If I say don’t think of an elephant, one’s brain has to conjure up the imagery of an elephant in order to try to negate it. This is why that process doesn’t work. One is not only bringing up the picture of an elephant though. They bring up the imagery related to the elephant.
Scenes, settings, landscape, which leads to a cascade effect where an entire world is evoked with a mere thought.
When it comes to language, abstract concepts like ‘love’ or ‘hate’, this is no different. What informs these abstractions are our own experiences and collective beliefs adopted through the communities we end up in.
Something like ‘harm’ is extremely volatile as a result. One can see benefits of a harmful exchange they had that netted positive results, yet remain ignorant of other people’s experiences if they have nothing to draw from through interpersonal connections or anecdotal accounts. This is why outgroups like ‘the homeless’ are glossed over yet, if we see someone suffering on an individual level we’re more likely to empathize. Or worse. Shame.
Wittgenstein was correct in presuming that ‘it’s all meaningless’ when it comes to philosophy but forgot the caveat that, for the agent, it makes complete and total sense. This is where both he, epistemology and ethics failed and where cognitive science will prevail. If philosophy wishes to remain relevant, its reformation should use what we learn from it as its foundation and start from scratch. Philosophy wasn’t solved, it never really got off the ground except in the minds of a select few of privileged people which is why the field is predominantly white dudes.
Mlabzyg is currently meaningless but think about having a definition for it, complete with interconnected relationships, like the elephant and then trying to communicate that to someone who’s never experienced it as you have. Or they have a different experience and what’s evoked within their brain when they hear it, isn’t the same. Now apply this to a Republican who’s missing those core pieces in order to determine why their actions are harmful. That’s what you’re up against.
Good luck and thanks for your time.
I keep reading up on current events regarding climate change in order to determine how fucked we are. The more I read, the less I like. We can’t be reactionary anymore. We can’t wait until the problem is on our doorsteps to take action. It’s already through the proverbial door looming over the next generation.
By 2050-2075, fossil fuels in respect to our current consumption will be depleted. The world population will have reached about 9.3 billion and energy consumption will go up as a result. Thanks to climate change, real estate for agriculture will have diminished due to droughts and changes in weather cycles. Not to mention the fact that most of the equipment used to harvest this food all run on gas. Widespread starvation sound like fun? There’s always the ocean though. Oh wait, that’s hosed to due to the acidification of the oceans drastically decreasing its population due to the disruption of its ecosystem. Are you feeling uncomfortable yet? What if I were to tell you that 50% of the oxygen made on Earth comes from plankton that happens to be vulnerable to the current imbalances that we’re forcing upon our oceans. Not to mention the fact that as water gets warmer it can’t retain as much oxygen. So that delicious sushi you had for lunch? Well the fish kind of need oxygen to breathe so there won’t be as many of them around. Even less thanks to the fact that they don’t have as much food due to the disruption of their ecosystem. We still haven’t gone far enough into researching what such a depletion in oxygen would mean to us and land based animals.
Let’s recap. Less oxygen, little food, problems re-establishing supply. more demand due to the sheer amount of people, unknown impact of the steady decline of global oxygen. Do you happen to know anyone who’s going to be around during that time?
On the 23rd of September 400000 mobilized in New York to raise awareness for this yet I haven’t heard a peep from anyone who wanted to engage in a discussion regarding this matter. Post a funny picture, that gets results though. Tell people I’m addicted to nicotine however, ah, that gets me an earful. People become judgmental start thinking that you have no willpower. Considering the fact that I’ve gone through life without the need or use for a vehicle outside of public transportation I’d say I have plenty. Even though quitting smoking is something that’s on my list of things for self improvement I’m debating against it considering it might save me from witnessing what happens in the future. When I look at vehicles go by as I walk, there’s always one solitary passenger looking to get to whatever destination suits their fancy. You don’t see me throwing dirty looks at people or judging them for owning a car. Maybe I should start.