Do Words Hurt?

Originally posted by Kashai

Aha but in this discussion you are the first to bring of the issue of subjective vs. objective experiences.

I felt this was an important nuance of the discussion that needed to be addressed. That's my whole purpose at the moment here. To try and illuminate distinctions and nuances that may be being (willfully or unintentionally) ignored by holders of the different positions in the topic. It's gradually becoming less of a philosophical debate and more of a semantic fight and I'm trying my best to facilitate it returning to the former in any way I can, if possible. Because I love discussions about this sort of thing, as they speak to the nature of who we are as entities. I would love to see them discussed constructively if at all possible.

Peace.

reply to post by AceWombat04


Why do you say that you think I misinterpreted , does what I replied to not sound like something you said ... on subjective bias and the rest? Stick to your thoughts if you don't like how they sound change your mind.

Bully's need an excuse for the words they use with the two intellectual diplomacy for human beings: words don't hurt, and subjective bias gives their lack of self responsibility for their words they speak just justification they want.

reply to post by AceWombat04

◾Skepticism is not necessarily the unwillingness or inability to believe in any given scenario, phenomenon, account, or hypothesis. Given empirical proof, a skeptic can and indeed must, in lieu of any remaining alternative explanations, become a "believer."

◾Skepticism is refraining from accepting something as factual without empirical proof. (This does not preclude accepting that that thing may be factual. In fact, without proof to the contrary, the skeptic must accept the possibility that it is factual!)

◾Skepticism is not asserting that something is not, cannot, or never has been true. That is asserting a fact, which if one is truly skeptical, requires proof. This means a skeptic cannot assert that something is not true without proof. In other words, a skeptic cannot tell you that you are lying, crazy, or wrong, unless they have empirical proof that this is the case. If they do so without firm proof, then they are engaging in pseudo-skepticism (just as many debunkers refer to certain questionable beliefs or theories as pseudo-science) or are setting out preemptively to debunk the topic at hand. The most they can say is in that instance if they wish to call themselves truly skeptical is, "I believe you are wrong, but I cannot prove it, and I distinguish between my personal beliefs and facts."

◾Skepticism is expressing that one does not know something for certain about an asserted fact, and asking questions about that asserted fact. These can be questions one asks oneself, others, embarks on research to answer, or in some cases, unfortunately, which may never be answered definitively.

◾Skepticism does not require that one not hold personal beliefs which lack absolute proof. In other words, the skeptic can say, "I believe __________, but I do not know for a fact that my belief is correct." This includes religious beliefs, beliefs in certain debatable phenomena, etc.

◾Skepticism does require distinction between facts and beliefs. That is to say, the skeptic can hold any belief he or she feels drawn to or prefers to hold, but they cannot assert that those beliefs are facts without empirical proof.

Taken from your sig...

That is really cool

reply to post by BDBinc


I have explained where I disagree with LesMisanthrope and that I do not advocate bullying or believe that people should (or even always can) regulate their emotional response to words. I do not hold the victims of bullying responsible for their emotional status.

I'm merely trying to distinguish between the moral argument (which you and I probably agree on) and the ontological argument, which I am suggesting LesMisanthrope may be making. You stated,

I disagree with you & LM that words can exist without a speaker and hearer

... and that is not nor has it ever been my position. I am merely saying I don't know if that's his position either necessarily, outside of the purely ontological context.

Peace.

being offended by anything just shows deep brainwashing within ones self. Curiosity is a more natural state.

Two peanuts walking down the road. One was assaulted

reply to post by AceWombat04




You now say you are well aware of the influence that words can exert (directly or indirectly) on your feelings and wellbeing. But you deny the same effect on others by saying IM has an "ontological" argument supporting the idea words don’t hurt.

The part of his argument that you agreed with “factually” is that words in isolation(on planet IM) – (without the rest of the process you described in your post) - do not inflict pain.
So words outside of “process” don’t inflict harm?
What words are these and who speaks them and who hears them? Do you. Where are IM’s & your outside-of -process words.


He is not making an ontological argument for words don’t hurt *unless his existence is one of disassociated disconnectedness. In my world negative words can cause hurt we are not separate and meaningless but connected .
This was my ontological argument that you ignored on why and how negative and insulting words can hurt both the speaker and the hearer.
Connectedness.

Originally posted by Metatronin
being offended by anything just shows deep brainwashing within ones self. Curiosity is a more natural state.

I do not understand how does "deep brainwashing within oneself" (whatever that means) has anything to do with feeling insulted.

Would you care to elaborate?

reply to post by BDBinc


I've explained my position as best I can. It is entirely possible I'm simply failing to communicate it despite my best efforts, and if I have failed to do so, I sincerely apologize. That said I will try a final time to clarify myself, after which I'm going to leave you all to continue the discussion if you so desire.

But you deny the same effect on others by saying IM has an "ontological" argument supporting the idea words don’t hurt.

No, I do not deny the same effect on others. What I am attempting to do is delineate the nature of said effect. In one of my posts I attempted to articulate a "chain" of communication and information that we may use to conceptualize this process and its effects (which are different from person to person.) For example. There are words that lead to me feeling pain, and words - even when intended to cause pain - that do not. Likewise, the same words which cause me pain - even when intended to cause pain - may not cause pain to someone else. This is why I was careful to say only that "words" as an ontological entity, in isolation, are not in my opinion the direct causative agent of pain.

This does not mean that they do not form a part of a larger process containing other entities or, if you prefer, steps, which do contribute to pain. Nor does it mean I believe that the speaker of the words that go into said process should not employ compassion and care when choosing their words, so as to avoid that effect if possible. Though it is also worth noting that even when doing so, pain can still occur.

Put more simply, there is a difference between acknowledging that words free of emotional association may not inflict harm, and believing that one should therefore simply say whatever one wishes with no regard for the potential emotional implications for others.

Secondly, it's not my goal to argue that he is making a purely ontological argument. I have tried to suggest that he may be, for the sake of offering an opening both to he and everyone else to move the discussion forward beyond the semantic points, which is where it seems (to me) to keep getting bogged down. As I said before, he will have to quantify his own argument. I have also said that if his argument is also a moral one, i.e. that people should limit their emotional responses to words in all cases (or that it is always possible and therefore desirable,) that I disagree with him. I've explained that my disagreement stems in part from the fact that this logic can - in my opinion - also be applied to other things (see my previous posts re: the deaths of loved ones) and where the logical extreme of this philosophy might carry one. And I've reiterated that more than once.

The part of his argument that you agreed with “factually” is that words in isolation(on planet IM) – (without the rest of the process you described in your post) - do not inflict pain.
So words outside of “process” don’t inflict harm?
What words are these and who speaks them and who hears them? Do you. Where are IM’s & your outside-of -process words.

This seems to be where the misunderstanding is arising. He seems to be (not is, necessarily) making a purely ontological argument with respect to words in isolation. I on the other hand am trying to express a more holistic context - as are you, it seems - which includes that entire process. The "chain" I posted earlier. e.g Even if words in isolation are not the direct causative agent in emotional pain in relation to words, the fact that emotional pain can and does arise in relation to words means that words in that context are ipso facto related to the emotional pain via said process. When emotional pain occurs in relation to words, words are not in isolation. They are part of that broader context and that process.

Now, within that process, we may be (not must be, not are) able to exercise voluntary influence over our emotional response, depending upon myriad factors. This should not be construed as me arguing that this capacity is the same for everyone, that I believe people should or must or even would be better off necessarily, exercising said capacity. As someone whose mental status often outright prevents me from exercising said influence, it would be absurd for me to argue that.

It does mean that I agree with him at least to the extent that influence is possible and under certain circumstances might be advantageous.

He is not making an ontological argument for words don’t hurt *unless his existence is one of disassociated disconnectedness.

This is an important distinction. In my opinion, disconnectedness on his part would imply a moral argument, not an ontological one. If he is asserting the "rightness" of emotional disconnectedness, it is a moral argument, and one I do not share. If he is merely making a factual ontological argument, then in my opinion it has arguable merit.

The "process" I'm speaking of is my description of what you call connectedness. I agree with you in that respect. I am merely leaving open the possibility that his argument is one of ontological distinction rather than a moral one. In the case of the latter, I would respect his view but disagree with it. Morally, I (mostly) agree with you. My beliefs re: human compassion have been made quite clear by my posting history.

I hope this clarifies my position. Peace.

Actually! Funny story! I was just reading an article on the BBC news website www.bbc.co.uk about how rejection activates the same part of the brain that physical pain does - so yeah, words do literally hurt!

New York Times: Rejection May Hurt More than Feelings

reply to post by AceWombat04

Your position is clear.
In your post you forgot to answer my questions, here are some more from your last post:

1)Why would you “ attempt to delineate the nature of said effect of words?”
2) How are "words" that you now say are “an ontological entity”, in isolation?
3) Do you thinks the word processing (without the word)causes the hurt, how can it ? As without itself to be processed there would/could be no reaction.

Its key here that the capacity for control of our unconscious memories and responses/ reactions/emotions to words has not been gained by human beings at this time.
That is the process right here right now.
Telling people words don’t hurt is just a free pass for bullies to not to learn self restraint and to keep hurting people with their insulting negative words.

IM who in his argument words are disconnectedness from both the speaker and its meaning thought the hearer should block processing the insults and so not have the words hurt.

You can use semantics till the cows come home ( moral, ontological )it only complicates, it detracts from the argument which is that the words we use can hurt other. You don't think so as you like LM's intellectual ontological argument. You think words don't hurt.
Its not moral, its not ontological, words can hurt and the speaker not the hearer is responsible for his words.
You have already made your position clear to all, you like IM’s clever “ontological argument” bully’s insulting words don’t hurt it’s the hearers problem that he/she understands what the words mean.
That we can talk about bully’s insulting words without the bully giving birth to them and tell the depressed people that hear insults not to attach meaning to the bully’s words. If bully’s victims do process the words and feel hurt it was because it’s depressed/vulnerable human beings responsibility to “exercise voluntary influence over her/his emotional response to words.

reply to post by AceWombat04

Thanks for offering an unbiased look. You've compressed the thread into what it should have resulted in.

I agree with everything you say. I also agree with your outlook on my position. I believe that I've been simply arguing a point to prove a single argument, and may have overlooked many of the ideas you shared. This is when debate and dialectic becomes important, and I appreciate your reasoning about the topic.

I too am guilty of everything I've pointed out in regards to responding to words, so I am unable to entirely discount the correlation between words and their emotional responses. It was only my aim to dispel the myth about being powerless against words, and to maybe alter the perspectives of those who dwell on words and their meanings, thereby making it a part of them, which we have all done far too often.

Maybe we should pose new questions. Any ideas?

Originally posted by BDBinc
You have already made your position clear to all, you like IM’s clever “ontological argument” bully’s insulting words don’t hurt it’s the hearers problem that he/she understands what the words mean.
That we can talk about bully’s insulting words without the bully giving birth to them and tell the depressed people that hear insults not to attach meaning to the bully’s words. If bully’s victims do process the words and feel hurt it was because it’s depressed/vulnerable human beings responsibility to “exercise voluntary influence over her/his emotional response to words.

Well, with that, given that you are now asserting my holding of a position I have qualitatively denied holding...

Originally posted by AceWombat04 - I do not agree with or advocate bullying, verbal abuse, intentionally insulting or offensive use of words, etc. And on the basis of the arguments I've made in the above posts, I also don't agree that it is always possible (or even necessarily desirable) to consciously mediate emotional response to words.

...

That doesn't mean I believe they can't be or aren't part of a larger process that does and that people should not act with compassion when choosing their words.

...

This should not be construed as me arguing that this capacity is the same for everyone, that I believe people should or must or even would be better off necessarily, exercising said capacity. As someone whose mental status often outright prevents me from exercising said influence, it would be absurd for me to argue that.

(Emphasis added.)

...I am going to bow out as nothing further can come from my participation in this topic that is productive or of contribution to anyone here, myself included.

For the record, I absolutely do not believe what you just asserted I do. I apologize if in some manner I created that false impression.

Peace.

reply to post by Surfrat


Verbally?
Because if it was its his own fault for hearing the words.

reply to post by AceWombat04


But you forgot to answer the questions!!

Looks like the discussion has progressed without me, but I want to bring it back to emotional pain for a moment. Many of you put forth definitions of emotional pain, and I would like to sum up the definition as "mental suffering," of which there are many different kinds including sadness, grief, mourning, and depression.

This definition hits the spot; in common language this is exactly how we use emotional pain. If you translate "emotional pain" to Japansese, I do not think they have an exact translation for "emotional pain," but they do have a phrase to describe mental suffering.

However, the existence of mental suffering does not guarantee the existence of emotional pain.

When we do not want to specifically refer to a specific type of emotional pain like sadness or depression, we settle for calling it emotional pain. It is similar to the concept of "hooking up," when someone says they "hooked up" with someone it can mean a number of different things including making out, oral sex, or sex... but "hooking up" in itself is not a tangible thing, it is just an umbrella category for several actions. Similarly, emotional pain is an umbrella category for subordinate feelings like sorrow, depression, and grief... it is defined by the feelings that fall under its umbrella.

Let us analyze the concept of suffering. I will start with physical suffering. You can be suffering physically from hunger, yet hunger does not strike me as an example of pain. You can be suffering physically from exhaustion, yet exhaustion does not strike me as an example of pain. Next, mental suffering. You can be suffering mentally from sorrow, or depression, or grief, yet these do not strike me as examples of pain. Why should examples of mental suffering qualify as pain, while examples of physical suffering do not?

It seems the Japanese are right to not have a word for emotional pain, because while mental suffering exists, it does not seem to be the same thing as "emotional pain."

If you reject that feelings like sorrow, depression, and grief cause pain, then you erase the existence of "emotional pain." If you accept that mental suffering is pain, it should follow that all forms of physical suffering to include hunger, thirst, and exhaustion are pain. How can you explain this?

Yes thanks for offering IM your subjective (but in your own words biased )look at 'DO words hurt?'
At least now IM can see a correlation between words and their emotional responses.
Before your agreement with his "ontological" argument he did not see any connections.

Originally posted by BDBinc
reply to post by AceWombat04

 

But you forgot to answer the questions!!

True. Apologies.

1)Why would you “ attempt to delineate the nature of said effect of words?”

My intent was to encourage participants in the discussion - for instance, as LesMisanthrope now has in his reply to me - to at least consider that they may have been ignoring certain facets of the issue thus focusing on semantics more than points.

2) How are "words" that you now say are “an ontological entity”, in isolation?

I don't hold that they are, and I never did. And that was my point, as I said:

He seems to be (not is, necessarily) making a purely ontological argument with respect to words in isolation. I on the other hand am trying to express a more holistic context - as are you, it seems - which includes that entire process

3) Do you thinks the word processing (without the word)causes the hurt, how can it ? As without itself to be processed there would/could be no reaction.

Again,

the fact that emotional pain can and does arise in relation to words means that words in that context are ipso facto related to the emotional pain via said process. When emotional pain occurs in relation to words, words are not in isolation. They are part of that broader context and that process.

Two different things were being discussed in my posts. 1: Words when considered on the purely intellectual level as an isolated ontological entity (which I suspected might be LM's argument.) And 2: words in practical reality, where in my opinion they are by necessity "hooked into" the broader process, inextricably. (My argument and, in a sense, yours.)

That is, regardless of whether a person is individually capable of consciously blunting or even muting the emotional response to words, they are ipso facto related to the larger process in which they take part... including the pain that can arise. They are, as you said, connected. I never disputed this relationship. I argued for its existence. I tried to reframe his argument; I didn't agree with it, except in the extremely strict context I have tried to express multiple times now. Saying that if in isolation an entity is not the cause of an effect is not equal to saying that that entity is in isolation, or that it must be.

Peace.

reply to post by BDBinc

Yes thanks for offering IM your subjective (but in your own words biased )look at 'DO words hurt?'
At least now IM can see a correlation between words and their emotional responses.
Before your agreement with his "ontological" argument he did not see any connections.

Sorry Kid. I acknowledged this on the 2nd or 3rd page of the thread. I have expressed many times that because there is a correlation it does not imply that words are the cause. You're still making stuff up here. Grab a dictionary, and figure out what I'm talking about first.

correlation |ˌkôrəˈlāSHən|
noun
a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things: research showed a clear correlation between recession and levels of property crime.
• Statistics interdependence of variable quantities.
• Statistics a quantity measuring the extent of such interdependence.
• the process of establishing a relationship or connection between two or more measures.

cause |kôz|
noun
1 a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition: the cause of the accident is not clear.
• reasonable grounds for doing, thinking, or feeling something: Faye's condition had given no cause for concern | [ with infinitive ] : the government had good cause to avoid war | class size is a cause for complaint in some schools.
2 a principle, aim, or movement that, because of a deep commitment, one is prepared to defend or advocate: she devoted her life to the cause of deaf people | I'm raising money for a good cause .
3 a matter to be resolved in a court of law.
• an individual's case offered at law.

You can also respond to me directly instead of the passive aggressiveness.

reply to post by Wang Tang


It all comes down to one's specific neurological, physiological, and psychological responses to stimuli.

This is why the semantic argument is so pointless - psychological and physiological affectation cannot be identical between any two people. We see similarities in how the brain processes stimuli, but specific levels of hormones, neurotransmitters, chemicals, &c are different for each person.

Each of us perceives the world differently than anyone else on the planet because each of us has different experiences, genetics, thoughts, understandings of the world, and very personalized beliefs about our place in relation to the rest of the inhabitants of Earth.

Hunger can be painful - contractions in the stomach are painful to some people. Their brains react to the contractions with a "pain response", which can be perceived by an onlooker simply by viewing the subject's non-verbal language: doubled over, hand on stomach, eyes squinted, down turned mouth, forehead contracted, etc.

We do not need to look at an fMRI to understand that someone in this position is feeling pain. We, as humans, are programmed from birth to understand non-verbal cues of other humans. However, if we looked at an fMRI at the time of the subject's stomach contractions, we would see unquestionable proof that the subject's brain is interpreting those contractions in the way an fMRI reading records "pain".

This is where the term "hunger pang" comes from - some people feel pain from hunger. The term could not exist if there was not a source for this experience.

One can argue that since s/he does not feel "pain" from hunger that "hunger pains" do not exist. But, it is not fair to project that upon every other human, saying, "I do not feel hunger pains, so no human can feel hunger pains." We can only speak from and about our own experiences. We are limited and blinded by our own arrogance, "I know this as fact and truth because I've experienced this as fact and truth."

And so, mental suffering exists at varied levels for varied humans because humans are existential beings - we understand existence through our personal experiences. We can process past, present, and future emotions. We can perceive past, present, and future events. We speculate, we associate, we remember, we compensate, we grieve, we rage, we fear, we stagnate, we rejoice, we ponder, we understand, we misunderstand; above all we exist. We experience, we experiment, we exist.

If a word exists in a vacuum, does it have a meaning?

Can words exist without humans?

When a word is spoken, does the meaning of the word change between the brain of the speaker and the brain of the listener?

If a word falls in a forest, does it make a sound?