Does philosophy weaponize language?
Argument is a central concept for philosophy. Philosophers rely heavily on arguments to justify claims, and these practices have been motivating reflections on what arguments and argumentation are for millennia. Moreover, argumentative practices are also pervasive elsewhere; they permeate scientific inquiry, legal procedures, education, and political institutions. SEP
Every since the dawn of creation we've used the natural world for weaponry. We've turned metal into spears, wood into staffs, and I would argue: language into combative machines. An argument is often used to justify horrible activities. A look through history and you will find arguments for slavery. link
That's not to say all arguments are bad, you can use arguments to justify wonderful things, like charity and ethics. Even still, you are using arguments to persuade others to do the "right" thing. A business man may not want to donate part of his money for charity, but he is also susceptible to being guilt ridden by a religious charity organization. "If you don't give money to charity, it means you are selfish!" Good or bad, arguments are competitive by its very nature. In my opinion, philosophy is often used as a tool to churn out arguments.
What do you think? Does philosophy weaponize our language to turn them into arguments? Do I have a point?
Every since the dawn of creation we've used the natural world for weaponry. We've turned metal into spears, wood into staffs, and I would argue: language into combative machines. An argument is often used to justify horrible activities. A look through history and you will find arguments for slavery. link
That's not to say all arguments are bad, you can use arguments to justify wonderful things, like charity and ethics. Even still, you are using arguments to persuade others to do the "right" thing. A business man may not want to donate part of his money for charity, but he is also susceptible to being guilt ridden by a religious charity organization. "If you don't give money to charity, it means you are selfish!" Good or bad, arguments are competitive by its very nature. In my opinion, philosophy is often used as a tool to churn out arguments.
What do you think? Does philosophy weaponize our language to turn them into arguments? Do I have a point?
Comments (34)
This is an excellent OP!
Yes,of course philosophy weaponises Language.
By appeals to authority, tradition and conceptual precedents/dogmas predominantly.
Every major philosopher had a major political project or religious affiliation. And their "arguments" and reasonings were only to justify and persuade for a priori political beliefs.
Philosophers use both. They supposedly use lines of reasoning to suport this or that case; and of course they do also engage in quarrels.
But many folk cannot make the distinction. The result is their taking an argument as an argument - a line of reasoning as a personal affront.
I suspect thin skin is more common in the "polite" states of 'merica, were excessive civility is needed in order not to get shot. But doubtless others will disagree.
Why, how kind. Thank you. One does what one can.
Yes, gas lighters do what they can by gas-lighting. Surely.
Is there another word for that?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/line%20of%20reasoning
Gaslitghing
The biggest gas-lighter in history is... Link
I'm only interested in gaslighters like @Banno
In this thread I'm only interested in @Banno's gaslighting.
Would you chill out? Whether Banno gaslighted you or not, this adds nothing to the thread, it doesn't belong here.
I don't think weaponizing language is an immediate feature of philosophy, rather than a consequence of how some people tend to debate. When do we use weapons? When we want to overpower someone. We do the same with language if we want to proclaim ourselves or our opinion as superior.
Quoting Banno
This.
He did, so it does belong here.
I guess the moral of the story is that anything can be used as weapon...
Yes,not every word is a weapon per se,but its use always has a purpose,either good or bad.
What is language in of itself?
Unfortunately (for the victim) or fortunately (for the victim), looks like it.
Yeah, and I feel bad for all those poor victim grad students who are assigned Hegel's The Phenomenology of Spirit as a reading project. :razz: :gasp:
Every person has their own linguistic convention and associated agenda, and conventions come into either conflict or cooperation for political reasons. Discussions and debates which on the surface look like passive disputes over the objective nature of shared truth, are ultimately analysable in terms of the resolution of socio-political objectives. But i don't see this as a nihilistic conclusion and more like an alternative view of philosophy.
The fact that this might not be the case never occurred to me.
Yep.
I know. Torture can take many forms. Intriguing no, how people don't seem to realize that they're inflicting pain on others? :point: Milgram Experiment (Stanley Milgram)
Also, :point: Dual Use Tech
[quote=Wikipedia]In politics, diplomacy and export control, "dual-use" refers to technology that can be used for both peaceful and military aims.[/quote]
Somewhere in all that is the truth - anything is a weapon.
You learn that in social psychology. :nerd:
But oh,in that situation you ignore the logic.
Selective use of bogus studies to justify whatever political agenda one has. Its called propoganda,and science and medicine are a wing of it.
And Language is the king of propoganda.
:ok:
You might also like:
Orator
[quote=Wikipedia]Orator: Recorded in English c. 1374, with a meaning of "one who pleads or argues for a cause", from Anglo-French oratour, Old French orateur (14th century), Latin orator ("speaker"), from orare ("speak before a court or assembly; plead"), derived from a Proto-Indo-European base *or- ("to pronounce a ritual formula").[/quote]
The list features the likes of the good - Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King (emancipation) - and also, the bad - Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini (fascism).
Which comes from Aristotle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes