Empty Words and Euphemism

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I'd like 5 minutes alone in a room behind a locked door with the guy who dreamed up the phrase "I AM". When I was done with that idiot, he'd be wishing "he wasn't."

"I am" is a very incomplete statement. It also leads to further question begging. I am what? It can only ever serve as an incomplete statement. Yet apparently this half-concept is used as a principle somehow. That is quite telling in itself.

Are you? Or aren't you? The answer to the question is 'I am'. It is the one thing that you can say without doubt. You know you are!!!
However - what exactly does it mean to be?

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Forget about God for a minute - and focus on emotion

People have experienced different sensations and feelings. And we call those sensations and feelings emotions. There is something concrete that's happening, and we can name it, describe it and relate to it. We can imagine what it's like to be happy or sad.

But what imagery do euphemisms bring? Euphemisms are designed to negate the imagery involved in common understanding. To use Orwell's example, we use the word "pacification" as a euphemism for the slaughter of a number of people. We use the word to justify that slaughter, by not allowing anyone to visualize it. That's why the word pacification in this context is empty, because it doesn't allow one to understand the truth about what is really happening. In fact, it leads us away from the truth.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Are you? Or aren't you?

Are I or aren't I what?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Are you? Or aren't you?

Are I or aren't I what?

Can you say you are not?
To be or not to be?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

People have experienced different sensations and feelings. And we call those sensations and feelings emotions. There is something concrete that's happening, and we can name it, describe it and relate to it. We can imagine what it's like to be happy or sad.

We can imagine it and better understand it and each other with the use of imagery. Symbolism, metaphor, allegory - words

But what imagery do euphemisms bring? Euphemisms are designed to negate the imagery involved in common understanding. To use Orwell's example, we use the word "pacification" as a euphemism for the slaughter of a number of people. We use the word to justify that slaughter, by not allowing anyone to visualize it. That's why the word pacification in this context is empty, because it doesn't allow one to understand the truth about what is really happening. In fact, it leads us away from the truth.

And then there is rhetoric. You won't get any argument from me - words have power - and they can be used for good or ill. You seem to want to use the word euphemism pejoratively - this is what interests me :-)

I find myself asking - once again - what's the point you're really trying to make? That language can be used to deceive? That if we all only spoke more plainly - we would all be enlightened - and none of us would need to worry about falling prey to silly beliefs?

I have a sense that you see these kinds of questions as a kind of attack - or criticism. I'm just trying to understand - so, more to the point - and cutting through the crap - what the heck are you proposing? :-)

You've identified the problem - as you see it. Now, what are you suggesting we do to fix it?

also - was kinda serious about the name - Misanthrope...

Irony? Euphemism (I sincerely hope not)? Or is it anti-euphemistic and in keeping with what seems to be your preference - beautifully and simply accurate?

:-)

Another interesting thread LesMisanthrope

I have asked twice, respectfully and it doesn't seem you want to explain your conclusion there. So I'll just come to my own conclusion.

Perhaps you find the word God offensive? The concept offends your senses, because it contradicts them- your physical senses pick up no evidence of this God, and this offends your values about the physical world.

See, I just realized that I use euphemisms for God- I write "diety", or "non-physical entity" all the time, instead of writing "God" -exactly because that word has an emotional effect upon many atheists. It provokes them to get defensive (from their point of view, offensive for others) without fail, and the rest of what i wanted to say is lost in the flurry of reaction to the "G" word.

The believers in God don't do that. That word just flies right through without a strong reaction and forward onto whatever came after that.

This makes me think that you might be assuming others feel as you do, in response to that word...

I will make no claims to know what is in yoru heart and mind, I just throw it out there to be confirmed or corrected, because I am curious.

reply to post by Bluesma

I have asked twice, respectfully and it doesn't seem you want to explain your conclusion there. So I'll just come to my own conclusion.

I am having trouble keeping up here. I do make this stuff up as I go along, so please bear with me.

Perhaps you find the word God offensive? The concept offends your senses, because it contradicts them- your physical senses pick up no evidence of this God, and this offends your values about the physical world.

I love all words. And "offends the tastes" is the exact wording I used, not the "offends the senses".

This makes me think that you might be assuming others feel as you do, in response to that word...

Your assumption about my assumption is a little off. I've explained already that I get no imagery from such words. Because of this I am unable to find any reason to become connected with it in any way, nor can I find any reason to allow my emotions to respond positively or negatively towards it.

My only conclusion—and I've hinted at this, although I would hope people would arrive at their own conclusions—is that being able to explain something clearly leads to further understanding, not only by the one who heard it, but also by the one who spoke it. I argue that because someone cannot explain something in concrete terms, their experience can be doubted, because it doesn't contain any contextual relationship with anything that can be understood through experience.

I then asked myself why someone would use completely abstract terms to describe something they find concrete enough to believe in. I figured it is because the words are euphemisms, kept in place to hide the maybe too painful truth that nothing is there in the first place.

I don't know if this helps.

Originally posted by NorEaster


So, who or what is your real self? Seriously. That riff almost sounds like it makes sense, but if the ego is "what a causes a person to impulsively want for him/herself" then what is left as a natural impulse for the "real" self, and how could you possibly discern it to be different than the other impulse source that you've convinced yourself that you've defeated? All it would be is yet another impulse.

Other posters have already articulated this ego concept with some clarity. All I will add is the old analogy of an actor playing a role.

If an actor has played the part of a character for such a long time that he ends up losing himself in the role and identifies completely with the character he is playing, forgetting the actor he really is beyond his role, would you consider that it would be helpful for his wellbeing that he recognizes that he is, indeed, merely acting a part and learns to dis-identify from his role?

The real self is in the same relation with the ego as the actor with his role. The first step is to realise ego is simply the role we are playing in this life and that we are not the ego. That does not mean the ego has to be killed off. An actor can continue to act his part even while aware that he is not the character he is portraying.

However, as the real self has identified with the ego for such a long time, it is a struggle to disentangle one's association with ego and remain centered within self.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Unless you've allowed someone else to define YOU to you, which seems to be just another hijacking of yet another human mind by yet another religion/ideology cobbled together by yet another group of people.

Someone else may help me to understand what I am not, but what defines the self that I am is something which only the self can realise.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

I do make this stuff up as I go along, so please bear with me.

this is a thing of rare beauty Mr. Misanthrope :-)

and you at your best

don't know if you're going to get around to mine - but no hurry - or worries - I'm out of here for the day

:-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

what the heck are you proposing?

I am proposing, in a nutshell, that people should be more honest with themselves and others; and that they shouldn't allow themselves to be seduced by words so easily. I feel that critiquing the words—for words are all they so far amount to—will lead us to further understand these concepts. And who knows, if we eventually understand them to be nothings, non-existent, maybe we could finally excuse them from the table? Surely it would be quite difficult to fly a plane into a building for no reason.

also - was kinda serious about the name - Misanthrope...

Irony? Euphemism (I sincerely hope not)? Or is it anti-euphemistic and in keeping with what seems to be your preference - beautifully and simply accurate?

It is the name of my avatar. It is also an amalgamation of two plays I enjoy—Les Miserables by Hugo and Le Misanthrope by Moliere.

"If everyone were clothed with integrity,
If every heart were just, frank, kindly,
The other virtues would be well-nigh useless,
Since their chief purpose is to make us bear with patience
The injustice of our fellows"

~ Le Misanthrope - Moliere

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

I am proposing, in a nutshell, that people should be more honest with themselves and others; and that they shouldn't allow themselves to be seduced by words so easily. I feel that critiquing the words—for words are all they so far amount to—will lead us to further understand these concepts. And who knows, if we eventually understand them to be nothings, non-existent, maybe we could finally excuse them from the table? Surely it would be quite difficult to fly a plane into a building for no reason.

As far as this goes - you are more hopeful than I am. I absolutely agree with you - and since I've recently put myself on a cynicism free diet - I'll just leave it at that

It is the name of my avatar. It is also an amalgamation of two plays I enjoy—Les Miserables by Hugo and Le Misanthrope by Moliere.

Perfect. That just answered a whole bunch of questions - very nice - and good to hear

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

But what imagery do euphemisms bring? Euphemisms are designed to negate the imagery involved in common understanding. To use Orwell's example, we use the word "pacification" as a euphemism for the slaughter of a number of people. We use the word to justify that slaughter, by not allowing anyone to visualize it. That's why the word pacification in this context is empty, because it doesn't allow one to understand the truth about what is really happening. In fact, it leads us away from the truth.

Well the intent is deceptive. People want there to be meaning and purpose, but don't really see it around them. Religious people have to define their "spirit" with a bunch of words, tradition and ritual. For some thats good enough. They accept that. They need no further demonstration.

Others see right through all that and yet remain unfulfilled. They also want some sort of proof, but really don't give it much more thought than that. They are dissatisfied until satisfied. They are intelligent and require more input but for now, choose not to believe in anything (like your blank / black photo ).

This allows them to become selfish and why not? Nothing else works. Might as well get all you can for yourself while the getting is good. Morality is in the eye of the beholder. Who cares about others as long as I am "fulfilled" (with myself). After all I am real, me me me...

Still others who don't believe in religion, the state, materialism or self, are just turning circles it seems, without any direction (according to the rest of us).

I disagree. Not going in the wrong direction will eventually lead to the right path. How do you put into words what isn't about words at all? The people that are "waiting" are the ones that will get answers.

And the answers will be boring and mundane compared to all the excitement the world offers. A simple daily grind of not doing the wrong thing. Most of us already know what that is too. Its innate...

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
My only conclusion—and I've hinted at this, although I would hope people would arrive at their own conclusions—is that being able to explain something clearly leads to further understanding, not only by the one who heard it, but also by the one who spoke it.

Not necessarily. There are many reasons why a person may not grasp an idea even if it is clearly explained.

I argue that because someone cannot explain something in concrete terms, their experience can be doubted, because it doesn't contain any contextual relationship with anything that can be understood through experience.

Also not true. The key to successful communication lies as much with the listener as the speaker. Some things are difficult to explain if the person listening doesn't understand the basics of a topic.

Also, one persons lack of experience does not negate another persons experience.

I then asked myself why someone would use completely abstract terms to describe something they find concrete enough to believe in. I figured it is because the words are euphemisms, kept in place to hide the maybe too painful truth that nothing is there in the first place.

Many do it to sound wise but even if the person is being truthful, they can lack the words to convey what they want either because they don't have the words or the words don't exist.

As bluesma pointed out earlier, there are words that pertain to things that we can't experience materially yet enough people have compared notes about what they have experienced to differentiate between them.

reply to post by daskakik

Not necessarily. There are many reasons why a person may not grasp an idea even if it is clearly explained.

Yes, but I haven't claimed otherwise. Care to explain these reasons?

Also not true. The key to successful communication lies as much with the listener as the speaker. Some things are difficult to explain if the person listening doesn't understand the basics of a topic.

Once again, I didn't claim otherwise.

Can someone be taught the basics? How would you teach the basics of, say, "the soul"?

Also, one persons lack of experience does not negate another persons experience.

I don't think I argued the opposite.

As bluesma pointed out earlier, there are words that pertain to things that we can't experience materially yet enough people have compared notes about what they have experienced to differentiate between them.

Name one thing we cannot experience materially.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Yes, but I haven't claimed otherwise. Care to explain these reasons?

I can't. It would be particular to the individual exchange.

Once again, I didn't claim otherwise.

Can someone be taught the basics? How would you teach the basics of, say, "the soul"?

What do you mean by teach. Someone can try to explain it but that does not mean that it will be understood by the person being "taught".

Now, if there are no words to convey the message of what the soul is then, what do you expect someone to use when he tries to teach about the soul?

I don't think I argued the opposite.

Actually you said:

I argue that because someone cannot explain something in concrete terms, their experience can be doubted, because it doesn't contain any contextual relationship with anything that can be understood through experience.

Maybe I misunderstood but that seems to be exactly what you are arguing.

Name one thing we cannot experience materially.

Feelings.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


"My only conclusion—and I've hinted at this, although I would hope people would arrive at their own conclusions—is that being able to explain something clearly leads to further understanding, not only by the one who heard it, but also by the one who spoke it. I argue that because someone cannot explain something in concrete terms, their experience can be doubted, because it doesn't contain any contextual relationship with anything that can be understood through experience." Quote LesMisanthrope

'In a nutshell'...that is the crux...an experience, a less-than-material, non-material construct (for want of a better term)...'can be doubted, because it doesn't contain any contextual relationship with anything that can be understood through experience'...if you do not experience it (and let me assume your shifting position) Red...it does not exist...that's some neat idea origami, right there...

A99

reply to post by daskakik

"Can someone be taught the basics? How would you teach the basics of, say, "the soul"?"

What do you mean by teach. Someone can try to explain it but that does not mean that it will be understood by the person being "taught".


Now, if there are no words to convey the message of what the soul is then, what do you expect someone to use when he tries to teach about the soul?

When I say "teach" I mean exactly what you think it means. If in order to understand something, they first must understand the basics, as you've asserted, ("Some things are difficult to explain if the person listening doesn't understand the basics of a topic." ) then what I'm asking you is, how can someone learn the basics about something if there's no basics to be taught?

Further, how can someone explain, or teach something without having any basics to teach?

I would expect them to use empty words.

Feelings.

This is what happens when we turn verbs into nouns. We get confusion.

To feel is a verb. An action isn't a thing, it is the appearance of something performing an action.

Why do we turn actions into nouns? Maybe to solidify the idea of actions...who knows. But this is an abstract noun that doesn't exist physically as a person, place or thing, which being a noun would imply.

If I was to go for a jog, it's not as if I was actually out in search of something called a "jog", but it means that between this and that time, I was performing the action of jogging. No, there's no such thing as a "jog". Yet we use the term as if it was an actual thing. Once again, I have no clue why we do this.

Likewise there are no such things as "feelings", only the idea that between this time and that, something was feeling.

You are correct, actions are not material things, they are material things performing an action.

But in order to say that the word "feelings" is simply immaterial is to also not acknowledge the very real material thing performing that action, and the physical consequences that result.

Despite the ambiguity of the word "feelings", it nonetheless connotes the idea of bodily sensations, physical interaction, and the changes that occur within the human body.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
When I say "teach" I mean exactly what you think it means. If in order to understand something, they first must understand the basics, as you've asserted, ("Some things are difficult to explain if the person listening doesn't understand the basics of a topic." ) then what I'm asking you is, how can someone learn the basics about something if there's no basics to be taught?

Further, how can someone explain, or teach something without having any basics to teach?

I would expect them to use empty words.

Who says there are no basics to be taught? It surely can't be the person who is ignorant of the subject matter.

But in order to say that the word "feelings" is simply immaterial is to also not acknowledge the very real material thing performing that action, and the physical consequences that result.

Despite the ambiguity of the word "feelings", it nonetheless connotes the idea of bodily sensations, physical interaction, and the changes that occur within the human body.

Yes, but I can't pull out a lump and show it to you so, is it actually being experienced?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Likewise there are no such things as "feelings", only the idea that between this time and that, something was feeling.

Well hopefully when an intimate tells you they have great love and tremendous feelings for you, LesMis, you don't have that conversation!

LesMis: Sorry Honey, those feelings aren't real. Let me explain...

Honey: *Yawn* I think I am just going to sleep now. Goodnight!