Fuck, the Forbidden Word: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Fuck, the Forbidden Word » Fuck, the Forbidden Word

Do you think FUCK is a bad word?
			0%
{POLLTOTALVOTES} votes

Page: 1 2

Fuck, the Forbidden Word

Baudin
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 17

Posted 04/25/08 - 05:33 AM:	#26
jeffmcmahan wrote: I have been saying it, and saying it... this is not a matter of oughts or shoulds. Are you implying that oughts and shoulds have no place in philosophy? Seems to me like those two sentiments stand at the foundation of every "social" and "ethical" question. "Why is this law? It ought to be different, let me start thinking!". "Should we help them?". To say that oughts and shoulds have no place in philosophy is to say that we can not doubt ourselves. If you can convince yourself that you have all the answers, you ought to read up on what philosophy is all about. jeffmcmahan wrote: It just comes down to facts about the historical patterns of use in a given community. Words mean whatever it is that they mean. Historical patterns in a given community? Are you kidding? Have you ever seen a word tracked historically through all the layers of a community (all the layers!)? Dictionaries used to be written by and for the elite. If language was merely "as stated in the dictionary" we would not be having this debate. Language does not have "facts" the way math has, don't project a fake sense of "truth" to a language. In the case of the word fuck: The F-Word by Jesse Sheidlower wrote: The word fuck did not originate as an acronym. It crept, fully formed, into the English language from Dutch or Low German around the 15th century (it's impossible to say precisely when because so little documentary evidence exists, probably due to the fact that the word was so taboo throughout its early history that people were afraid to write it down). The American Heritage Dictionary says its first known occurrence in English literature was in the satirical poem "Flen, Flyss" (c.1500), where it was not only disguised as a Latin word but encrypted - gxddbov - which has been deciphered as fuccant, pseudo-Latin for "they fuck." What is a community? In past times it was defined as a group living in the same area. Now it is usually defined as a collection of cultures contained in an area. A culture is defined by it's collective thoughts, and work. One of the easies ways to see a difference in culture is by looking at its art. When we look at literature the word fuck is used more and more. More and more movies have the word fuck in it. And as my citation shows this tradition dates back a few hundered years. How can you now say that the word is fobidden? Or that the community frowns upon it? If anything it is gaining popularity! jeffmcmahan wrote: So it would in fact make sense to carry out this same sort of discussion about which symbol we use for "equals"? This is done by every mathematician at least once in their life. It is called fundamental mathematics. So I would say "yes" it very much IS valid to ask these quations. I have only take the first example to comment on, the other points follow directly from this one. They are all valid questions to look critically at. Don't ever confuse "not thinking about it today" with "not worth thinking about it". jeffmcmahan wrote: Specificity of communication can only be maintained by a community willing to enforce strict rules regarding form. If you insist on sloppiness, you will find that subtlety--fine distinctions--become inexpressible. If you write sloppy code, or sloppy English, the community will make you aware of this, because the community has something invested in the forms communication being effective in developing ever finer distinctions, and ever greater expressive power. How is sloppiness the opposite of enforcing strict rules? I agree that when you are sloppy the subtle nuances get lost. But there is no reason to assume that NOT enforcing strict rules reduces expressive power. Look at code switching if you want proof. No rules.....even better expressiveness. So please do not confuse strict rules with sloppiness. Your strict rules are not practable. Language is dynamic. It changes every day. Words are created and words are lost. Rules are boken and rules are created, still, people a few hundred years ago had no problems communicating the same way we have no problem communicating. Your rules are nothing more then a fear of change and a purist's behaviour. The need to enforce rules has always been to stipulate a "right way" and a "wrong way" of doing things. And there is no need to do this with language. Enforcing strict rules implies that we have "the ideal language". Else we should change the rules (and this conflicts with the strictness). A changing language indicates a search for the ideal language.

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/25/08 - 08:49 AM:	#27
Surely this is related to context, in the sense that 'what is happening' when the word is uttered aids in determining meaning, and offense. So if someone says, when there was a loud bang, or thunder: "What the fuck?" This may not offend any person - except tragic christians. And what about, when someone bangs their arm on a nail "fuck, that hurt!" We aren't going to be mean to the person for his or her use of language, as they may have lost some blood or a bone - so where is the offense? However, there are borderline case where the word "fuck" could be thought of as "offensive" but maybe this depends on the individual. For example, when someone is angry with the wife: "You fucking cunting whore-fuck! Die motherfucking cunt fuck whore!" The F-word is used 4 times (and other swear words too) and if someone overheard the words (within the sentence) they might think the words inappropriate or offensive, but it could be down to context, and I suppose its borderline.
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

jeffmcmahan
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 41

Posted 04/25/08 - 10:16 PM:	#28
Are you implying that oughts and shoulds have no place in philosophy? Stop straw-manning me, here. I've pointed out the obvious fact that what a certain string of symbols means is an arbitrary fact, dependent upon the contingencies of social history. Might we not have come to refer to light bulbs as 'handsome decks of cards'? Had circumstances been different, that is certainly possible. So, the point is, it isn't an ethical matter whether 'fuck' does or does not, in fact, mean something offensive to a given group of people. It is just a matter of how the word has been used in that community, historically. Now, tell me, what kind of pseudo-philosophical halfwit would really suppose that to mean that ethics aren't a legitimate part of philosophy? All I've said is that in this case (as in a great many others) ethics doesn't apply. Historical patterns in a given community? Are you kidding? Have you ever seen a word tracked historically through all the layers of a community (all the layers!)? Dictionaries used to be written by and for the elite. If language was merely "as stated in the dictionary" we would not be having this debate. Language does not have "facts" the way math has, don't project a fake sense of "truth" to a language. I am not sure why it is that you pretend to carry out this argument if you're unfamiliar with Philosophy of Language altogether. If you were the least bit acquainted with the contemporary scholarship (hell, if you were aware of the major players up to 1970), you wouldn't be throwing "historical patterns of use" in my face as if it were some kind of absurdity. Wittgenstein, Kripke, Evans, Burge, Lewis and others (the dominant theorists) base their views upon the sort of theory I'm arguing from. The fact is that speakers learn the use of words by hearing other people use words; these uses are copied (with some flexibility), and they thus create a "chain of reference-preserving links." This sort of historically-established use of a word is called (by Garreth Evans) "use-because-we-know-we-use-it." Ultimately, if the community has historically meant p by 'Fa,' then saying 'Fa' now will have certain effects: namely, it will have you meaning that p in the eyes of your audience. To reject this view as implausible or otherwise unworthy of your consideration is just to say that you haven't understood it. What is a community? You're leading us a bit far afield here. In the case of linguistic communities, one can be as mereologically permissive as one likes, the theories are more-or-less unaffected. The problem of identity doesn't come up the way you've proposed. How can you now say that the word is fobidden? Or that the community frowns upon it? If anything it is gaining popularity! Well, if you're under the misimpression that I think the entire English speaking community finds it offensive, I don't know where you've been, but just to make things clear, that isn't my position. What I've said is that when you encounter a linguistic community which finds the word offensive, the project of making them accept it (and thus justifying the position that 'fuck' is nowhere forbidden) is a futile and foolish project. This is done by every mathematician at least once in their life. It is called fundamental mathematics. That doesn't establish that which symbol is used to mean 'equals' is an ethical matter. That is the critical dimension of this argument. Perhaps I haven't made the clear enough? They are all valid questions to look critically at. They are not worth analyzing ethically. Ethical conclusions drawn about these issues would be non-sequitir. That's why I said, "...this same sort of discussion." I don't think (maybe I've missed something) your rebuttal even applies. Language is dynamic. It changes every day. Words are created and words are lost. Rules are boken and rules are created, still, people a few hundred years ago had no problems communicating the same way we have no problem communicating. Your rules are nothing more then a fear of change and a purist's behaviour. It is really quite difficult to have a discussion with someone who takes such liberty with my written words. Please ask for clarification before firing away. My position is that rules are to strictly enforced insofar as they build expressive power, and that in no way inhibits that rules may evolve. I am a Wittgenstinian at heart, and that means I take as fundamental the dynamic, social character of rule-formation and use. But there is normative bite in any act of rule-breaking, that's why we call them rules. If you ignore them, you obscure the structure of the system which is used to parse expressions, and therefore render the expressions vague. This amounts to making detail and nuance ineffable. I am not so stupid as to advocate a position where language hasn't or couldn't change, and I think that the assumption that I've done so is more than a little unfair. Else we should change the rules (and this conflicts with the strictness). I am not at all certain that this is correct (assuming we mean the same thing by "strict"). I don't mean "strict" to (for instance) suggest that slang cannot develop. I mean to say that if you're speaking English, and you want to ask a question with a 'WH' phrase, you move the 'WH' word to the front to form the question. It is hard to see how this rule could be broken without totally confusing the audience; it would be an Austinian misfire. Strict might also mean something like, correct verb conjugation or correct scope distinctions (by whatever means). If you ignore the conjugation of a verb, one can introduce ambiguities about which noun is the subject, which the direct object, which indirect object, etc. If one doesn't adequately represent scope (with a comma, for instance) the assertion might be variously interpreted. I am not talking about Oxford commas, here. except tragic christians. Christians make up a perfectly legitimate linguistic community. In that community, effs are forbidden. Outside of it, they may well not be. I've no issue with this. Edited by jeffmcmahan on 04/25/08 - 10:53 PM

Baudin
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 17

Posted 05/05/08 - 05:02 AM:	#29
jeffmcmahan, I am straw-manning you as much as you are me. But lets try again, your statement was: jeffmcmahan wrote: Is that right? So it would in fact make sense to carry out this same sort of discussion about which symbol we use for "equals"? Should we implore the Germans to use "." as a decimal instead of their customary ","? Is this something we should look at critically? Or how about the fact that Japanese people speak Japanese? Should we critically evaluate their decision to speak in such a way that you're deprived your own tools of communication when in their company? Seriously if someone wants to challenge this argument, CHALLENGE it. Stop reposting your opinion without any sort of argumentative substance. Now your statement is: jeffmcmahan wrote: They are not worth analyzing ethically. Ethical conclusions drawn about these issues would be non-sequitir. That's why I said, "...this same sort of discussion." I don't think (maybe I've missed something) your rebuttal even applies. If there is no reason why we should not look at symbols, then why can't I write Text message style in these forums? Or anywhere official for that matter? It is understood just as well as any other form of symbols representing the English language. Still there is a "ethical" conclusion drawn. There is a "right" way of writing English and there is a "wrong" way. This has nothing to do with expressiveness and everything to do with purist behavior and ethical judgment. "Teh maening off this sentence is ass clear as daylicht!" still it's considered "wrong". jeffmcmahan wrote: If you ignore them, you obscure the structure of the system which is used to parse expressions, and therefore render the expressions vague. This amounts to making detail and nuance ineffable. Again I raise the issue of code switching which has been proven to increase expressiveness. you wouldn't be throwing "historical patterns of use" in my face as if it were some kind of absurdity Yes, when it comes to language you cannot speak of historical patterns. I don't care which big philosopher you throw in my face. There are enough "abnormalities" in languages and their evolution to conclude that a languages has more "free will" then terms like "historical patterns" imply. There is no clear path a language takes to evolve to where we are now. There are no clear causal relations for it's development so there is no reason to assume a "historical pattern". Don't confuse this almost simplistic thought with a lack of knowledge. I have read a few of the people you summed, not all, but enough. I've also studied languages themselves at a high enough level to participate in this discussion. And my conclusion, as arrogant as it may seem, I do not agree with the greats. The recent development of the languages around the world due to "chatting", "SMS" and more of those things should change our way of thinking. This is too no fault of the pre-1970 thinkers.....cause they didn't have these changes. But I can fault you for referencing these people. While now we see that is converging into a big "mosh-pit" from which none of us know what will arrise. Not even your "historical patterns". A great example is the word fuck. It used to be so taboo that it's history is even unknown. Now we are having open debates about it.

jeffmcmahan
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 41

Posted 05/09/08 - 08:13 PM:	#30
[W]hen it comes to language you cannot speak of historical patterns. I don't care which big philosopher you throw in my face. There are enough "abnormalities" in languages and their evolution to conclude that a languages has more "free will" then terms like "historical patterns" imply." So, you're denying my statement that: "If the community has historically meant that p by 'Fa,' then saying 'Fa' now will have certain effects: namely, it will have you meaning that p in the eyes of your audience." And do let me clarify. By "historically" we do mean the recent history, barring the sudden changes in meaning that sometimes happen with shifts in denotation (i.e. the term 'lunch hour' would shift its meaning if the boss decided that lunch hour would come an hour later or earlier), or with technical shifts in meaning (i.e., the word, 'isotope' might mean something quite different after the discovery that something other than extra subatomic particles was causing their characteristic heaviness). "How recent?" is not really a relevant question, as meanings are (at least intuitively) a matter of informational dominance, a la Evans. I would point out that I think you're taking the word 'historical' differently than I intend. I do not mean that a word's meaning is the sum of all of its historical uses, piled atop one another, such that a word's 16th century meaning has a direct effect on the meaning today. I mean to say that people learn words by watching other people use them. Take today's chatting language, for instance. In something like 1996 or 1997, I was chatting on ICQ with my friend, and he said what seemed then the most peculiar thing: "LOL " I asked, what it meant, and he explained, and it was thus clear that in a given sort of context, using that expression (or some permutation of it) would be appropriate. I saw him use it, and then I could use it. He had seen someone else use it, and they had seen someone else, and so on and so on, back the original baptismal moment. This is the historical pattern of use; it has been used in this or that way by the people in your community, and you therefore move to use it in a way that will be understood--to use it some other way than is typical will generally result in confusion (except in the case of clever puns, jokes, etc.). We therefore typically respect the way a term has been used historically. Its true that words change their meaning, and that there are all sorts of histories of use of which we're unaware, but all we mean, here, is that if you heard your mother say, "look at the river," and you pick up 'river' on that exposure, you are adopting the historically dominant use of the word, 'river,' just as your mother did, and as her mother did and so on. That the word may meander in meaning to this or that extent doesn't change these facts at all. More clarification is at the ready, if you'd like it. If you think you agree (to whatever extent) with the above, say so, and we can look elsewhere to isolate our differences. Also, I would propose (as is all too seldom done) that we jettison the less pertinent bits of this argument; we do owe the OP the basic respect of topicality. For the digressions I introduced, I apologize. From here, I'd like to focus closely and exclusively on this question of whether or not a word's meaning is to be decided by the audience, the listener or both (and if both, to what degree by each?). This seems to decide the matter of whether or not 'fuck' would or would not be forbidden. (I do not mean to suggest that I've conceded these arguments--I'd gladly pursue them elsewhere with you-- I just don't want this to devolve into time consuming nonsense the way it so often does.) Edited by jeffmcmahan on 05/09/08 - 08:35 PM

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.