Do Words Hurt?

reply to post by ottobot


He doesn't want to accept that words hurt.

reply to post by BDBinc

So why keep denying the effect of thoughts communicated by words to feeling beings? It only helps the bully, it does not do anything to empower the bully’s victim, it just denys their feelings and makes the wrong the bully is doing seem like it’s the fault of the hearer of their thoughts.

If the bully knows words hurt, he will use them. If the bully knows words don't hurt, he won't use them.

You're guilty of giving the bully power where he should have none. You're also guilty of saying the bullied persons are incapable of overcoming what is said about them.

Saying a bad word to someone is like turning on a switch with the person saying the bad word being the one who turns on the switch. No different that say when a person meets a person they are attracted to and realize they feel the same way.

The words "I hate you" or I love you" (for example) activate parts of the brain which, by themselves and without the conscious aspects yet relating; begins processing the information.

Hormones are released and in the brain? Chemical messengers like serotonin (in the case of an insult) get released into the conscious mind with all this happening in 10ths of seconds and potentially faster.

The issues is that these responses fall into the category of autonomic responses. And just because a person decides he or she will always ignore such things, those process's still occur. Suppressing such feelings without an appropriate outlet and even if one applies one, can still have a profound effect upon the health of the body.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


I would agree that something within the brain is the cause.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Kashai

 

I would agree that something within the brain is the cause.

I would argue that the word is the cause for the brain to react the way it does and without the word, the autonomic responses would have never occurred.

Starting a car requires a conscious effort and until someone does the car is off.

These responses occur when love and hate are involved and verbal and non-verbal behavior activate them in no different a way than starting a car.

reply to post by Kashai

I would argue that the word is the cause for the brain to react the way it does and without the word, the autonomic responses would have never occurred.

I would argue that the brain processing the data into information is the cause. Outside the mind, words are like all sensual stimulus—merely data.

Starting a car requires a conscious effort and until someone does the car is off.

Exactly, the key is not the cause of cars starting.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Kashai

 

I would argue that the word is the cause for the brain to react the way it does and without the word, the autonomic responses would have never occurred.

I would argue that the brain processing the data into information is the cause. Outside the mind, words are like all sensual stimulus—merely data.

Starting a car requires a conscious effort and until someone does the car is off.

Exactly, the key is not the cause of cars starting.

Asking a computer to run a program causes the program to run and without the request the program does not run. If you erase the program but keep the icon that is supposed to start it nothing happens. The icon does not work because the program is no longer available therefor the icon is useless.

Such as a word without meaning to a person.

A word without meaning to a person is like the icon of a deleted program and as such I do not see how you seem to be separating words and there meaning.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BDBinc

 

So why keep denying the effect of thoughts communicated by words to feeling beings? It only helps the bully, it does not do anything to empower the bully’s victim, it just denys their feelings and makes the wrong the bully is doing seem like it’s the fault of the hearer of their thoughts.

If the bully knows words hurt, he will use them. If the bully knows words don't hurt, he won't use them.

You're guilty of giving the bully power where he should have none. You're also guilty of saying the bullied persons are incapable of overcoming what is said about them.

I am guilty of nothing.
You are in denial that words hurt.
Why.
The bully knows words hurt .

Its an unwise idea to say that bully's words don't hurt (and then to try to blame the bully's victim for not being aware of their unconscious) and that children should have a mental capacity that you don't have.
Most of us know better and it has been proven( neurobiology ) that bully's thoughts/words can hurt the bullied.
You maybe are not aware of it but your thought /words also denies the bully's victim's feelings. Why, do you know everyone else's mental suffering and pain that you can deny it for them.

Saying that bullied persons "overcoming" the hurt of harmful thoughts and words ( that often stick with that child for life) is your exposition that you acknowledge words hurt. .
Well done.

reply to post by Kashai

Asking a computer to run a program causes the program to run and without the request the program does not run. If you erase the program but keep the icon that is supposed to start it nothing happens. The icon does not work because the program is no longer available therefor the icon is useless.

We are nothing like computers. There's a whole literature on computers, language and "thinking".

A word without meaning to a person is like the icon of a deleted program and as such I do not see how you seem to be separating words and [their] meaning.

The meaning is in the person who understands the word. I believe I've said this at least once a page.

reply to post by BDBinc

Most of us know better and it has been proven( neurobiology ) that bully's thoughts/words can hurt the bullied.

Where? This I have to see.

Saying that bullied persons "overcoming" the hurt of harmful thoughts and words ( that often stick with that child for life) is your exposition that you acknowledge words hurt. .
Well done.

I acknowledged a thousand times in this thread that people are superstitious of words. You are a fine example. So yes, I acknowledge your credulity, and the special powers you give words.

Do you still believe that the meaning is somehow floating in the word?

Look up a definition of words: A speech sound or series of speech sounds that communicates a meaning.
Though you choose to separate the meaning from the words it is not the case.
You have disassociated thoughts/words from their meaning.

You want to SEE feelings?
As far as seeing- someone provided you with MRI's (neurobiological brain scans) . As your idea of seeing feelings is more the neurology than philosophy. You know you can't see everything.

In truth nothing is disassociated, the speaker of hurtful thoughts/words hurts himself by hurting .
Hurtful and hateful thoughts/words hurt.
You know this you still deny the experience of it .
I can see its pointless and I will not keep "bothering" .

reply to post by BDBinc

Hurtful and hateful thoughts/words hurt.

word |wərd|
noun
a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
• a single distinct conceptual unit of language, comprising inflected and variant forms.
• (usu. words) something that someone says or writes; a remark or piece of information: his grandfather's words had been meant kindly | a word of warning.
• speech as distinct from action: he conforms in word and deed to the values of a society that he rejects.
• [ with negative ] (a word) even the smallest amount of something spoken or written: don't believe a word of it.
• (one's word) a person's account of the truth, esp. when it differs from that of another person: in court it would have been his word against mine.
• (one's word) a promise or assurance: everything will be taken care of—you have my word.
• (words) the text or spoken part of a play, opera, or other performed piece; a script: he had to learn his words.
• (words) angry talk: her father would have had words with her about that.
• a message; news: I was afraid to leave Washington in case there was word from the office.
• a command, password, or motto: someone gave me the word to start playing.
• a basic unit of data in a computer, typically 16 or 32 bits long.

Don't worry, you are not alone. Everyone is superstitious in one degree or another.

By the way, I respect your views and what you're trying to get across, we just disagree on some small insignificance of something greater. Language is shown not to be merely a communicative tool, but something fundamental to thought and creativity. It should be critiqued in all its forms, to how we use it and how we react to it. However, we are not ruled by it.

has anyone mentioned that words mostly hurt:
children, women and liberals??

just thought i would put this out there.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Kashai

 

Asking a computer to run a program causes the program to run and without the request the program does not run. If you erase the program but keep the icon that is supposed to start it nothing happens. The icon does not work because the program is no longer available therefor the icon is useless.

We are nothing like computers. There's a whole literature on computers, language and "thinking".

A word without meaning to a person is like the icon of a deleted program and as such I do not see how you seem to be separating words and [their] meaning.

The meaning is in the person who understands the word. I believe I've said this at least once a page.

edit on 17-5-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

LM that is a perfectly good analogy to what goes on and then of course there are the issues of religion

I could not possibly agree with what you are saying as it makes little sense.

Peace

reply to post by Kashai

I could not possibly agree with what you are saying as it makes little sense.

People acquire meaning throughout their lifetime as they continue to experience and remember their experience. This is why we are not born with a fully developed language—we simply don't know the words and their connections. We must first learn them through experience, trial and error, and habitual use. If the meaning was in the word and acquired from the word, merely presenting the word would endow a child with its meaning, which is an absurd notion.

Instead, the word must be associated with the world. For instance, if I teach my child the word "cow", it would be best to take him to a farm and show him what a cow is to associate the word to what it represents. Once doing so, the child comes to an understanding about what the word "cow" means. The word "cow" itself did not and could not give the child its meaning.

When someone speaks to us in a language we don't understand, it is, once again, because we don't have the words and their associated meanings within our knowledge to understand them. Once we acquire that knowledge, we then carry with us the meaning and the knowledge about the words that meaning is associated, so that when we hear them, we can understand what the speaker is trying to convey by referring to our own understanding of those words.

In this sense, the meaning is not in the word (an absurd concept), but the word requires us to refer to our own understanding in order for it to make any sense, thereby making the meaning of symbols, or what ideas they refer to, completely within the one who is understanding the words. This is why opinions differ, why there are different faiths, why words mean different things in different dialects, and why words hurt some and not others, because every time one must refer to his own meaning, created by one's own experience, which is entirely different than anyone else's.

Does this make a little more sense?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

That does sound awfully close to semiotics and the structuralist division between the sign and the signified.

That division between the sound and lettering/arbitrary meaning would eventually lead us to political correctness.

The endless signified offenses attached to any sign become not only possible but manifest.

Hence, even politically correct terms have to be reworked to become even more politically correct, before they take on the "offensive" meaning of the original term.

There are certain concepts that cause problems - take for example - "psychoanalysis" - you might just be talking to someone and being yourself - and they throw you a series of "imposing" remarks based on a "scientific" assumption of "normality" that you yourself has most likely been exposed to as well. This "pressure" makes you question who you are when in the presence of someone else - however, when you are alone - you are you, and when you are really alone - you always feel comfortable in your own skin.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Words have no meaning but that what you give them. SO yes, words can inflict pain both mentally and physically. It all just depends what and if you apply any meaning what so ever to said words.

galadofwarthethird
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

galadofwarthethird
Words have no meaning but that what you give them. SO yes, words can inflict pain both mentally and physically. It all just depends what and if you apply any meaning what so ever to said words.

Words are unopened fragrent flowers, origami paperfolds, when unfolded could yield thorns or majick. They are our only resourse beyond telepathy. Words hold great meaning of all things as can be so sublime in texture expression to cause joy or have the capability of bulldozing of anothers soul. Its the implied suggestion that is so mysterious; these things are blatant when a combined understanding of one mind meets another mind and misunderstanding can be a problem. The more precise or the delicacy in which the thought is transmitted then transmutted/transformed is the majick; indescribable when it works; Shakespeare and John Donne taught me these things. Linear Abstraction works but can be misunderstood; for at times means directly the opposite of (and in so doing amplifies intent) of said words, satire, ironisisms, sardonic throwaways (never ever sarcasm as that has the tendency to wound unfairly/unjustly).