I know this has been talked about already:

But i couldn't help it. I feel like its all related and part of the same enigma.

"I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually and semantically correct than about being morally right."

I'm not normally "anti-liberal", but when people talk like this, i cant help but think like this:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
-John Adams

It is our duty to put aside our beliefs and desires, our limited scope of understanding and our narrow experience to pursue what is factually correct and harmonious with our ethical and moral beliefs which dictate the spirit of our government.

The conundrum is these two things are not mutually exclusive but literally one can dictate the other. You cannot have a morally aligned conversation without precise, factually and semantically correct because you are then forgoing truth in pursuit of your poorly informed "moral" beliefs. This statement is oxymoronic.

I appreciate Shapiro's perspective and i would like to add another perspective. As you know I've been on a Isabel Paterson ( - pg 96) kick lately. I think this falls under the whole "gender/age/identity fluidity/politics" arguments. I think there are other way to go about getting what you want besides manipulating language. Isabel Patterson below:

But the Marxist terminology reduces verbal expression
to literal nonsense on the basis of fact and usage 5 this is not
obvious gibberish, nor the humorous nonsense which will
sometimes elucidate an intrinsic difficulty of expression or
indicate a gap in knowledge, but arrangements of words according to the rules of grammar, in which each word taken separately has a customary meaning, but which in the given sequence, the sentence, mean nothing at all. For example, let it be said that: "An isosceles triangle is green." The several words are in common use, and as parts of speech they are
placed in proper order 5 but the whole statement is absurd.
That is bad enough, but it would be rather worse if one
spoke of the "roundness of a triangle." The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is like the "roundness of a triangle," a contradiction in terms. It has no meaning. The
theory of "dialectical materialism" is a misuse of terms of
the same type as the statement that an isosceles triangle is

, , ,

@EVoCeO Nothing wrong with "an isosceles triangle is green." "All isosceles triangles are green" is certainly problematic however.

@vaughan maybe I don’t understand you statement. How did you read Paterson’s paragraph?

@EVoCeO I am saying that her contention that the statement is absurd is incorrect. An isosceles triangle may be any colour, including green. I've no interest in following it after that.

@vaughan maybe I didn’t include enough of the excerpt but ultimately her rational is not talking about the factual obviousness of shapes and color but the absurdity of equating in arguments as if they can be different and the same simultaneously. Kind of an apples and oranges argument. More so the desire to argue that apples and oranges, by some strange, erroneous, reason should now both be called bananas.

It’s a great book and I highly recommend it. Free!!

@EVoCeO you can talk about the "roundness of a triangle" if it's useful to do so: Not all triangles have straight sides. Up to a change in axiom's, you can have some pretty funny looking triangles that function as triangles when you need them.

Anyway, the point about the impossibility of meaningful discourse without an appreciation for *truth* is obvious, but bears repeating. I don't see a strong relation to the rest of your post though.

@2ck I think the reason she used shapes is because they in fact are finite and agreed upon mathematical definitions. Triangles do not have round edges or sides. Or it is not a triangle. My observation is feelings do not change axioms.

@2ck ha!! the name Hyperbolic triangle makes the point, i think. clearly not just a triangle anymore, but think you're getting away from Isabels point. The argument is not about geometry but the manipulation of language for selfish gain or to manipulate and confuse people. You should read it tho. Great book.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.