Slut

[spike]

I have the impression that the Philosophy of Language is one of the most useless philosophies around. But maybe I am wrong.

I called somebody a slut and she asked me what I meant by it. I said, you know what I mean. But she kept on questioning me and insisted that I didn't know what I was talking about. The discussion went on. And as we talked we sort of became simpatico. So the discussion and philosophizing about meaning had a soothing, smoothing effect. It kept us from coming to blows as we debated the meaning of slut.

Perhaps, then, that is what the philosophy of language is about, keeping the peace. If people are so busy discussing the meaning of things they don't have time to kill each other. They most likely end up in bed together.

I guess the philosophy of language, like the philosophy of anything, is supposed to bridge the gap and bring people together. But it doesn't always work like that.

[ala1993]

I like the idea that philosophical discussion can keep us from coming to blows. However, philosophy of language does more than just talk about what particular words mean. It's more about how language works and what it is. The girl who you called a slut probably wanted to know why you were calling her that and so asked you what you intended by it.

Put simply, we can argue about what words mean but this tends to be nothing more than just arguing about how particular words should be used (and, in fact, is more of a problem for ethical philosophy rather than philosophy of language given its prescriptive nature). Philosophical discussion tries to 'get behind' the words (although, admittedly, it can't get behind all words as it still needs to use them in order to do so) to the ideas, to lay them flat and find out any problems that there might be.

[Notvacka]

First: I don't agree about philosophy of language being less useful than any other kind of philosophy. Quite contrary, language is central to how we understand and process reality; it's at the heart of any philosophical discussion and no such discussion would be possible without language.

Second: I don't think that usefulness is a relevant measure here. Like art, philosophy is a human endeavour that must be allowed to be useless in order to function. If you demand that art or philosophy be useful, what you get is probably not art or philosophy.

Third: I object to your use of the word "slut" in any context whatsoever.

[The Voice of Time]

Philosophy of Language is exceptionally important. But it is overlapping with both Ontology, Ethics and Logic. Especially the later.

The clarifications of language, as Wittgenstein, Socrates and some Buddhists would've liked, is just one function of it.

Others are questions concerning the prospects, possibilities and future of language, all of which are important. Meaning is just one in a supertanker of questions you could ask about this simple commonly held thing: language.

For instance, whereas the meaning can be one thing she wanted to know, the intention another, she might as well ask: what effect does it have on me? What is the function of the word "slut"? What are the functions of its functions? Where and how did you learn it exactly, in what context, at what conditions would you have learned it otherwise? etc.

All these questions are equally valid as Philosophy of Language. I would also say that PoL is also the reason why we have computers and programming today. It was the elementary questions on the nature of words that brought us the understanding of nature's conditions as being like a language unfolding meaning...

[fiveredapples]

Perhaps, then, that is what the philosophy of language is about, keeping the peace.

No. You are clueless.

[tbieter]

President Obama recently said in an interview:

”When I think about what we’ve done well and what we haven’t done well,” the President said, “The mistake of my first term – couple of years – was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”(President Obama/CBS News) (Underlining added)

I'm fascinated by the President's use of language. He regularly uses ambiguity in the words chosen and the sentences that he constructs. Here he uses the word 'story' which has multiple meanings. Most politicians do likewise, but from Obama the practice has reached high art. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/story

[tbieter]

First: I don't agree about philosophy of language being less useful than any other kind of philosophy. Quite contrary, language is central to how we understand and process reality; it's at the heart of any philosophical discussion and no such discussion would be possible without language.

Second: I don't think that usefulness is a relevant measure here. Like art, philosophy is a human endeavour that must be allowed to be useless in order to function. If you demand that art or philosophy be useful, what you get is probably not art or philosophy.

RE: Third: I object to your use of the word "slut" in any context whatsoever.

Like the word "womanizer," http://www.thefreedictionary.com/womanizer the word "slut" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/SLUT is valuable to describe a person of questionable character in the area of sexual ethics. I knew well a womanizer/attorney. He was best described as a predator. He caused a great deal of harm to some woman that I knew. I once warned a woman about him using the word "womanizer".

Some "sluts" are predators toward married men.

I find it curious that some people want all words relating to morality or immorality, such as "slut" and "womanizer", removed from common usage. In effect, when successful, they impoverish the language. I used the word "womanizer" as a tool to warn my friend about the attorney. I told her to look the word up and reflect upon the implications.

Such advocates probably also oppose the concept of "sexual ethics"

[Notvacka]

First: I don't agree about philosophy of language being less useful than any other kind of philosophy. Quite contrary, language is central to how we understand and process reality; it's at the heart of any philosophical discussion and no such discussion would be possible without language.

Second: I don't think that usefulness is a relevant measure here. Like art, philosophy is a human endeavour that must be allowed to be useless in order to function. If you demand that art or philosophy be useful, what you get is probably not art or philosophy.

RE: Third: I object to your use of the word "slut" in any context whatsoever.

Like the word "womanizer," http://www.thefreedictionary.com/womanizer the word "slut" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/SLUT is valuable to describe a person of questionable character in the area of sexual ethics. I knew well a womanizer/attorney. He was best described as a predator. He caused a great deal of harm to some woman that I knew. I once warned a woman about him using the word "womanizer".

Some "sluts" are predators toward married men.

I find it curious that some people want all words relating to morality or immorality, such as "slut" and "womanizer", removed from common usage. In effect, when successful, they impoverish the language. I used the word "womanizer" as a tool to warn my friend about the attorney. I told her to look the word up and reflect upon the implications.

Such advocates probably also oppose the concept of "sexual ethics"

It's of course impossible to actively remove words from common usage. But words fall out of use when they become outdated and irrelevant to society. I usually object to the use of derogatives, particularly those pertaining to gender or other physical traits, because it's disrespectful. In a perfect world, those words would disappear along with the attitudes associated with them.

Your example, "womanizer" is not directly comparable to "slut". If it was, the word would have been "manizer" or something similar. "Maneater" is the closest I can come up with. As for "sexual ethics" I object to the double standards. Using the word "slut" is an attack on female sexuality in general. Words describing male sexuality are usually less derogative. "Stud" comes to mind, for instance.

[Kayla]

As for "sexual ethics" I object to the double standards. Using the word "slut" is an attack on female sexuality in general. Words describing male sexuality are usually less derogative. "Stud" comes to mind, for instance.

it does not happen too often yet but more and more i hear promiscuous guys being referred to as sluts

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'Slut' originally referred to a woman with poor house-keeping habits.
Most insulting gender terms are directed at women and are in the feminine. Cow, bitch, nag, sow, vixen, witch... all genuinely venomous. You don't hear men being insulted with wizard, bull, boar, reynard.....
'Womaniser' is hardly insulting. Most men would consider it a compliment. Humans just seem to hate women.

[ForgedinHell]

'Slut' originally referred to a woman with poor house-keeping habits.
Most insulting gender terms are directed at women and are in the feminine. Cow, bitch, nag, sow, vixen, witch... all genuinely venomous. You don't hear men being insulted with wizard, bull, boar, reynard.....
'Womaniser' is hardly insulting. Most men would consider it a compliment. Humans just seem to hate women.

"Asshole, motherfucker, bastard, p****, jerkoff, shit stain, creep, fucker, etc." all seem to be well suited for insulting men. While women are referred to as cow, men are pigs; while women are bitches, men are bastards, women are cunts, men are pricks, etc., etc. I'm pretty sure things are pretty even between the sexes. At least, I've never found anyone having a hard time coming up with a word to insult a man with.

[johngalthasspoken]

'Slut' originally referred to a woman with poor house-keeping habits.
Most insulting gender terms are directed at women and are in the feminine. Cow, bitch, nag, sow, vixen, witch... all genuinely venomous. You don't hear men being insulted with wizard, bull, boar, reynard.....
'Womaniser' is hardly insulting. Most men would consider it a compliment. Humans just seem to hate women.

more often the term "slut" is directed at women BY women, you dumb Twat

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'Slut' originally referred to a woman with poor house-keeping habits.
Most insulting gender terms are directed at women and are in the feminine. Cow, bitch, nag, sow, vixen, witch... all genuinely venomous. You don't hear men being insulted with wizard, bull, boar, reynard.....
'Womaniser' is hardly insulting. Most men would consider it a compliment. Humans just seem to hate women.

more often the term "slut" is directed at women BY women, you dumb Twat

Did I say it isn't you dumb twat??? Do you have to be such a fucking penis all the time?

[johngalthasspoken]

'Slut' originally referred to a woman with poor house-keeping habits.
Most insulting gender terms are directed at women and are in the feminine. Cow, bitch, nag, sow, vixen, witch... all genuinely venomous. You don't hear men being insulted with wizard, bull, boar, reynard.....
'Womaniser' is hardly insulting. Most men would consider it a compliment. Humans just seem to hate women.

more often the term "slut" is directed at women BY women, you dumb Twat

Did I say it isn't you dumb twat??? Do you have to be such a fucking penis all the time?

women more often throw the same sticks and stones at other women..'bitch' 'ho' 'slut',you name it..think before you type you stupid cow

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Did you even read my original post you fucking loser? Women are probably worse misogynists than men. Crawl back to your basement.