PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 30th January: Is our language adequate for today?

Dear friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Is our language adequate for today?


I proposed this essay because I believe that there are more serious
language issues in our day to day language use than just learning a
second language or translations. In my essay I ask a simple question:
how many people died during the pandemic because they didn't know the
meaning and function of "vaccine"?


Is our language adequate for today?
Topic/essay by Lawrence
https://www.philomadrid.com/2022/01/is-our-language-adequate-for-today.html


Finally please send me a message for the Skype link and if you have
problems with launching Skype try again. Please note we do not use the
video to save on mobile phone batteries for those connecting with a
mobile phone.


telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 30th January: Is our language
adequate for today?

Is our language adequate for today?

 

Is our language adequate for today?

 

Topic/essay by Lawrence

 

 

By “our language” I mean our natural language or languages we use every day in our life. And I say languages because many people grow up in a bi-lingual environment, although this has been happening since time immemorial.

 

However, my concern is not really about speaking or learning a second language, nor the need to teach languages at school. Although it is very useful to learn a second language there are more fundamental issues involving languages. Having said that, today we are more than ever exposed to translated language not to mention the easy access to translating applications. The aforesaid does not mean that second languages and translations do not feature in the debate but rather as causes to our problem rather than as solutions.

 

The key question is whether our language is evolving fast enough to describe our new experiences in a world that is now full of new technology and inventions. A function of a language is indeed to convey experiences: for example the language we use to describe our experience when flying. It shouldn’t be a surprise that “flying” language borrowed from seafaring. We still speak of Captain and first officer, although steward/stewardess is now being replaced by air hostess/host or flight attendant, a rough ride, a smooth flight, air pockets that remind us of potholes in the road. Of course, flight attendant does not reflect the professionalism and training these people have to undergo to qualify for their job. And there are holes in the sky.

 

As always there is always a discrepancy between those who have an experience and those who haven’t had such an experience. Language is supposed to bridge this gap between the person having the experience and describing the experience to others. When we have an experience, for example a holiday abroad, we don’t need to describe anything to ourselves, we already have the memory.

 

But is language adequate enough to convey the meaning of our experience? We can come close to conveying meaning if person A and person B both share a close or similar experience. In some situations, however, we do have expressions to convey the uniqueness of our experience: for example, “how would you know, you weren’t there,” or “I tell you, you should have been there,” or “wish you were here.” At the other extreme we have professional speak, for example medical doctors would use a language to explain their medical experience (eg the problems of a new patient) that for practical purposes cannot be conveyed to nonmedically trained people.

 

But still, doctors do manage to communicate their concerns with lay people including patients. But is this enough? We recently had to take our dog to the vet who was recovering from a routine operation but also at the same time the dog had an irritation in a hind paw. Although we were aware that the operation was more serious, we were more distressed with the discomfort the paw was causing the dog. The vet, of course, had the paw under observation, but his professional concern was the healing process of the operation wound.

 

What this shows is that a language on its own does not necessarily convey the full idea the other person is trying to convey to us. Sure most times we don’t have any problems; when we ask someone to turn on the lights there is nothing confusing or lost in the request. But this becomes serious in political or legal speak when language can fail but the consequences can be far reaching than just a misunderstanding.

 

An example is the new law in Spain that declares pets as sentient and family members. This law was even recently tested in court when an owner of a dog wanted his dog back from the dog carer after a four year absence. The courts returned the dog to its carer taking the interest of the dog into account rather than the property rights of the original owner. (Owner denied custody of dog in historical animal welfare ruling.. (Murcia Today) https://spanishnewstoday.com/owner-denied-custody-of-dog-in-historical-animal-welfare-ruling-in-spain_1721586-a.html )

 

And although it is still early time still, public transport companies still have different policies towards carrying pets on board especially on week days. For example in Madrid the Metro have three periods covering various stretches of the rush hour when dogs (pets) are not allowed on trains; there are similar restrictions on bus. I would argue that part of the problem is a language problem.

 

The legal terminology used in the regulations is “mascotas” (pets) but specifically dogs. The term dog/dogs has in effect no meaning given that a dog can be of any size. For example a Great Dane is one of the largest breed of dogs but the regulations only require a muzzle and a short leash to take it on board. The fact that this dog would hardly fit in a typical metro carriage is beside the point. On the other extreme dogs on buses can only be carried in dog carry bag during allowed periods, but when dogs cannot travel one can still take a suitcase full of frozen chicken carcases.

 

In terms of language the word “dog/dogs” does not convey reality. A small dog in a proper carry bag is no more a threat than someone taking a regulation size suitcase. My point is that regulation language does not necessarily reflect real life, including maybe legal language or sentiment. For the first time maybe, the law is ahead of social thinking and prejudice.

 

And this is a key problem for us. Today we are used to things happening immediately and even more important many things happen to our specifications and needs. This is not just a matter of choice, but also a matter of finding things that fit our needs, for example size, shape, etc.

 

Hence, it is not enough to say and use these generic terms for example a restaurant saying we offer salads. The language becomes inefficient since a salad can be anything, but not all salads are healthy or vegetarian. Fifty or seventy years ago a salad for some lettuce leaves, tomato, maybe some olives, onions and maybe some tuna. And this problem does not even take into account foreign foods or cultural practices.  

 

Although some might dismiss such issues as petty, the point is that people might have a different meaning for a term in different locations: pizza and paella come to mind. Furthermore, with a large proportion of the world population connected to the internet and subscribers to social media it is very easy for people to innocently learn terms and words that convey false information.

 

It is one thing to argue whether traditional Italian spaghetti carbonara has cream or not (it doesn’t) and another to falsely interpreting the meaning of “vaccine”. There is a short article about why the CDC changed the definition of “Vaccine” in the Miami Herald: Why did CDC change its definition for ‘vaccine’? Agency explains move as skeptics lurk By Katie Camero Updated September 27, 2021 9:39 AM (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html#storylink=cpy)

 

Irrespective of what the scientists say what “vaccine” means, the general population either innocently or mischievously assume that a vaccine offers 100% protection. But of course, no vaccine gives 100% protection. And this is where language has failed miserably today. We still have the idea that something like a vaccine gives 100% protection, in the same way that a pint of beer is a 100% a pint. Of course, this is because we are not generally educated at school about sciences in general and medical/biological science in particular. How many people died these past two years because they were not taught the meaning and function of vaccines?

 

Unfortunately, the lack of rigorous education in the sciences and relying on quick and easy translation applications in the information age makes language very unstable and probably misleading. I do not know now what a possible solution looks like for this problem, but I am sure that the answer involves more specific and detailed meaning of terms and words.

 

 

Best Lawrence

 

 

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com

 

 

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 23rd January: Is there a universal beauty?

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Is there a universal beauty?

This is an old topic in philosophy but because it is such a fundamental
matter for us it is always a legitimate topic in philosophy. In my short
essay I try to address some of the issues:
Is there a universal beauty?
Topic by Sisa/Ines
Essay by Lawrence
https://www.philomadrid.com/2022/01/is-there-universal-beauty.html


Finally please send me a message for the Skype link and if you have
problems with launching Skype try again. Please note we do not use the
video to save on mobile phone batteries for those connecting with a
mobile phone.

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 23rd January: Is there a universal
beauty?

Is there a universal beauty?

 

Is there a universal beauty?

 

Topic by Sisa/Ines

Essay by Lawrence

 

What do we mean by universal beauty? This is a subject that dates back to Greek philosophers and ever since; maybe even before the Greeks. For example Plato attributes beauty to an ideal of the forms maybe even beauty in symmetry and exactness. Socrates linked the beautiful to pleasure in objects. Kant defined beauty in terms of “experience of taste”.

 

The arguments on beauty have mainly centred on whether beauty is subjective or objective. But we do have the proverb “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” that suggests we are more inclined to think beauty is subjective. This is understandable since as the proverb implies some people find something beautiful while others don’t see what the fuss is all about.

 

A sense of universal beauty implies that everyone perceives the supposed beauty in an object. Thus implying that, unless everyone sees the beauty of the object then that object might not have any objective beauty. Going a step further, is the world divided into beautiful things and ugly things?

 

The subjective factor of beauty relies on our emotions for example something that gives us pleasure, makes us feel good, makes us feel peaceful and so on. But something must trigger our emotions to the extent that we call it or recognize it as beautiful. After all there are many things that stir our emotions but we don’t describe them as beautiful: ugly things rouse our emotions but do not convey beauty.

 

An alternative interpretation to universal beauty is to assume that everything has the potential property of beauty but it all depends on our epistemic background to identify that beauty. For most people a rock, is a rock, is a rock, but for a geologist a rock might reveal an interesting aspect of the history of the Earth who might describe the rock as beautiful.

 

We might argue that the problem of beauty and universal beauty in particular, is that beauty is not only in the eyes of the beholder but also in the intellectual mind of the beholder. A beautiful sunrise with red skies and clouds with red linings might be beautiful for us, but not necessarily for sailors. We are familiar with the saying: red skies at night a sailor’s delight, red skies in the morning a sailor’s warning.

 

We might argue that universal beauty should not be interpreted as everyone can see the beauty of an object but rather everyone can see the beauty of an object with the right mind set and intellectual prowess in a given context. And the proof of this approach is that there are no limits to what can give us pleasure or what we consider to be beautiful.

 

We must also ask: what is the function of beauty? Apart from us deriving pleasure or feeling good, although this is not a function of beauty but our sense of beauty: beauty in animals can serve as a reproductive attraction. Ideas might be beautiful, maybe because these ideas are simple (Occam's razor) and solve important problems (E=MC2). When we consider the function of beauty we might be justified in accepting that beauty is not some passive property in an object (e.g. beautiful feathers on a bird) but an active factor in an object (e.g. a beautiful idea for a birthday present).

 

Best Lawrence

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com

 

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 16th January: Morality (cont)

Dear Friends,

Last Sunday we had a very interesting discussion on morality to the
extent that we are continuing with the topic this coming Sunday.

This came about after a short time reminiscing about Alfonso during our
past meetings. We agreed that this Sunday we can have an extended
discussion about the works by Alfonso and our friendship with him. The
best biography we have about Alfonso is that found in the Wikipedia, see
the link below. I will also read the messages I received from our dear
friends who knew or met Alfonso.

As a consequence it was suggested (apologies, I don't remember who) that
we should also talk about the morality of death. To which we can add:
the morality of money (and making money); if we are unique individuals
how can we have moral standards?; moral issues when we use language.

--------Previous email
It is with great sadness that Ruel discovered and informed me that
Alfonso Vallejo passed away on the 3rd December 2021 (19 August 1943 – 3
December 2021).

Alfonso was one of the first members of PhiloMadrid at the Molly Malone
Pub. He was a regular participant over the years until a few years ago
when his ailments made it very difficult for him to leave home. Also, he
always encouraged me to continue with the meetings whenever he called me.

I am sure we all have our memories of Alfonso during the meetings.
However, if you wish to share your comments please leave a message on
the blog or write to me to post your comments. In the meantime you can
read more about Alfonso:

"Alfonso Vallejo"
Wikipedia contributors. (2021, December 4). Alfonso Vallejo. In
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:14, January 6, 2022, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfonso_Vallejo&oldid=1058622038

Muere el dramaturgo Alfonso Vallejo
El Español - El Cultural
https://www.elespanol.com/el-cultural/escenarios/20211203/muere-dramaturgo-alfonso-vallejo/631938304_0.html

--------------------Meeting----------

This Sunday we are discussing: Morality

The topic was proposed by Sisa and in my short essay I try to identify
some key morality issues in the twenty first century.

Morality
https://www.philomadrid.com/2022/01/morality.html

Finally please send me a message for the Skype link and if you have
problems with launching Skype try again. Please note we do not use the
video to save on mobile phone batteries for those connecting with a
mobile phone.

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 16th January: Morality (cont)

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 9th January: Alfonso Vallejo + Morality

Dear Friends,

It is with great sadness that Ruel discovered and informed me that
Alfonso Vallejo passed away on the 3rd December 2021 (19 August 1943 – 3
December 2021).

Alfonso was one of the first members of PhiloMadrid at the Molly Malone
Pub. He was a regular participant over the years until a few years ago
when his ailments made it very difficult for him to leave home. Also, he
always encouraged me to continue with the meetings whenever he called me.

I am sure we all have our memories of Alfonso during the meetings.
However, if you wish to share your comments please leave a message on
the blog or write to me to post your comments. In the meantime you can
read more about Alfonso:

"Alfonso Vallejo"
Wikipedia contributors. (2021, December 4). Alfonso Vallejo. In
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 18:14, January 6, 2022, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfonso_Vallejo&oldid=1058622038

Muere el dramaturgo Alfonso Vallejo
El Español - El Cultural
https://www.elespanol.com/el-cultural/escenarios/20211203/muere-dramaturgo-alfonso-vallejo/631938304_0.html

 

-------COMMENTS---------

Dear Lawrence,
How sad!  Please find below the message I would kindly ask you to post on the blog on my behalf:

It is sad news to learn about Alfonso Vallejo's death.
I was fortunate to share my time in Lawrence's meetings with such an intelligent an accute person. It was a pleasure to learn from his wisdom and lucidity.
May he rest in peace.

Norma 

-------

--------------------Meeting----------

This Sunday we are discussing: Morality

The topic was proposed by Sisa and in my short essay I try to identify
some key morality issues in the twenty first century.

Morality
https://www.philomadrid.com/2022/01/morality.html

Finally please send me a message for the Skype link and if you have
problems with launching Skype try again. Please note we do not use the
video to save on mobile phone batteries for those connecting with a
mobile phone.

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 9th January: Alfonso Vallejo + Morality

Morality

 

Morality

 

Topic by Sisa

Essay by Lawrence

 

 

Morality is the applied discipline of the philosophy of ethics. Morality is mainly about distinguishing our intentions, actions and behaviour between what is right and proper from what isn’t right and what is improper. Ethics is more about systematising and codifying what is right and what is wrong.

 

For the purpose of this essay I will focus on the applied aspect of morality where I try to address key moral issues in the twenty first century. We are practically a quarter into the 21^st century but most of us can identify problems today as the same as those we had in the 20^th century.

 

Looking at the Wikipedia entry for 1922, the year saw the first insulin treatment for diabetes in Canada. Some of the discoverers of insulin were reluctant to patent the process on the grounds of medical ethics, but some others argued that a company might patent the process for profit without guaranteeing the quality of the medicine. Yet today society is still fighting to find a vaccine 100% effective against the dreaded Covid-19 and the medical ethics of patenting such vaccines is still a relevant debate.

 

The morality and ethics of a Covid vaccine today is not just one of profit, but also of distribution. Except today there are other technical issues that in 1922 were completely unknown. First of all there are so many people who are qualified to work and develop a vaccine at an industrial scale to meet world demand. Producing vaccines is a specialised process, and it costs big money to train people. Secondly, distribution of the vaccine is itself complex and might not be easily done in certain parts of the world.

 

Hence a key issue of morality this century still remains accessing health care when a person requires attention. The pandemic has demonstrated that a private health care system is impractical and unethical during a national emergency. The USA, UK, and China have shown that private health care (in their various forms), or rather ability to pay for health care, is inadequate for major medical emergencies.

 

The Irish Free State was established in December 1922 that would eventually lead to the Republic of Ireland of today and Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. The relevance of this is that the immoral act of Brexit in the UK had the unpredictable consequence of Northern Ireland becoming one of the most prosperous regions within the EU. This newly found prosperity is driving NI closer to unification with Ireland and away from the UK.

 

The immoral actions of the British government today will certainly bring about the unification of Ireland. Incidentally such immorality in political governance will also make the independence of Scotland closer to becoming real. Political moral actions have consequences independent of any ideology.

 

In a way political morality for the rest of the 21^st century would be to balance what is in the national interest (eg. pandemic times) and the rights of regional identity. What is clear is that cooperation is still the most important political policy at both the national and international levels.

 

Ironically, in November 1922 saw the abolishing of the 600 year old Ottoman Empire. There is no doubt that what is left of the British Empire will implode within the next few years. In 1922 Russia was still trying to organise its self after the so called communist revolution: by 1990 the Soviet Union had disintegrated thus exposing the absurdity of trying to hide a vile dictatorship under some fancy idea of communism.

 

It would be nice if in the 21^st century people could distinguish between real political policies and deceptive propagated by fancy ideology. Ideology has certainly been the means by which dictators oppress their people. Ironically, in October 1922 Mussolini and the Fascist party marched on Rome to establish the fascist dictatorship. Today ideas from fascism have found themselves in ideologies as Neo-Liberalism or extreme right wing political parties that feed on the racist instincts of many people. Will ideology remain the cancer of politics in the 21^st century?

 

Morality in the 21^st Century is not a matter of what is good or bad, improper or proper, but rather knowing that we face a moral issue that need immediate action and accessing the means available for the right course of action.

 

Best Lawrence

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com