Philosophy Now Forum

marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:29 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:24 pm Name a situation and you can come up with lots of appropriate and inappropriate words.

Of course, but then it gets too busy for words.
Non-verbal communication complications.

Let’s say you’re in church, if you’re a church goer.
- Inappropriate words, according to that situation, would be blasphemous words.
- So, if one would stand up and shout those words, that would be bad.
- Most everyone knows those bad words, in that situation.
- It need not be spelled out in words.

The question is, is there ever a situation when such words are good?
- The answer may not necessarily involve intent, seeing as folks who use such words just might have good intent, given a true apprehension of a particular situation.
- For instance, one might be shouting some variation of “take me now Jesus ‘cause I can’t stand no more goodness!”
- Depending on the situation, this shout could be defined as good words or bad words.

Intention is prime.
As is the interpretation of the speech act.
Some might judge the exclamation 'Holy Fucking Christ' to be 'inappropriate'. The words in and of themselves are not bad or good.

marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:49 pm Intention is prime.
As is the interpretation of the speech act.
Some might judge the exclamation 'Holy Fucking Christ' to be 'inappropriate'. The words in and of themselves are not bad or good.

Conceptually elaborating the concrete:

Gratuitous blasphemy is actually inappropriate in practically all situations. Thus, baaad.
(keyword, gratuitous)

Appropriate uses of blasphemy, other than in heartfelt and emotional (not habitual) losses of control, would be as a goad to prod the attachment to religious beliefs in the other, in order to purposefully deconstruct attachment to belief.

If one is psychologically attacking another, then blasphemy could be a tactic to disorient the other through their emotional attachments to their religious belief. The attacker may consider this to be for the good of the other, thus would define their own intent as good.

However, unless the user is a licensed inspector, then the the assumption of such a role is nothing short of arrogance caused by a bloated ego, the presence of which is a good situation to induce expanded apprehension for those challenged by the surety of bad actions caused by good intent.

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:08 pm

marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:49 pm Intention is prime.
As is the interpretation of the speech act.
Some might judge the exclamation 'Holy Fucking Christ' to be 'inappropriate'. The words in and of themselves are not bad or good.

Conceptually elaborating the concrete:

Gratuitous blasphemy is actually inappropriate in practically all situations. Thus, baaad.
(keyword, gratuitous)

Appropriate uses of blasphemy, other than in heartfelt and emotional (not habitual) losses of control, would be as a goad to prod the attachment to religious beliefs in the other, in order to purposefully deconstruct attachment to belief.

If one is psychologically attacking another, then blasphemy could be a tactic to disorient the other through their emotional attachments to their religious belief. The attacker may consider this to be for the good of the other, thus would define their own intent as good.

However, unless the user is a licensed inspector, then the the assumption of such a role is nothing short of arrogance caused by a bloated ego, the presence of which is a good situation to induce expanded apprehension for those challenged by the surety of bad actions caused by good intent.

I think you are begging the question or using circular reasoning. Assuming the truth of the conclusion in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow.
Blasphemy is inappropriate, so it is bad.

The actual symbol of a word [ X] is neither good or bad in itself.

marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 1:43 pm Blasphemy is inappropriate, so it is bad.

Sometimes it's appropriate.

Depends on the situation.

OK. I meant 'blasphemy' itself already has the connotation of 'bad' .
But never mind, I'm now officially exhausted.
Thanks for the chat - all good

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:38 am Bad is defined as inappropriate to a particular situation.

“When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better. ”
― Mae West

My nieces age 6 and 7 asked,

"Auntie AS, why do people cuss?"


"Cuz it's fun."

Seleucus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:45 am Unfortunately when we make a big fuss about a world like sh1t or f6ck or b1tch or n1gger we are actually reinforcing the power system that word is a part of. I reinforce disciplinarianism, patriarchy, sexism, and racism when I try to repress these words, I acknowledge their power. By that I mean to be objective about a process of how words and their tabooing and power systems work, I'm not trying to say something moral like discipline, patriarchy, sexuality, and racism are bad things.

I'm a bit confused as to what you're saying here. By not using these words, you're concerned you're making them more powerful by increasing their perception of racism, sexism etc. But you also don't think racism, sexism, etc are bad things?

I recently saw a Louis CK standup act which conveys a thought I've had for a while on the censorship of swearing. It's pretty explicit, so trigger warning I guess, in case the mods give me an issue over it. He mostly focuses on the 'N-word' (quite literally) but I feel it's pretty applicable to other words as well. The general point is that in denoting the actual word as 'N-word' all you're doing is putting the thought of the word into the other persons head, and essentially just making them say it in their head.

In principle, this is applicable to what some of you guys are doing in this thread by saying "sh1t or f6ck or b1tch or n1gger". All these attempts to blur out what the actual word is doesn't mean you've change the meaning of what you have said. You still infer the same thing, so there shouldn't be any difference. This is even more ironic since most of the people in here would probably agree with me that quoting any word for the benefit of discussion is perfectly fine context to use any word in.

For the record, I'm going out of my way to not actually spell out 'the N-word' because I'm not sure the site would be okay with that, so maybe you guys are doing the same.

How ridiculous. Just type the damned word in and see what happens.
'n*****'.
There ya go

marjoram_blues wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:13 pm How ridiculous. Just type the damned word in and see what happens.
'n*****'.
There ya go

That looks like the spelling for, "negate."

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:30 pm

Seleucus wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:45 am Unfortunately when we make a big fuss about a world like sh1t or f6ck or b1tch or n1gger we are actually reinforcing the power system that word is a part of. I reinforce disciplinarianism, patriarchy, sexism, and racism when I try to repress these words, I acknowledge their power. By that I mean to be objective about a process of how words and their tabooing and power systems work, I'm not trying to say something moral like discipline, patriarchy, sexuality, and racism are bad things.

I'm a bit confused as to what you're saying here. By not using these words, you're concerned you're making them more powerful by increasing their perception of racism, sexism etc. But you also don't think racism, sexism, etc are bad things?

Right, when we say "don't say the N-word" or don't say the "F-word" we acknowledge and perpetuate the power of racism and patriarchy. And, right, I don't want to make a moral argument, I mean to describe the process only.

artisticsolution wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:00 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:38 am Bad is defined as inappropriate to a particular situation.

“When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better. ”
― Mae West

My nieces age 6 and 7 asked,

"Auntie AS, why do people cuss?"


"Cuz it's fun."

I was impressed by the views of Lloyd deMause and his conception of the "poison container". It seems to me that something like poison containering is an explanation for swearing.

The Child as Poison Container http://www.geocities.ws/kidhistory/poison.htm

“Heads and Tails”: Money as a Poison Center http://psychohistory.com/articles/heads ... on-center/

Seleucus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:10 am “Heads and Tails”: Money as a Poison Center http://psychohistory.com/articles/heads ... on-center/

That's an interesting article that roots charity in self-interest.

To liberate a principle from transmission static,
words must first pass through each of the three gates:
Truth, kindness, necessity,
before reaching the sound realm of physicality.

“I believe in censorship. I made a fortune out of it.”
- Mae West