Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Language is a tool. The tools are different and shape the way that you see the world or solve problems. Of course a different language is going to change your viewpoints, values, and morality. Anyone who has done any sort of traveling can tell you this.

You'd be surprised. Most people would be more inclined to do something evil if asked by someone they trust, and you may have more trust in someone who speaks your language.

I imagine this is pretty common, I am more proper in English (my professional language) and more direct/curse more in my native language.

Asking questions has always been a bit part of philosophy. A question is not right or wrong by itself. And although being absolutely right is rather impossible, trying to maintain the highest accuracy when stating fact is of utmost importance for basically anyone, moreso for philosopher...

However, when handling hypothesis, I would agree that the usefulness of a statement is more important than its accuracy. For many reasons, though.

We’re Americans who moved to France 20 years ago. Our kids were 7 and 2 at the time and the 3rd was born here. The 2 younger ones (now 19 and 22) have literally a French persona and an American one. One can’t be bossy/whiny/mean IN ENGLISH- only in French. The language they speak (and to a lesser extent me and my husband) absolutely changes their personalities to be more culturally aligned with the language. I’ll say things to French people that I wouldn’t dare say to Americans (political debates are a great example), because I can and they can handle it. Generally, communication isn’t as sugar coated in France. This bothered my American family when we’d visit and I’d speak my mind about something. Learned that lesson pretty early on!

Most philosophers know nothing, and those philosophers who know one truth would use that one truth as a starting point to teaching others same truth, and the love of knowledge.

I must say, I am surprised at the -2 on that comment. The typo cannot have helped.

Edit: I meant “know nothing” in the Socratic fashion, which Is a very good place to be, relative to believing you know something and being mistaken.

If you're a sentimentalist about ethics, and a constructionist about emotions, then it makes a lot of sense that a person's moral judgments would be different in another language.

I think the way this would work is something like: I witness an event that evokes an affective state based on my expectations and past experience with things I categorize as "similar." Then, I label my affective state with an emotion word. Then, based on that label, I engage in behaviour that I've learned is an appropriate response to that label. In this case, the behaviour would be making a moral judgment I guess.

It's true that the emotions and behavioural response are culturally learned, but also my internal concept of "angry" might be different from my concept of "fâché" simply due to the memories and associations that I have with the two words, even though they're supposed to mean roughly the same thing.

If this account is right, then someone is probably going to be inconsistent in their moral judgments depending on what language they're speaking (in addition to all the other environmental factors that are influencing them at the time).

So, yes I think you're right that it is about culture, but I don't think that makes it less about language!

[removed]

yeah, I probably should’ve left it at: “even if they never get it right, philosophers should still aim to” but I got carried away 😂

I think it means philosophy should make you stop and questions. If someone is 100 percent correct in the idea of philosophy it defeats the very reason of its excistence. For its ment to open up your mind to new perspectives new ways of thinking. Clearly one way is not the only way.

Language catalyzes thought as it enables, facilitates, and discourages different thinking chains and pathways naturally due to structure. Finnish has more verb precision than English, but English has better nouns and adjectives.

But to make statements on morality, I think you would need to control for culture.

As an example, I’m quieter when I speak Finnish. But that has nothing to do with Finnish having an inherent volume. It has to do with Finnish culture, which I was immersed in whenever I spoke or listened to Finnish.

I also get more laid back when I talk with someone from Mississippi because that’s how it was and how I was when I lived there. Is a regional accent “language,” or is it a memory connecting a culture or experience to the present moment? Maybe both?

One thing I'm sure of is that anybody who thinks they're always right is certainly wrong.

[removed]

Plot twist: because you feel that killing someone who is evil is part of gods work, that eliminates any guilt in your conscience. That would be the main Christian belief

"Even though philosophy and psychology headlines are often meaningless, writers should at least aim at presenting some meaning through them because meaning makes things important."

Honestly, I'm convinced it must be some algorithm spitting out these headlines and not an actual human being..

Let alone, simply 10 years less mature. It's very complicated I imagine, moreso than anything here is making it out to be.

First off, I disagree that his point wasn't to have a more poetic relationship with nature IN LIEU of a more technological one instead of having a a more poetic relationship with nature IN ADDITION to having a more technological relationship with nature.

Second off, even if his point was to merge nature and technology 'poetically' that's an argument that's so subjective as to be useless. What I consider a poetic merger, others wouldn't consider poetic at all. You might as well be arguing that our relationship with nature should just be 'better' because that's as subjectively valid as 'poetic' and also as devoid of specificity.

You're partly right but that's not Heidegger's point I believe. He wants to merge nature and technology poetically and psychologically more than arguing for nature against technology.

Coming from France and moving to countries like NZ, Australia and the UK, I was exposed to a LOT of feminism and gender theory that I had simply never had come my way before. It was also due to working and living with a lot of more queer people than I had in France.

Feminism, in particular, was a tough thing at the start. I lived with a Canadian woman who was extremely patient with me. And I'm AFAB! (all that mulling on the topic over years made me realise I'm Agender, which makes so much sense in retrospect..)

I had badly ingrained "not like other girls" mentality, and though I mostly didn't mind people doing their own thing, I had prejudices without foundation that needed to be addressed. I'd simply never had had them confronted before.

There was also the country hopping element. Making a home somewhere, never wanting to leave, and being forced to by visa restrictions... It was a whole lot of emotional roller coaster. Also forced exposure to a lot of different politics and political systems.

And then I lived and worked in a hostel for over 3 years! The tribal dynamics, community life, people coming and going, teaching you things about their culture or themselves...

And them also being way behind on topics you used to struggle with, and suddenly it's your turn to be patient and explain a topic you used to never think about...

Lots of personal growth.

My lifestyle, travelling from one work holiday visa to another, living in people's backyards and hostels and such, leads to a lot of socialisation.

I've also been dirt poor... Like doing the bins and living in a tent poor. 20$ in my bank account and homeless in all but name. That too, really changes your perspective on a lot of things.

I usually try to make up nonsense then logically defend it

Maybe the specific tweet is meant to show how some philosophical ideas may lead to destructive or outright wrong views of the world, thus giving us the clarity to find alternatives ideas to help guide our decisions.

Just to add a caveat, math's purpose isn't necessarily to describe the world as it is. That description seems to conflate math with physics, which is intended to describe reality as we observe it.

In a weird way, I find it easier to flirt with the opposite sex in a different language

Article:

> Or perhaps, this line of research simply illuminates what is true for all of us, regardless of how many languages we speak: that our moral compass is a combination of the earliest forces that have shaped us and the ways in which we escape them.

This makes no sense. If people were asked to do something evil in one language, they would say "yes", but if they were asked to do the same evil in another language, they would say "no".