How Words Can Harm: Crash Course Philosophy #28

Summary

In this Crash Course Philosophy episode, we explore how language can be both confusing and harmful. The episode highlights the distinction between speaker meaning and audience meaning, demonstrating how miscommunication can lead to misunderstanding or offense. It delves into taboo words, the concept of thick concepts, and how certain words, such as hate speech or seemingly harmless phrases, can have deep, harmful effects. Philosophers like Charles R. Lawrence III and Stephanie Ross offer insights on how language can shape self-perception and perpetuate harmful attitudes. The episode ultimately calls for thoughtful scrutiny of the words we use.

Takeaways

• 😀 Words can be misunderstood due to ambiguity, where speaker meaning doesn’t always match audience meaning.
• 😀 Context is crucial in understanding language. Sometimes, lack of context leads to confusion or misinterpretation.
• 😀 The Use/Mention Distinction helps us differentiate between using a word in speech and merely talking about the word.
• 😀 Dirty words and swear words are meant to shock or emphasize but do not necessarily target someone's identity.
• 😀 Hate speech, unlike dirty words, targets an individual based on their identity (race, gender, sexual orientation), and its purpose is to cause harm.
• 😀 Thick concepts are words that carry both descriptive meaning and inherent evaluative content, making them harder to separate.
• 😀 Words like ‘faggot’ contain both a description and a deeply negative attitude, making them harmful to those they target.
• 😀 Hate speech should be legally punishable, according to Charles R. Lawrence III, because it replaces communication with violence and fear.
• 😀 The term ‘baby’ can cause metaphorical identification, making someone feel powerless or dependent over time, particularly when used repetitively.
• 😀 Even casual or seemingly harmless language, like calling someone a ‘baby,’ can have harmful effects on how they view themselves.
• 😀 Language shapes self-perception, and words can indirectly reinforce harmful attitudes about individuals and groups.
• 😀 Critical reflection on language use is important, as words can unintentionally spread harmful ideas or reinforce negative stereotypes.

Q & A

What is the main theme of this episode of Crash Course Philosophy?

The main theme of this episode revolves around how language can be used and misused, especially focusing on the power of words and how they can unintentionally or intentionally cause harm. It addresses the distinction between speaker meaning and audience meaning and explores the impact of words like hate speech and harmful stereotypes.

What is the use/mention distinction, and why is it important in discussing harmful language?

The use/mention distinction is the difference between using a word in a sentence and talking about the word itself. For example, saying 'philosophy' is using the word, while saying 'Philosophy is a Greek word' is mentioning it. This distinction is important because it allows philosophers to discuss harmful or taboo words while not promoting their harmful use, helping to understand how and why certain words can be offensive or harmful.

What are 'thick concepts,' and how do they relate to language causing harm?

'Thick concepts' are words or ideas that not only carry descriptive meaning but also come with evaluative or moral content. For example, 'murder' describes the act of killing but also carries the evaluation that it is wrong. These concepts can cause harm because the negative attitudes associated with them are inseparable from their descriptive meaning, making them deeply hurtful when used as slurs.

Why does Charles R. Lawrence III believe hate speech should be legally punishable?

Charles R. Lawrence III argues that hate speech should be legally punishable because it targets individuals based on key aspects of their identity, like race or gender, and is designed to cause harm. He believes that the negative attitudes embedded in these words cannot be separated from their meaning, making them harmful in ways that go beyond simply offensive language.

What are 'fighting words,' and why does Lawrence suggest they shouldn't be protected by free speech laws?

'Fighting words' are words meant to incite violence rather than promote communication. Lawrence argues that since the purpose of free speech protection is to encourage open dialogue, words designed to replace dialogue with violence and fear, such as hate speech, do not deserve constitutional protection.

What does Stephanie Ross say about the power of words like 'baby' when used to describe women?

Stephanie Ross explains that words like 'baby' can create metaphorical identification, where women begin to internalize traits associated with babies, such as helplessness and dependence. This can subtly shape a person's self-perception, making them feel more powerless and reliant on others, especially men, for care and decision-making.

How can the word 'slut' cause harm, according to the script?

The word 'slut' is harmful because it not only describes women who engage in casual sex but also carries a negative evaluation of them. It enforces societal judgments about women and their sexuality, and its use can perpetuate harmful attitudes toward women, even those who may not fit the typical description. Using the word spreads this negative attitude.

What is the difference between dirty words and hate speech?

Dirty words, such as vulgar terms for body parts or sexual acts, are generally offensive due to their coarse or inappropriate nature but are not intended to target a person or group. In contrast, hate speech is specifically aimed at members of a group, typically based on race, gender, or other identity factors, and is designed to harm or disparage that person or group.

Why is it important to be mindful of how words are perceived by others, even if they are not intended to harm?

It is crucial to be mindful of how words are perceived because speaker meaning and audience meaning do not always align. Even if a person does not intend to harm someone with their words, the listener may interpret them differently, leading to unintended emotional or psychological harm.

What does the script suggest is the role of philosophy in examining language?

The script suggests that philosophy helps us scrutinize language by encouraging us to reflect on the words we use and understand the impact they have. By analyzing words through a philosophical lens, we can better grasp how language can cause harm, even when unintentional, and learn to communicate in a more thoughtful and responsible way.