Venting Thread

[manchesterano]

5 hours ago, philstudent1992 said:

I don't think this kind of strained attempt to be cute is productive, so I'm not going to rebut you.

Ditto. 

 

3 hours ago, ABrown said:

The first three sentences of the above paragraph are, quite honestly, silly.

Ditto.

[Schwarzwald]

4 hours ago, philstudent1992 said:

I don't think this kind of strained attempt to be cute is productive, so I'm not going to rebut you.

Whoa dude, I'm sorry if I offended you. I was not trying to be intentionally annoying, I thought we were just having a conversation, and I thought my points were fair. Once again, I apologize if I annoyed you.

3 hours ago, ABrown said:

The first three sentences of the above paragraph are, quite honestly, silly.  I don't think anyone here is suggesting that (1) is an analytic truth.  You're not going to be able to discern the truth or falsity of (1) by analyzing the definitions or meanings of the constituent words in (1).  Instead, as you've suggested, (1) is made true by "facts about the world" relating to the human suffering and one's ability to mitigate such suffering.  I don't really see a problem with the previous posters who have presupposed that there exists an incredible amount of human suffering in the world.  This should be pretty obvious to most people, since they need only to step out their front door, turn on their TV, or browse the internet in order to bear witness to the vast amount of human suffering in our world.

I also do not believe someone is making an analytic statement, hence why I go on to talk about the argument being about facts about the world. My pointing toward analyticity is to say that these arguments people are making have been asserted with the same presuppositional power as if one was stating a logical truth, and that that is a fast and loose way of going about making such large claims, especially considering what Establishment stated earlier. A typical valence of these arguments is a denigration of philosophy -- here not thought of as some abstract concept, but as something some people have sacrificed and strived for, i.e. gughok. So it'd seem to me that if one is to assert as boldly as one has done that philosophy is inherently ethically inferior to some other philanthropic pursuit, one should probably not simply presuppose it as if that inherence was as obvious as some analytic apriori relation, condescending to one person's struggle to validate another's. 

Of course, it is true that there are a number of factors that could potentially impact a person's ability to mitigate the suffering that one sees around them.  This isn't really relevant to the initial question that we seem to be discussing and the comments to which you are responding.  (How is one productive as a philosopher?  How does this productivity compare to the kind of productivity we might have if we choose an alternative career path?)  In fact, what some of the previous posts seem to be suggesting is that by foregoing a career in philosophy in favor of something else (e.g., law, medicine), one can put oneself in a position to be a lot more productive with respect to reducing suffering.

The point I was making was about the causal chain that leads to one's power to mitigate the suffering. In the initial exchange between gughok and philstudent, counterfactuals are a primary point. What I'm saying is that in the the actual unfolding branch of time, gughok could find himself in the position where mitigating those suffering events that were previously available to him (let's say at birth) are, in a very real way, no longer available to him due to certain choices he's made (pursuing philosophy, not caring about what people think because he's doing what he likes, moving from place to place, etc.) So -- as to how he could be productive, the point being made is that the alternative career path may not be a viable alternative once certain choices have been made in one's life. And furthermore, that to assert that one is always in a position to act in a particular way is to be dishonest about the limits of circumstance, especially when those limits have been sought out and are themselves examples of suffering or productivity -- i.e. working two jobs to pay for grad school because you love philosophy despite most people denigrating it, similar to what Mental Engineer brought up.

 Sure, it's often necessary to have some set of background assumptions or some kind of "ideological perspectives" in place in order to pass value judgments.  However, I'm not sure that calling something an instance of suffering necessarily has to be a value judgement. For example, I think the fact that person is experiencing gratuitous, unwanted pain is a good reason to think that one is suffering.  Of course, many individuals will argue that the existence of suffering provides some reason to act or intervene, but simply identifying something as an instance of suffering need not always require some background assumptions about value. More importantly, is it really reasonable to assume that there exists anyone in this thread who actually holds the "ideological perspectives" necessary in order to completely discount the value of reducing suffering in our world?  If not, then the point that you are trying to make in the above paragraph is moot, and most people who have commented on this topic will have some reason to believe that mitigating suffering in some way contributes to being productive in one's career.

See, this is the tricky part about the presupposition, and what I meant when I spoke about the problem of vagueness. Do I think anyone does not hold the value, in this thread, that suffering should be reduced? No. However, that is because I do believe it is analytic, contained within the word, suffering, that one inherently not condone it. My problem is that, despite that, I also believe that, among the people in this thread, we might have very different ideas about what suffering is. So, there could be a case where hierarchically speaking, it is more productive to pursue philosophy, teach and research, than to give to charity, as one might find ignorance worse than poverty. Or, more importantly, that some folks might not see certain acts as suffering at all, i.e.: (And I live in the South, so excuse me if this seems unthinkable) It is quite common around me for people to not see poverty as a case of suffering, but rather as a case of punishment. Where the difference here is that suffering happens to the innocent, and punishment happens to the guilty. In delineating between these two concepts, people are allowed to discount giving to the homeless, and more importantly, voting for particular "welfare candidates," that would raise their taxes to help people who they believe are guilty of something. However, my primary point is Lyotard's in the Differend, when he speaks about presuppositions silencing other's, specifically those without the power afforded from some dominant ideological framework. To which, I think is a serious and legitimate issue to bring up. When you presuppose your moral fabric, you silence someone else's, and it is worse when this silencing is of someone who knows, such as gughok (or anyone who consistently has to deal with the denigration of philosophy) that their view is a minority view, as the presupposition just reinforces the "otherness" of their perspective.

 

[Chrysippus'Doge]

1 hour ago, Schwarzwald said:

I do believe it is analytic, contained within the word, suffering, that one inherently not condone it.

This is just a misunderstanding of the meaning of analytic: There is nothing in the definition of suffering that says people can't condone it. What about sadists? What about the suffering of people like Hitler or Pol Pot? There are myriad examples of times when someone may condone suffering. But for example there are, BY DEFINITION, no married bachelors. That's why "no one condones sufferings" is not analytic and "all bachelors are unmarried" is. 

 

And I gotta say Schwarz, although I'm really sympathetic to your desire to justify the study philosophy, I think in the course of your argument you've ended up parodying the very discipline you were trying to defend! Because isn't that one of the issues that the detractors of philosophy (and many philosophers too!) often highlight? That no amount of linguistic or conceptual analysis will ever be able to answer empirical questions? And the questions in this thread at the moment are pretty much empirical: How much suffering is there? How many people are capable of alleviating this suffering and to what degree? So questions about analyticity are pretty much irrelevant. Perhaps I'm missing some subtlety, in which case feel free to correct me!

Edited March 19, 2016 by Chrysippus'Doge

[Schwarzwald]

10 minutes ago, Chrysippus'Doge said:

This is just a misunderstanding of the meaning of analytic: There is nothing in the definition of suffering that says people can't condone it. What about sadists? What about the suffering of people like Hitler or Pol Pot? There are myriad examples of times when someone may condone suffering. But for example there are, BY DEFINITION, no married bachelors. That's why "no one condones sufferings" is not analytic and "all bachelors are unmarried" is. 

This is why I delineated between suffering and punishment. Is a masochist suffering? I don't think a strict link between suffering and pain will suffice. A central theme of sadism is punishment, as well as what one would be doing when they "condoned the suffering" of Hitler or Pol Pot. However, I understand what you are saying, and in a sense, punishment implies suffering, it's just suffering that one condones. However, to me, that latter point then further implies that when we speak about "suffering" and not "punishment," we are talking about things we don't condone. This would depend upon the definition of suffering though, which is why I stated it is an analytic situation, depending on how you define suffering (and I don't mean some radical indefensible definition, but even as simple as delineating between suffering and punishment) you will get a different set of suffering events, and there is a real possibility that people don't agree for consistent reasons. Furthermore, my point about analyticity regarded the way in which the arguments were being presented. The way you present "All unmarried males are bachelors," is with a force that you understand all people will know that "it is patently the case," as was stated by philstudent earlier. However, for the very reason that the amount of suffering is a fact about the world, and depending on one's definition, the amount of suffering could vary, it could never be "patently the case," that x where x is some set of suffering events. So, my original mention of analyticity regarded the way inwhich the argument was presented and the vagueness of the usage of "patently the case." As, if I were to use "patently the case," it would only be for cases of which I thought were obvious in the same way that it is obvious that all unmarried males are bachelors.

And I gotta say Schwarz, although I'm really sympathetic to your desire to justify the study philosophy, I think in the course of your argument you've ended up parodying the very discipline you were trying to defend! Because isn't that one of the issues that the detractors of philosophy (and many philosophers too!) often highlight? That no amount of linguistic or conceptual analysis will ever be able to answer empirical questions. And the questions in this thread at the moment are pretty much empirical: How much suffering is there? How many people are capable of alleviating this suffering and to what degree? So questions about analyticity are pretty much irrelevant. Perhaps I'm missing some subtlety, in which case feel free to correct me!

I must say, I sincerely apologize if people think I am intentionally parodying or being obtuse. It really is not my intention, and since my perspective seems to be unwelcome or unnerving for some, I will curb my posts regarding this topic, as I understand that topics regarding ethics or morals may be sensitive, and I'm not trying to troll anyone. The last thing I want is for people to come into the venting thread, of all places, and have more stuff to be mad at, haha. I've mentioned the relation of the definition or analyticity of suffering to what events one believes to be suffering events, so I hope that is clear: The definition of suffering is pertinent to this discussion because in order to understand "how much suffering there is," we have to know what we mean by suffering as distinguished from punishment or pain, etc. I must say though, that I do feel as if it is the very absurdity that one might see in my arguments that demonstrates how strong the presupposition that everyone shares the same definition of suffering is, which I do not believe to be true.

 

[dgswaim]

What the hell is going on at Indiana HPS? Does anyone have any intel on this???

[Paper Moon]

I'm worried about sexism in whichever school I attend, but every time I try to broach the subject even in the most off-hand way, the current grad students who I had been speaking to (through e-mail), and with whom is been building a rapport, immediately stop talking to me (it's happened 4 times). I'm not so crass as to say "Is you department sexist?" Or anything like that. Usually I'll talk to the person and they'll mention that there are few female grad students and I'll ask what their experience is like being one of only a few females. I've been tactful about it. And it's a legitimate concern and it would influence my choice of program.

I love philosophy as a subject (I've been dreaming of going to graduate school for 5 years since graduating) but the the condescending and sexist attitudes that I suffered due to many of my male classmates in philosophy classes makes me apprehensive. On my first day of philosophy club, I was the only female student and one guy kept criticizing everything I did (not said, but did... He thought my notes were too sloppy, for example and felt the need to comment, then on my clothes, and my hair etc... And he wasn't doing this to anyone else), and some professors often criticized me for speaking too much during discussions, which I'd never heard a male being accused. I did talk a lot, but definitely not as much as some of my peers who were never forced to be quiet. One of my good friends in the class, a boy, even noticed this. The list of seemingly minor, but crushing things is endless. I don't think people do it to be malicious (I really don't), but unless people are actively trying not to be sexist (because it's so ingrained), it will just continue.

And people always tell you to shrug it off or not do XY and Z if you don't want to face sexism (I was told I shouldn't travel alone by myself, for instance, and I'm always asked "Why would you live in X country if you don't like sexism?" As if it's my duty to make sure that I'm not harassed... ) and despite all of this, it's never stopped me from doing what I want to do (even if it's made things difficult). But, I would love to be able to be in a department where sexism/racism etc.. aren't tolerated. Where people are supportive of you as a person (or at least respectful) even if they disagree with your views or argue vehemently against what you're saying. Where I don't have to worry about someone having alternative motives when they ask me for my help on a project or cruel rumors about whether I'd really earned my grades or not. A professor quit at my university because other professors said she'd only been able to get where she was due to her looks and many constantly harassed her.

I studied both international affairs and philosophy and the difference in the atmosphere of the classes was so different (due to gender balance, not the subject itself). But in jobs in international affairs (which I have now), sexism is very blatant and often legal. So it's not like going into international affairs would necessarily be a better option.

Sexism is everywhere and what's worse is that when you tell people about your experiences and the ridiculous nonsense that you have to put up with on a daily basis, they try to gaslight you into making you think you're imagining it or that it's not important or that you should stop complaining or that you're right but nothing can be done. That or they try to argue with you about how it's "not all men," instead of just listening and trying to help you end it. It's maddening.

I'm deciding which path to take and it sucks to have to worry about this and it sucks that no one can (or will) really answer my questions regarding their experiences. And it sucks that I kind of already know the answer.

 

Edited March 19, 2016 by Paper Moon
A pack of wild boars

[Establishment]

54 minutes ago, Paper Moon said:

I'm worried about sexism in whichever school I attend, but every time I try to broach the subject even in the most off-hand way, the current grad students who I had been speaking to (through e-mail), and with whom is been building a rapport, immediately stop talking to me (it's happened 4 times). I'm not so crass as to say "Is you department sexist?" Or anything like that. Usually I'll talk to the person and they'll mention that there are few female grad students and I'll ask what their experience is like being one of only a few females. I've been tactful about it. And it's a legitimate concern and it would influence my choice of program.

I love philosophy as a subject (I've been dreaming of going to graduate school for 5 years since graduating) but the the condescending and sexist attitudes that I suffered due to many of my male classmates in philosophy classes makes me apprehensive. On my first day of philosophy club, I was the only female student and one guy kept criticizing everything I did (not said, but did... He thought my notes were too sloppy, for example and felt the need to comment, then on my clothes, and my hair etc... And he wasn't doing this to anyone else), and some professors often criticized me for speaking too much during discussions, which I'd never heard a male being accused. I did talk a lot, but definitely not as much as some of my peers who were never forced to be quiet. One of my good friends in the class, a boy, even noticed this. The list of seemingly minor, but crushing things is endless. I don't think people do it to be malicious (I really don't), but unless people are actively trying not to be sexist (because it's so ingrained), it will just continue.

And people always tell you to shrug it off or not do XY and Z if you don't want to face sexism (I was told I shouldn't travel alone by myself, for instance, and I'm always asked "Why would you live in X country if you don't like sexism?" As if it's my duty to make sure that I'm not harassed... ) and despite all of this, it's never stopped me from doing what I want to do (even if it's made things difficult). But, I would love to be able to be in a department where sexism/racism etc.. aren't tolerated. Where people are supportive of you as a person (or at least respectful) even if they disagree with your views or argue vehemently against what you're saying. Where I don't have to worry about someone having alternative motives when they ask me for my help on a project or cruel rumors about whether I'd really earned my grades or not. A professor quit at my university because other professors said she'd only been able to get where she was due to her looks and many constantly harassed her.

I studied both international affairs and philosophy and the difference in the atmosphere of the classes was so different (due to gender balance, not the subject itself). But in jobs in international affairs (which I have now), sexism is very blatant and often legal. So it's not like going into international affairs would necessarily be a better option.

Sexism is everywhere and what's worse is that when you tell people about your experiences and the ridiculous nonsense that you have to put up with on a daily basis, they try to gaslight you into making you think you're imagining it or that it's not important or that you should stop complaining or that you're right but nothing can be done. That or they try to argue with you about how it's "not all men," instead of just listening and trying to help you end it. It's maddening.

I'm deciding which path to take and it sucks to have to worry about this and it sucks that no one can (or will) really answer my questions regarding their experiences. And it sucks that I kind of already know the answer.

 

There was and might still be some sort of Facebook group for women philosophy grad students that you might want to check out if you haven't already, they might have some good resources on places that are hospitable and those that aren't and other stuff.

Shame this stuff isn't more public so that departments that are known cesspools can be burned to the ground.

[FroggyFriend]

1 hour ago, Paper Moon said:

I'm worried about sexism in whichever school I attend, but every time I try to broach the subject even in the most off-hand way, the current grad students who I had been speaking to (through e-mail), and with whom is been building a rapport, immediately stop talking to me (it's happened 4 times). I'm not so crass as to say "Is you department sexist?" Or anything like that. Usually I'll talk to the person and they'll mention that there are few female grad students and I'll ask what their experience is like being one of only a few females. I've been tactful about it. And it's a legitimate concern and it would influence my choice of program.

I love philosophy as a subject (I've been dreaming of going to graduate school for 5 years since graduating) but the the condescending and sexist attitudes that I suffered due to many of my male classmates in philosophy classes makes me apprehensive. On my first day of philosophy club, I was the only female student and one guy kept criticizing everything I did (not said, but did... He thought my notes were too sloppy, for example and felt the need to comment, then on my clothes, and my hair etc... And he wasn't doing this to anyone else), and some professors often criticized me for speaking too much during discussions, which I'd never heard a male being accused. I did talk a lot, but definitely not as much as some of my peers who were never forced to be quiet. One of my good friends in the class, a boy, even noticed this. The list of seemingly minor, but crushing things is endless. I don't think people do it to be malicious (I really don't), but unless people are actively trying not to be sexist (because it's so ingrained), it will just continue.

And people always tell you to shrug it off or not do XY and Z if you don't want to face sexism (I was told I shouldn't travel alone by myself, for instance, and I'm always asked "Why would you live in X country if you don't like sexism?" As if it's my duty to make sure that I'm not harassed... ) and despite all of this, it's never stopped me from doing what I want to do (even if it's made things difficult). But, I would love to be able to be in a department where sexism/racism etc.. aren't tolerated. Where people are supportive of you as a person (or at least respectful) even if they disagree with your views or argue vehemently against what you're saying. Where I don't have to worry about someone having alternative motives when they ask me for my help on a project or cruel rumors about whether I'd really earned my grades or not. A professor quit at my university because other professors said she'd only been able to get where she was due to her looks and many constantly harassed her.

I studied both international affairs and philosophy and the difference in the atmosphere of the classes was so different (due to gender balance, not the subject itself). But in jobs in international affairs (which I have now), sexism is very blatant and often legal. So it's not like going into international affairs would necessarily be a better option.

Sexism is everywhere and what's worse is that when you tell people about your experiences and the ridiculous nonsense that you have to put up with on a daily basis, they try to gaslight you into making you think you're imagining it or that it's not important or that you should stop complaining or that you're right but nothing can be done. That or they try to argue with you about how it's "not all men," instead of just listening and trying to help you end it. It's maddening.

I'm deciding which path to take and it sucks to have to worry about this and it sucks that no one can (or will) really answer my questions regarding their experiences. And it sucks that I kind of already know the answer.

 

Hey.  I'm a lady, and know the feeling.  There is literally too much bullshit to bear sometimes.

I did want to mention that what might be happening here is that some or all of these folks do have things to say to you about the climate but are being skittish about putting it in writing that can be easily forwarded or copy/pasted.  See if you can get any of these students to talk on the phone / over skype / in person and see if they're any more forthcoming.

But yeah, any program that will not at least talk about the well-known sexism in philosophy is one that you should probably side-eye.

[Paper Moon]

24 minutes ago, Establishment said:

There was and might still be some sort of Facebook group for women philosophy grad students that you might want to check out if you haven't already, they might have some good resources on places that are hospitable and those that aren't and other stuff.

Shame this stuff isn't more public so that departments that are known cesspools can be burned to the ground.

Thank you for the advice and supportive words. I'll look for that Facebook group.

I wish the information were more public too, but then they'd actually have to admit that there's a problem first.

My friend who is doing her PhD at MIT (in the sciences, not philosophy) shared this article with me and it home so hard: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/she-wanted-to-do-her-research-he-wanted-to-talk-feelings.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0&referer=

I have a co-worker (who is higher up in rank than I am) here who asked me on my first day in front of our boss to be his American wife in English when he knew I'd be the only one to understand (which is very suspicious, if what you're saying is innocuous, then you could say it in a language that our boss would understand). He was "joking", but I was a new subordinate in a new country and it set a tone of discomfort for me for all 3 years that I've been here. Even now I'm super uncomfortable around him. He recently asked me what I thought about infidelity... He always makes these "joking" off hand remarks and stands too close to my desk. I've started walking away whenever he comes over to my desk.

I've told other co-workers and they've more or less said "gamon" which means "endure." Or more plainly "don't make waves and just let it slide."

[Paper Moon]

14 minutes ago, FroggyFriend said:

Hey.  I'm a lady, and know the feeling.  There is literally too much bullshit to bear sometimes.

I did want to mention that what might be happening here is that some or all of these folks do have things to say to you about the climate but are being skittish about putting it in writing that can be easily forwarded or copy/pasted.  See if you can get any of these students to talk on the phone / over skype / in person and see if they're any more forthcoming.

But yeah, any program that will not at least talk about the well-known sexism in philosophy is one that you should probably side-eye.

That's really good advice. I was wondering if they were afraid of that as well, because they don't actually know me and I can understand that they'd not want to put themselves in danger.

One girl did say that there are few women in philosophy, so the women are all really supportive of each other at the university (I told her I was happy to hear that) but she didn't say more than that and didn't respond to my follow ups.

[FroggyFriend]

1 minute ago, Paper Moon said:

That's really good advice. I was wondering if they were afraid of that as well, because they don't actually know me and I can understand that they'd not want to put themselves in danger.

One girl did say that there are few women in philosophy, so the women are all really supportive of each other at the university (I told her I was happy to hear that) but she didn't say more than that and didn't respond to my follow ups.

 I would definitely try speaking with them in person.  Two other tidbits: in my experience upper Gs are a lot more forthcoming because they're more jaded and DGAF anymore, and sometimes asking students about programs other than the one that they are attending can be helpful.  (Like: "I'm also choosing between X, Y, and Z, but I"m worried about climate" and see if they say anything.  I would only try this in person.)  Sometimes grad students don't want to bad mouth their own department out of fear or a sense of obligation, but they often have no problem letting you know what's being said in the whisper network about their competitor schools. 

[ABrown]

6 hours ago, Paper Moon said:

I'm worried about sexism in whichever school I attend, but every time I try to broach the subject even in the most off-hand way, the current grad students who I had been speaking to (through e-mail), and with whom is been building a rapport, immediately stop talking to me (it's happened 4 times).

Someone in the Facebook group for 2016 philosophy grad school applicants posted a link to the Minorities and Philosophy (MAP) program a few weeks ago.  The organization has chapters at many American and UK universities.  I'm not sure where you are planning to attend grad school, but if it's an institution with a MAP chapter and you can't get any more useful information out of your current grad student contact, then you might consider reaching out to the contact for the MAP program at the respective school.  I would think that they would be more receptive to talking about climate issues regarding sexism within their program.

I hope this is helpful and I hope you can get the information you need in order to make a decision about where to attend.

[dgswaim]

Passed my MA thesis defense today

[psm1580b]

1 hour ago, dgswaim said:

Passed my MA thesis defense today

Congratulations! Also, weirdly, exactly the song I listened to when I passed

[Adequate Philosopher]

11 hours ago, dgswaim said:

Passed my MA thesis defense today

Congratulations!

But at the risk of sounding pedantic (however, perhaps this is acceptable on a philosophy forum), is the venting thread the best place to post about successfully defending your MA thesis?

[dgswaim]

32 minutes ago, Adequate Philosopher said:

Congratulations!

But at the risk of sounding pedantic (however, perhaps this is acceptable on a philosophy forum), is the venting thread the best place to post about successfully defending your MA thesis?

You're right. It does sound pedantic.

[MentalEngineer]

30 minutes ago, dgswaim said:

You're right. It does sound pedantic.

That Gricean implicature though.

[dgswaim]

3 hours ago, MentalEngineer said:

That Gricean implicature though.

The Gricean implicature of this is failing to parse for me. More reasons I hate phil language (namely, I don't understand philosophy of language).

Thanks for the downvotes anyway, @Adequate Philosopher! It merits mentioning that when I created this thread the intention was that it operate in a pretty free-form manner.

Edited March 26, 2016 by dgswaim

[759]

1 hour ago, dgswaim said:

The Gricean implicature of this is failing to parse for me. More reasons I hate phil language (namely, I don't understand philosophy of language).

Thanks for the downvotes anyway, @Adequate Philosopher! It merits mentioning that when I created this thread the intention was that it operate in a pretty free-form manner.

The implicature when saying 'You're right. It does sound pedantic.'---when the pedantic-caveat was rhetorical and not the issue --- is that you don't think their question is worth answering. Which you know already, since that was obviously what you meant. Pointing out maxim-flouting and implicatures is like ruining an obvious joke with an explanation!  

[thatsjustsemantics]

1 hour ago, WVE said:

The implicature when saying 'You're right. It does sound pedantic.'---when the pedantic-caveat was rhetorical and not the issue --- is that you don't think their question is worth answering. Which you know already, since that was obviously what you meant. Pointing out maxim-flouting and implicatures is like ruining an obvious joke with an explanation!  

That's a conventional implicature. A conversational implicature is something you do based on contextual factors and understanding of conventions in conversation. It's like rule-following according to pragmatics. A conventional implicature, on the other hand, is what is expressed beyond the content of what is said in virtue of the conversational conventions.

I don't mean to be pedantic either, it's just that a lot of people confuse the two.

Source: Scott Soames' Philosophical Essays *Presupposition), Essay I (footnote).

[759]

1 hour ago, thatsjustsemantics said:

That's a conventional implicature. A conversational implicature is something you do based on contextual factors and understanding of conventions in conversation. It's like rule-following according to pragmatics. A conventional implicature, on the other hand, is what is expressed beyond the content of what is said in virtue of the conversational conventions.

I don't mean to be pedantic either, it's just that a lot of people confuse the two.

Source: Scott Soames' Philosophical Essays *Presupposition), Essay I (footnote).

I'm not sure why you think I'm confusing terms. The poster, MentalEngineer, said 'That Gricean implicature though.', without specifying which---conversational or conventional. In my explanation, I also used the word 'implicature' without specifying which type. Neither of us were more specific, I'm assuming, because it was perfectly obvious what we meant. You'll find this is very common---simply saying 'implicature' or 'Gricean implicature' when everybody knows what's at issue.   

Edited March 27, 2016 by WVE

[thatsjustsemantics]

2 hours ago, WVE said:

I'm not sure why you think I'm confusing terms. The poster, MentalEngineer, said 'That Gricean implicature though.', without specifying which---conversational or conventional. In my explanation, I also used the word 'implicature' without specifying which type. Neither of us were more specific, I'm assuming, because it was perfectly obvious what we meant. You'll find this is very common---simply saying 'implicature' or 'Gricean implicature' when everybody knows what's at issue.   

Hey buddy: you're not 'a lot of people,' you're a person; the attribution of confusion wasn't directed at you. It was a general comment directed at people who haven't heard a lot about Gricean implicatures except in passing. Come on: don't just presuppose that something is perfectly obvious in philosophy, even for philosophers. Remember: to most people, we don't make much sense. It's like that dailynous post that went up maybe a week ago. In that post, Justin asks philosophers to remember that professors of philosophy are so unique in their interest in academia that they pursue philosophy in universities, and that's weird. (The point being that no, you were not perfectly obvious with what you meant).

Edited March 27, 2016 by thatsjustsemantics

[759]

13 hours ago, thatsjustsemantics said:

Hey buddy: you're not 'a lot of people,' you're a person; the attribution of confusion wasn't directed at you. It was a general comment directed at people who haven't heard a lot about Gricean implicatures except in passing. Come on: don't just presuppose that something is perfectly obvious in philosophy, even for philosophers. Remember: to most people, we don't make much sense. It's like that dailynous post that went up maybe a week ago. In that post, Justin asks philosophers to remember that professors of philosophy are so unique in their interest in academia that they pursue philosophy in universities, and that's weird. (The point being that no, you were not perfectly obvious with what you meant).

'...the attribution of confusion wasn't directed at you.'

 

I'm sorry for making this mistake; usually when you quote someone, it means your comments are directed at them. Perhaps your contribution would have made more sense if you quoted dgswain where they said they were confused, then quote what I said, then began your contribution with 'Also, there are more than a single type of implicature...', or something. As your comment stands, it looks like you're correcting me.

 

Also, I maintain that which 'implicature' I meant was made perfectly obvious by its context. If I were talking about a dalmatian, and this obvious by context, you wouldn't fault me for simply calling it 'dog', 'the dog', etc. If language is so brittle that even context is too poor to convey what we mean, then we're in more trouble than I thought.     

[thatsjustsemantics]

54 minutes ago, WVE said:

'...the attribution of confusion wasn't directed at you.'

 

I'm sorry for making this mistake; usually when you quote someone, it means your comments are directed at them. Perhaps your contribution would have made more sense if you quoted dgswain where they said they were confused, then quote what I said, then began your contribution with 'Also, there are more than a single type of implicature...', or something. As your comment stands, it looks like you're correcting me.

 

Also, I maintain that which 'implicature' I meant was made perfectly obvious by its context. If I were talking about a dalmatian, and this obvious by context, you wouldn't fault me for simply calling it 'dog', 'the dog', etc. If language is so brittle that even context is too poor to convey what we mean, then we're in more trouble than I thought.     

It's ok. In any case, we're in a lot of trouble because there are context failures in language all the time, because it flew over my head that quoting you does suggest directing something to you.

[FettuccineAlfrege]

So... It's really emotionally and mentally draining to spend so much time and energy agonizing over a couple of offers when the possibility of getting off the waitlist into a way better program (where I would definitely go) is looming uncertainly over my head. Bah.