be more stark to say in several instances, I was incensed by their intimation that I wasn't intellectually capable of being "correctly offended" or something.
So, to sum up: I think "offense" is a concept which is simply not what it purports to be. The problem of 'other minds' seems to imply we can't possibly feel anything on behalf of others and I would say that's true - you can't feel someone else's feelings, and even more thoroughly, cannot feel someone else's feelings if they don't have them. These are the exact same reasons why you(a) cannot package offense into an utterance and send it over the airwaves to (b). You can simply intend that the person becomes offended - given this routinely fails, it is obvious that there is no offense in the utterance.
Unless there is some explanation of how offence can be packaged in speech (i.e, the reactionary internal state of mind "being offended") and sent over the airwaves, the argument doesn't even get off the ground. It's just a neat way to jettison responsibility for our own emotional states. Reality doesn't really care about the witterings of self-help ghouls from the 90s.
Quoting Athena
Your underhanded attempts to insult are keenly noted, Athena. Ironic to the nth. Particularly when you do not have the gall to actually tag me or address me directly - addressing a third party with your thoughts about one is a sure-fire sign you are not emotionally intelligent.
The @ symbol in front of your name shows the intention to tag you. Must be a technical glitch that the link isnt working.
And btw, didnt you say before that words can be given or are you walking that back also?
Words physically move through the air to ear drums. Intentions do not. That's the distinction that is lost in the claim that one can in fact 'offend another' rather than cause them to become offended, in themselves.
I think you mean to say that sounds move through the air to ear drums. Words do not. Right?
This is a normative recommendation. Your saying it ought to be the case that we treat offense as if it is solely the responsibility of the receiver. We'd have better control over ourselves if we could pause and not reciprocate the bait of an insult, whatever the intention behind it, and escalate a loss of self control in ourselves.
"Sticks and stones will break my bones by words will never hurt me." Oh but they do hurt, since we are not so disciplined to be be immune to the effect they might otherwise have on us.
Try to explain to your mom that she is totally responsible for her reaction when you call her an "ugly bitch". No one knows if you meant to be offensive. You gave no offense (because you can't). She took offense. It was an empirical test, which yielded some data. Now you just need to train your mom to accept that she carries the responsibility for her reactions every time you insult her.
Quoting AmadeusD
This is definitely true, I'll give you that.
Quoting AmadeusD
But it also routinely succeeds. You suggest that all the victims of verbal abuse choose to be victims of verbal abuse. It sounds incredibly callous and something most folks would not agree with, to make the victim shoulder all the responsibility of the effects of verbal abuse. And even if it ought to be the case doesn't mean that it is the case. It's a normative prescription.
I do think that was a very much worthwhile question to ask though.
Quoting Nils Loc
No, clearly I am not doing this. I wouldn't open a reply by telling someone what they meant to say, my dude. The chances are the rest of your post wont make sense.
What I said is what I mean: The claim is that offense is a reaction internal to the receiver of information (and sometimes, not even in receipt of information, but that's another issue). Offense does not exist in a word, or a phrase, or in saying something. It exists, solely, in the mind of hte offended person. It's not been 'taken in' from without. That's the claim, and I would appreciate treating it as such.
Quoting Nils Loc
This, for certain, is the normative aspect: One should note the fact outlined above (again, that's 'my claim' not something I'm willing to just say you have to accept, but on this account...) and then behave as you say. I think that's best for people's mental health and general co-operative principles. So that is a normative position, and its harder to defend if the initial 'fact' im positing isn't understood or accepted. But the two are not the same thing at all. A=Boiling water hurts. B=Therefore, don't touch it. I was claiming A, in relation to offense. But i agree with B.
Quoting Nils Loc
Hmm. This is a tricky one. I can't really disagree, because that is obviously what happens - but if we focus on 'discipline' the fact I'm arguing for still obtains. The effect they 'might other have' on us seems to me to be an effect that we have re-recorded in our psyche, ready to be deployed upon receiving information of a certain kind which we have, internally, discussed with ourselves and settled on .. usually, pre-consciously, but sometimes consciously. But, equally, people are capable of jettisoning that reactive faculty almost entirely. I find it very hard to get offended by anything. I can be incensed by what I might think is unjust, or irrational or whatever but I, personally, don't tend to feel offense these days.
Ultimately, you're right that this is what happens but I don't thikn it butters bread for the arguments hereabouts.
Quoting Nils Loc
Roughly speaking, I agree with this. I just would want to have an appended conversation about the responsibility on someone for not letting their emotions get the better of them and saying something like that. I don't think they're responsible for the other person's reaction though.
I want to be really clear, also, before some edgelord tries this line or agument: Incitement and offense are totally different things. We need to read them across one another. I accept that words have power, and people have reactions to words. I simply don't lay those reactions at the feet of those saying words. Incitement is different. Incitement is hijacking the internal reasoning mechanisms of an erstwhile emotionally stable person.
Ftr, This is something I have explicitly worked on with my wife, and she is much, muuuuch happier for it. My mother, on the other hand, seems to enjoy being offended by fucking everything. We don't talk much. She's not a happy person.
Quoting Nils Loc
No I don't, at all. Again, please do not tell me what I'm saying. I am not suggesting it is a choice to be offended. I am suggesting it is a choice not to work on your emotional stability such that offense serves you no purpose. They are different. I have a lot of sympathy for being reasonably offended. I just also hold this position on bettering one's lot. It's a choice to view offense as someone elses fault. Its a choice to excuse your own actions due to something someone else said to you. There's umpteen videos across the internet about 'fuck around and find out'. Why not grow the fuck up?
Quoting Nils Loc
To someone who cannot control their emotions, of course it would. If you feel you're being asked to do something impossible, it will sound both callous and irrational. But I have empirical evidence that this is not so... People do this all the time. That the majority of people don't is a symptom of... well, something I personally view to be a real shame. If trolls had no power, I think the world would be better off. So I agree with what you're putting forward as a normative prescription, and I enact that in my daily life wherever I can, usually to great benefit. But that isn't what I've argued for thus far. I just happen to agree with it, now that it's brought up.
I think probably we can simply state: If some people can do this, all people can do this. If all people can do this, I, at least, would want to say they should.
The bold seems to put paid to the argument I'm making, anyhow. I understand this may be rejected, but you seem to accept some people can do this, and sometimes intended offense fails. That's all we need.
Classic hasty generalization fallacy.
No. It is presenting a counter-example, only one of which is needed to unsecure a claim. This isn't a fallacy in any way.
If I am right, and people are capable of controlling their reactions to words, then the offense in not in the words. We're not at the whim of those speaking to us.
I suppose this is also true of many physical acts that give rise to an offense. If I slap one on the face, the pain/sensation as well as the offense exists solely in the mind of the receiving person. The pain itself doesn't constitute that the slap is offensive, rather the perceived insult or annoyance felt by the slapped person. Even in the case of a physical slap, the offense has not been 'taken in' from without because the offense is about the perceived meaning of the act, which comes from somewhere else.
Is this right?
I can't get the guy I work with to wear closed toed shoes or come in at a specific time, even though he lives across the street. He actually almost died from getting a foot infection while working outside, which he could've avoided if he had just worn his shoes when doing physical labor. Think he was slapped with a $10,000 bill for intravenous antibiotics. He doesn't know how to or doesn't want to go through the trouble to pay his taxes. I value him as a friend though so I can't whip him into shape without making myself out to be an asshole. He is a charming human being despite all his faults.
Even capable/competent people are breaking under modern conditions. The stress of our lifestyles actually undermines the ability for people to control their emotions by virtue/vice of the "monkey see monkey do" and "tit for tat" phenomena. Chronic stress in childhood undermines the ability of emotional control in adult life.
I don't think I understand the anecdote. That person lacks discipline and clear understanding of what's been told to them. They are not incapable.
I can't see I see much in the second paragraph. Modern conditions are objectively better than essentially any previous period in history other than perhaps the late 90s.
Unless you're making an argument about simpler lifestyles, which is legitimate, but wholly irrelevant here. Besides, even granting what you've said my point stands fairly strongly.
In materialistic terms this is likely true but in psychological terms, possibly not. We're facing a loneliness/despair epidemic in the US. A lot of people are mentally not doing so great. It's all well and great to say people ought to control their emotions, and anyone can start, but who is going to help them do that? Though maybe that's not your concern or your point. Does a moral obligation spring from your argument/philosophy to help others to help themselves, if there is any normative prescription that passes from it.
People ought to do X. Who will do Y, M, L and Z, in order for people to facilitate/achieve X.
Or do we just say people ought to do X.
I trained with the best.
I would want to ask a question: Do you not see a stark difference between a physical act, and spoken words? I am not suggesting words do not enter the ear and alter the physical system. But the subjective experience of offense is not analogous with the physical act of slapping someone resulting in a physical chain reaction.
That said, roughly speaking, yes. That's right. The pain is so much more closely linked to the act that we can't morally say this is 'true' but your description is correct. We know this because some people can train their minds not to experience pain (at least in some ways). My consideration would be that no amount of offense can lead to death, where physical pain leads to things which can, hence a moral difference.
Quoting Nils Loc
This is probably my biggest (social, not philosophical) gripe with this issue: Why are you owed help in getting your emotions in check? There's a line in a Taylor Swift song "Life is emotionally abusive". This seems to be how many people think of their mental health. I suggest this is utterly absurd, counter to reality and a specific, modern reason people are suffering mentally. There is nothing about the world which makes sense of this, other than unreasonable expectation and blaming others. Something which modernity allows en masse. This is now a different sort of convo, so I'll bring it back...
Quoting Nils Loc
The normative prescription ends at "It's best for you to have your emotions in check" (and this is not "objective" - I've stipulated, and it seems you've leaned into, the idea that psychological health is likely what we're aiming for). I can't see an argument against this.
I can't understand where from a moral obligation would spring that I, or anyone else, would be obligated to help anyone do this. But I think it is best that we do. The problem is plenty of people are either too stupid, stubborn or set in their beliefs to change anything. At some stage, we need to stop throwing money and accommodations at those people, I think.
Mental training can go a long way but who helped you to help yourself in this way? Why aren't you a meth addict now, half dead in gutter, or a neurotic incel living in your mother's basement? Maybe it is just that you made all the good choices in your life so your competence proves your worth.
Your idea that person who feels offended should look deeply into his/her reaction is very important and valuable insight. It reminds me of the narrative of the Buddha as he stands against Mara (the forces of his own craving and aversion, as existential temptations and fears). He immune to the offense of Mara, which springs from his being as delusion/ignorance. But he is ready to defend himself against a real threat, for sure, if he wants to continue to teach, pet dogs and eat mangoes.
But I think it is best that we do...(help people)
Well, you said it. I think it is best that we do help people, but we don't always know how to help people help themselves. Even if we know what we ought to do where does the will come from to do it, if not fear. Fear is the slave driver of human kind, it has great utility as motivation, but if it's excessive and unreasonable one can easily be destroyed by it, or rendered stupid.
[quote=Frank Herbert, Dune]I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. [/quote]
Quoting AmadeusD
Natural selection is God's tough love, I guess. If a bird is too stupid, lazy, afraid or overworked to put a roof over its nest and secure it with anchor straps does it deserve to lose its young when the wind blows?
Deserve seems the wrong word. It will. That's all we can say.
Quoting Nils Loc
My crippling depression, drug addiction and a glimmer of light/insight which came to me while i was bleeding out on a bathroom floor. It's a bit longer of a story than that, but there were no individuals but myself involved. It gets ... cringey... when told in full, so if you want to hear I'd prefer DM.
Quoting Nils Loc
I was (heroin, then alcohol, but same-same).
Quoting Nils Loc
Absolutely agree with this.
None of that applies to anonymous strangers who you don't ever actually see. How can you be hurt in this setting? If someone is trying to hurt anonymous strangers who they never actually see, it's a pretty serious character flaw. If you are hurt by it, it's on you. It is entirety your doing. Don't do it.
If you aren't hurt by their words, you can respond only to anything of value they said, or, if there is nothing of value, just move on.
[I]Low self esteem is the root cause of practically all the pain and misery in the world. It's what drives war, and torture, and genocide. It's what evil is. Do you think Hitler liked himself? Or Cortez? We hate others because we hate ourselves.[/I]
-Leonard
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Cut it out.
:worry: Its not all about me? :gasp: :lol: Seriously, I like what you are saying but can we kick this up to the social level? No one should be treated badly because we are on this ship together, and we don't want people making trouble. To avoid trouble, we need some social agreements, because it is not all about me. Chances are good that if someone is offending me, that person is offending others, and if we agree that is not okay, perhaps people will stop opening their doors with a gun in their hand and shooting children running away. Or people going to a school and killing as many young children as they can. Even though it is not all about me, I think we need social agreements that make life more pleasant for everyone. We need to do something about the environment we are living in.
What you have said is excellent advice, makes me think of "sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me". It is much easier to hold everything you said in mind and live with that wisdom when our lives are comfortable and pretty much how we want them to be. My life did not go as I planned. I have empathy for those we should not kick when they are down. My point was made long ago, in every religion and culture- "do not do to others what you would have done to you". Precisely because we do not know them and their circumstances, for the good of humanity, we need agreements about virtues and good manners.
One last argument- it is a real cheap shot to attack others and not near the work it takes to stay on topic and make a rational argument. I think this forum needs to hold others up to a higher standard because that is the best way to develop ourselves.
All that said, I am going to try to copy and paste your good advice in a PM to myself. When I am having a bad day, I am sure your words will help me get over it. I like Asian philosophy, which assumes we can do better when we discover what better is and intentionally practice it until it becomes our new habit. I want your good advice embedded in my everyday thinking. Thank you.
Of course, that will never happen. So yes, we need moderators. I don't go into most forums here at TPF, so I don't know how bad it can get. What I see isn't too bad. I know which people are going to belittle, and call others names, and I stop reading their posts as soon as they start heating up. Even when I'm not part of the conversation. Why bother?
I loved Leonard / Graham Greene, and the show. But I don't think it has aged well philosophically ... self-esteem is a pretty modern concept. I don't think it would have applied to Cortez, and doubt that it did for Hitler. Jean Twenge talks about self esteem in "The Narcissism Epidemic", clearly incorporating it into her arguments about the rise in narcissism - a trend that has only accelerated since she published her book.
I actually fault the writers though, they just seemed so certain, in an "End of History " sort of sense, that a morally relativistic individual-journey type path was inevitable for those who live a 'good' life. Joel is a good example.
I also found Leonard to be a bit of a 'magical native' trope.
Not to pick on Brand and Falsey - I loved the writing on that show (and I'll Fly Away, before it). It just feels very much of it's time, and in hindsight, quite naive.
I will always remember watching the episode 'Cicely' as a teen. That changed my concept of storytelling forever.
Quoting Jeremy MurrayYes. But I don't see that as a bad thing. I mean, he's the wisest one on the show. A lot of them are wise. It might not be as obvious with Shelly, because she was usually taking about her nipples or butt when making her point. But she knew what she was talking about.
Leonard was different than the rest, though. He was always calm. He didn't merely understand wisdom in this situation and that situation. He lived wisdom. It was his entire being. And when you're that kind of person, nothing can ruffle you.
Why is it a negative that a Native American is written to be such a person?
Quoting Jeremy MurrayYes, brilliant!
That's just political correctness. Of course Hitler and Cortez liked themselves! They felt entitled to the wealth of others, that's why they went after it, not because they would hate those others.
Quoting Patterner
Gosh, no, it's not negative. It did speak to the mood of the era though, and general themes of anti-establishment thinking that seemed to permeate. I would have liked it had Leonard been slightly more complex - nearly every character on that show aside from him had negative and positive qualities.
Leonard remains my favourite non-regular, and one of my favourites from the show. Strangely, Maurice emerged as another upon a recent repeat viewing. They put that guys flaws under the microscope, but he was no caricature. His growth during the episode featuring Ron and Eric's wedding was genuinely moving.
Quoting Patterner
I don't have my copy of Twenge's book handy, and don't have the facility with philosophy that many round here do to pull from ... but it's a pretty modern concept. Where do we see examples of 'self-esteem' in say the works of Shakespeare, for example? The self-loathing of Hamlet is not the inverse of self-esteem.
The rationalistic, westernized notion of the individual seems necessary for discussions of self-esteem?
And, because of those licensing issues, they had other music on the DVD. I was horribly disappointed.
But now you can watch the show on prime, and it has the right music.
Quoting Jeremy MurrayMaurice is something else! Not an ignorant Archie Bunker. Great conversation when he was telling Chris how he felt about his Korean son.[Quote]"Chris, no matter how you explain this thing, it's a nightmare. This man is my son. I don't like the way he looks. I don't like the way he talks. I don't like what he eats."
"Well, if it's any consolation, Maurice, you know, your feelings aren't instinctual."
"No?"
"No. It's cultural."
"Well, how the hell could that be a consolation?"
"It's learned behavior."
"So?"
"So, you can unlearn it."[/quote]
Quoting Jeremy MurrayMaybe it took the rationalistic, westernized notion of the individual to figure out a problem that had been around all along? I don't know. I never considered it.
This forum is the best-mannered forum I have experienced in many years of participating in forums. People here are more apt to give thoughtful replies that are stimulating and improve the discussion.
In the beginning, before moderators, the internet was terrible. Only angry and aggressive people could enjoy what was happening. I had a forum at the time and could close out those who refused to be polite. I hated to do that, but when everyone else was upset, and many warnings were ignored, I had to cut out the trouble makers. Today, I am even more concerned about our social agreements and setting a standard. I see the bigger picture, and it is not just about me. It is a social concern.
I hear ya. I became the moderator of the politics forum at a site I hang out at, because the people were being horrible. If it was not a site I loved, I would have just left. My concern was visitors seeing that crap, and thinking that's what the site was, or at least that the site allowed that. you wouldn't think I would have to make rules that you can't call each other worthless, pedophiles, and whatever else they could think of.
Honestly, NE was the first time I saw mature conversations on some of these controversial subjects on television, as a teen in the 80s. The second ever gay marriage on tv, if I recall correctly?
I don't think characters like Maurice really exist anymore. Any modern equivalents you can think of?
Quoting Patterner
I grabbed Twenge's book. She traces the self-esteem movement back to the 60s, Maslow and his hierarchy, among other trends. Self-esteem is one rung below Self-actualization, and per Twenge, 'much easier to achieve' and therefore the one concept came to eclipse the other.
I can't really imagine how people would have thought to even consider self-esteem prior to the 20th century. It feels like an outcome of the Enlightenment and post-WW2 prosperity. I doubt it had much global resonance prior to the 21st century, although AI tells me it is a universal concept?
There must have been people 500 years ago who thought they were ugly, or weak, or stupid. They might have had that ingrained by an abusive parent. Don't you think?
Hey Patterner,
I don't, really. Not in the way you are expressing it. Certainly, there would have been people who knew they were less attractive than others, but that's just how it was, right?
They weren't going to feel worse about it, because they were peasants struggling to survive, Christians or members of other faiths who felt their life was predetermined, etc. None of these things relate to self-esteem because they were simply facts.
The premise of self esteem requires a self to esteem.
Do you think the concept of the 'self' that exists today is similar enough to whatever concept of the 'self' that existed 500 years ago to make that conclusion?
I really recommend Twenge's book "The Narcissism Epidemic", a classic proven prescient. Do you feel narcissism to be a problem today? If so, and I assume you and all other sane people do, what is the relationship of the concept of self-esteem to narcissism?
People treated each other as horrifically in the past as they do now. The gap between the wealthy and thre destitute has existed at all times. So I wouldn't think there's reason this aspect of us was not also around in the past. But, like I said, I've never thought about this before, so can't have considered all the possibilities.
But if you're right, if self-loathing is a new thing for us, is there a new good thing to balance it?
Sounds like the site where I visit to PM with someone, but rarely read any posts or make one. To me it is like getting into a mud-slinging contest. It has nothing to do with learning and thinking, and I think the people I want to share thoughts with would also stay out of the forum. Staying with the hope of making a difference is very idealistic.
Oh no doubt. But the premise of 'improving one's lot' wasn't the same. The certainty of 'God's plan' was stronger. Etc.
Quoting Patterner
I don't think self-loathing is the opposite of self-esteem. People have despised themselves forever. But this idea of self-esteem, of needing to 'love oneself', to affirm every child as 'special', a person's 'journey' - these are new concepts, and part of the Narcissism epidemic Twenge describes.
I think 'the new good thing' would be a return to 'old good things' like community, humility, faith (ironic, given how staunchly atheist I am), etc. Stories with as much moral complexity as "Northern Exposure", even though I link that show, tangentially, to the narcissism epidemic.
Do you see a 'narcissism epidemic'? Do you see a link with self-esteem? What 'new good things' do you think may benefit us?
I had myself a breakdown a few years ago, and so this thinking of mine is new to me as well.