Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

"Similarly, deciding to promote value-free language is also a matter of choice, and a rather bad choice in my opinion."

Are we doing that, promoting value-free language? If so, do you base that statement on our attitude towards the use of one word? If that's the case, I believe you might be making an invalid assumption there.

Regards,
John the logic n***

[coledavis]

Well, my elders used to call it having 'taste'.

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

My elders used to tell me this: "De gustibus non est disputandem."

(I'm a lot older than I look )

One man's meat is another man's poison.

Regards,
John

[coledavis]

Indeed it is. Take a look at the media crisis raging in the UK at the moment. The desire to say whatever one likes and to hear trivia and nonsense of very little value is not just causing corruption, it is debasing a society's values.

So, yes, do be aware that what you think is just a bit of fun may be poison indeed.

Ok, back down memory lane. There was a television figure called Alf Garnett - who became Archie Bunker in the USA, I believe - who was created in order to make bigots a figure of fun. Racism and male hauvinism were to be debunked. Unfortunately for the creator of the television series (Johnny Speight), many people apparently did not get the point. In fact, I can remember a bigot or two actually responding to his rants and saying "yes, he's right".

Sorry, but 'having a laugh' is not always a victimless activity.

And as for 'value-free language' - if you use words in ways which distort perspective (in blander terms, one example is using hyperbole for the middling) - then you are making it harder for people to think logically (ok, I admit I belong to the body of thinkers who oppose relativism).

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

"Take a look at the media crisis raging in the UK at the moment. The desire to say whatever one likes and to hear trivia and nonsense of very little value is not just causing corruption, it is debasing a society's values."

But what does a society "value?" If the marketplace is used as an indicator of what people want, those providing "trivia and nonsense of very little value" (question: is there nonsense of any value?) are giving people what they want, what they "value."

Regarding Archie Bunker, do you really think that show changed anyone's would view? I rather doubt any racist had a "on the road to Damascus" moment when he suddenly realized the error of his prejudices thanks to Archie.

So was the show bad - because it provided laughs at the expense of racists?

"And as for 'value-free language' - if you use words in ways which distort perspective (in blander terms, one example is using hyperbole for the middling) - then you are making it harder for people to think logically (ok, I admit I belong to the body of thinkers who oppose relativism)."

Any evidence of that? Or is it just an opinion? And when you say "value-free," I suppose what you may mean is free of what you value, right?

Regards,
John

[coledavis]

But what does a society "value?" If the marketplace is used as an indicator of what people want, those providing "trivia and nonsense of very little value" (question: is there nonsense of any value?) are giving people what they want, what they "value."
The marketplace, as judged by Murdoch, gives people what they want but don't necessarily need. However, I think marketers do not merely reflect society. They create desire, by coming out with more extreme versions of what is already available. 'New products'. Isn't there a limit to populism?

So was the show bad - because it provided laughs at the expense of racists? Bad? In terms of intention, definitely not. My point was that not everybody got the joke and it rather reinforced views; it also introduced a new generation to various terms of abuse.


"And as for 'value-free language' - if you use words in ways which distort perspective (in blander terms, one example is using hyperbole for the middling) - then you are making it harder for people to think logically (ok, I admit I belong to the body of thinkers who oppose relativism)."

Any evidence of that? Or is it just an opinion? And when you say "value-free," I suppose what you may mean is free of what you value, right?

Taking the last point first. No, I'm sure you realise really that I don't just happen to see values as what I think right or wrong. Not that one shouldn't have 'values' in the ethical sense. Here, I mean the existence of clear ideas, concepts which can be distinguished one from another. The argument against relativism is that people can just say that any idea - no matter how pernicious or poorly supported by evidence - should be equally deserving of respect and should not be evaluated in terms of its usefulness or desirability. And this opposition to relativism is not some form of right wing oppression; the likes of George Orwell and Evelyn Waugh who would have very little in common opposed relativism because of its deleterious effect on clarity of thought (which is where I came in).

Relating to evidence. You're right, this is more difficult to pin down. Indeed, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, of restricted language constricting thought, has its detractors. I would still put it to you that you will hear many people at work using managerial cliches who have become mentally lazy and have closed their minds to the issues under discussion. You will also note the work of PR companies writing longwinded gobbledygook; this is not done for fun..

Advertising works - the evidence is in the marketplace you cite as a measure of what people 'want' - and its main job is to provide language and associations to sell products. I almost used the adjective 'suitable' for the language used but this would have been a mistake. Shampoos and cosmetics contain ingredients with pseudo-medical names. Products are sold alongside beautiful models; again conflation of ideas is intended, with the underlying intention to mislead. If you buy this you will look like the model or will attract said model.

In a wider sense, look at the continued acceptance of ideas which have been disproven time and time again. Homeopathy, for example. Remember, by the way, one can not prove something; an experiment works out whether or not the 'null hypothesis' can be accepted (randomness or external factor predominance. In spite of the evidence, persistent chatter without clarity does lead to people being swayed towards illogicality. And this does do harm.

Your clever comments notwithstanding, I do truly believe that this 'do whatever you like' philosophy, shorn of reference to values - actual measurements and distinguishable concepts - is not harmless.

For those who wish to explore this through philosophy, you could consider Ryle, who discusses 'category error'. Ryle considered unwarranted beliefs to the result of improper thinking about categories. Good philosophy according to Ryle is a matter of adopting a proper theory of categories.

This brings us back to language, some may be relieved to hear. Logic and the philosophy of language are related. Questions include
What constitutes "good" or "bad" reasoning?
How do we determine whether a given piece of reasoning is good or bad?
What does it mean that a statement has meaning?
What is the difference between literal and figurative meanings?

Note that there philosophy has values such as 'good' and 'bad', yes, values in the sense that you imbued them with. I prefer, at least in the context of our discussion, objective versus illogical, socially damaging versus innocuous, clear versus unclear. In my opinion, clear categorisation is a virture.

[coledavis]

But what does a society "value?" If the marketplace is used as an indicator of what people want, those providing "trivia and nonsense of very little value" (question: is there nonsense of any value?) are giving people what they want, what they "value."
The marketplace, as judged by Murdoch, gives people what they want but don't necessarily need. However, I think marketers do not merely reflect society. They create desire, by coming out with more extreme versions of what is already available. 'New products'. Isn't there a limit to populism?

So was the show bad - because it provided laughs at the expense of racists? Bad? In terms of intention, definitely not. My point was that not everybody got the joke and it rather reinforced views; it also introduced a new generation to various terms of abuse.


"And as for 'value-free language' - if you use words in ways which distort perspective (in blander terms, one example is using hyperbole for the middling) - then you are making it harder for people to think logically (ok, I admit I belong to the body of thinkers who oppose relativism)."

Any evidence of that? Or is it just an opinion? And when you say "value-free," I suppose what you may mean is free of what you value, right?

Taking the last point first. No, I'm sure you realise really that I don't just happen to see values as what I think right or wrong. Not that one shouldn't have 'values' in the ethical sense. Here, I mean the existence of clear ideas, concepts which can be distinguished one from another. The argument against relativism is that people can just say that any idea - no matter how pernicious or poorly supported by evidence - should be equally deserving of respect and should not be evaluated in terms of its usefulness or desirability. And this opposition to relativism is not some form of right wing oppression; the likes of George Orwell and Evelyn Waugh who would have very little in common opposed relativism because of its deleterious effect on clarity of thought (which is where I came in).

Relating to evidence. You're right, this is more difficult to pin down. Indeed, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, of restricted language constricting thought, has its detractors. I would still put it to you that you will hear many people at work using managerial cliches who have become mentally lazy and have closed their minds to the issues under discussion. You will also note the work of PR companies writing longwinded gobbledygook; this is not done for fun..

Advertising works - the evidence is in the marketplace you cite as a measure of what people 'want' - and its main job is to provide language and associations to sell products. I almost used the adjective 'suitable' for the language used but this would have been a mistake. Shampoos and cosmetics contain ingredients with pseudo-medical names. Products are sold alongside beautiful models; again conflation of ideas is intended, with the underlying intention to mislead. If you buy this you will look like the model or will attract said model.

In a wider sense, look at the continued acceptance of ideas which have been disproven time and time again. Homeopathy, for example. Remember, by the way, one can not prove something; an experiment works out whether or not the 'null hypothesis' can be accepted (randomness or external factor predominance. In spite of the evidence, persistent chatter without clarity does lead to people being swayed towards illogicality. And this does do harm.

Your clever comments notwithstanding, I do truly believe that this 'do whatever you like' philosophy, shorn of reference to values - actual measurements and distinguishable concepts - is not harmless.

For those who wish to explore this through philosophy, you could consider Ryle, who discusses 'category error'. Ryle considered unwarranted beliefs to the result of improper thinking about categories. Good philosophy according to Ryle is a matter of adopting a proper theory of categories.

This brings us back to language, some may be relieved to hear. Logic and the philosophy of language are related. Questions include
What constitutes "good" or "bad" reasoning?
How do we determine whether a given piece of reasoning is good or bad?
What does it mean that a statement has meaning?
What is the difference between literal and figurative meanings?

Note that here, some philosophers can be considered to have values such as 'good' and 'bad', yes, values in the sense that you imbued them with. I prefer, at least in the context of our discussion, objective versus illogical, socially damaging versus innocuous, clear versus unclear. In my opinion, clear categorisation is a virtue.

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

"They create desire, by coming out with more extreme versions of what is already available. 'New products'. Isn't there a limit to populism?"

Ah, the chicken or the egg - personally, I think that the desire for such things is already present and that the marketplace recognizes that and "mines" it.

"My point was that not everybody got the joke and it rather reinforced views; it also introduced a new generation to various terms of abuse."

So, on balance, did the show have a "bad" format or a "good" one? And do you think such shows actually alter any viewer's opinions/prejudices?

"No, I'm sure you realise really that I don't just happen to see values as what I think right or wrong. Not that one shouldn't have 'values' in the ethical sense. Here, I mean the existence of clear ideas, concepts which can be distinguished one from another."

You've lost me here - if I understand correctly, you seem to be saying that "value-free language" doesn't refer to "values." and that your values don't reflect what you see as "right and wrong." If that's what you mean, we certainly disagree because when I value such qualities as integrity and honesty, I believe they are the right way to act and that acting in a way that contradicts those values is wrong.

I don't think that EVERY idea is equally worthy of respect, but I do think that the evaluation of ideas depends on one's subjective "values." If an idea violates one's values, one would not respect it. The problem, of course, is subjectivity - the ideas that you respect and value may not be the same ones that I do. So, who decides which of our ideas are "righter?"

" . . . you will hear many people at work using managerial cliches who have become mentally lazy and have closed their minds to the issues under discussion. You will also note the work of PR companies writing longwinded gobbledygook; this is not done for fun.."

We're back to the chicken and the egg. Do people use such cliches because they're mentally lazy to begin with (my view) or does using such cliches make them mentally lazy (which I think may be your view.)

And the PR companies - presumably the gobbledygook they write has the desired effect since otherwise those companies wouldn't last long. So, does the gobbledegook cause the consumer response or have the companies correctly evaluated the "values" of their audience?

I think it may be part of our job as language educators to teach our students to think critically because that facility is not innate (I think) and not something that many/most people can achieve only through their own efforts.

The danger here is that we, as teachers, are almost inevitably going to promote our OWN values upon our students, and while (of course) I don't have a problem with that since I know MY values are clearly the CORRECT ones, what about all those other teachers out there whose values differ from (and may even be totally opposed to) mine?

So instead of or in addition to "relativism" and "absolutism," could the bedrock of this discussion also be concerned with "subjectivity" and "objectivity?"

Regards,
John

[coledavis]

So instead of or in addition to "relativism" and "absolutism," could the bedrock of this discussion also be concerned with "subjectivity" and "objectivity?"

Either are possible, perhaps depending upon one's viewpoint!

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

OK - now would you tell me how anyone can be objective about his/her own values, ideas, opinions, beliefs, etc?

I'd like to imagine I can be objective about what's in my head, but the voices in my head tell me I can't be.

Regards,
John

[coledavis]

OK - now would you tell me how anyone can be objective about his/her own values, ideas, opinions, beliefs, etc?
Whilst one must seek to approach objectivity in how one observes the outside world (cf Orwell's interesting discussion in Homage to Catalonia), this is clearly not applicable to our internal worlds. Even psychometrics and brain scans, useful things that they are, only give us a reflection of some refined aspects.

However, as I am sure you will have experienced, some people are more honest - with themselves as well as with others - and others are more inclined to be deception and self-deception. Even leaving aside intellectual dishonesty, many individuals are handicapped by poor or lazy thinking - the more we can avoid what Ryle called category error, the less we are inclined to mix concepts.

We should try to be clear about what we mean by particular terms (which is why I have been willing to clarify what I have said when asked to do so - like the rest of us, I am not perfectly accurate in what I write). In doing so, then we assist objectivity in how we think and how we convey our thoughts to others.

Which brings me back to Nazis and people we misleadingly refer to in such a way. When we refer to people we dislike as Nazis, we tend to diminish the concept. Depending upon our and others' knowledge of Nazis and national socialism, we thus run the risk of blurring our own or their understandings of the world.

So, perhaps relativism versus clarity of concept (absolutism is as you know is weighted by political connotations) rather than subjectivity versus objectivity.

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

"Which brings me back to Nazis and people we misleadingly refer to in such a way. When we refer to people we dislike as Nazis, we tend to diminish the concept. Depending upon our and others' knowledge of Nazis and national socialism, we thus run the risk of blurring our own or their understandings of the world."

Let me ask you - has your concept of the term Nazi been diminished by what you see as the improper use of the word?

I've thought about it, and I would have to say that mine has not been. I have no difficulty separating the "real Nazis" from the "figurative Nazis" in my mind. The fact that some people talk about "grammar Nazis," "language Nazis," etc. has made my concept of the real Nazis no less despicable and horrible.

But that's just my subjective reaction ; I'd be interested in learning whether there are those who believe the opposite.

"So, perhaps relativism versus clarity of concept (absolutism is as you know is weighted by political connotations) rather than subjectivity versus objectivity."

Absolutism may be "weighed by political considerations," but I would hardly consider that word to be a synonym for "clarity of concept." I'm afraid you may be guilty of "meaning manipulation" here (similar to your calling the figurative use of the word Nazi "value-free language.") I doubt that you would agree were I to redefine the framework of the discussion as "individual truth versus imposed opinion."

Regards,
John

[coledavis]

You are quite right. I certainly don't agree.

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

I'm glad you don't like to see meaning manipulated like that; neither do I.

And my first question - has your concept of the term Nazi been diminished by what you see as the improper use of the word?

Regards,
John

[coledavis]

My concept has not been affected. However, this response should be taken in context: I am well-read and am highly educated. Your question should really be about the likely perceptions of the average person.

My experience of the world suggests that plenty of people make judgements based upon received wisdom. In this particular case, pickiness and general oppression are conflated with Nazism. While these attributes were certainly there, they are not key attributes.

It is maybe a sign of lessening appreciation of Nazism's overall contributions to the world that the grandchildren of Soviet war veterans now celebrate Hitler as well as fascism in general and, yes, the apparently primarily Christian-oriented Norwegian mass murderer is able to consider similar methods to Hitler's (violence towards political opponents, racial segregation, etc) without being seen, or considering himself, to be of the same realm of political thought.