The ethics of the situation are such that one is obligated to be receptive.
In a way the mind dissects the individual into a package one could respect,,, but that's how it works, we respect until the person no longer fits our relative definitions,,
For example : we respect the priest,, until he becomes a molester or a false prophet, it's the label not the person ; words are simple labels. The word becomes more important than the individual..
When I was a boy I dealt with a lot: mentally disabled mother, orphanage , sisters, brothers, foster parents, counselors.... Etc. Real nasty stuff
Doesn't matter much now, but it is a part of me.
One of the things I realized as an adult was that we did the best we could in context .
Who benefits from my growth if I am never to be seen as the person I am... instead of the words that describe what I was
I think a great deal of my intelligence comes from my being forced by my environment to really think at an early age.
‘Respect’; the word is a symbol that stands for a particular idea or concept within the context of the statements that one would make.
I believe that the first few paragraphs brings to light the problem we have with words having more than one commonly accepted meaning.
Now when people argue, as I have ; that respect must be earned, they are using the "esteem" definition of respect which I provided the link to as "evaluative" respect.
When one thinks that "every human being has the right to respect" I believe 'they' are using a different definition of the word. (If you aren't then you are making evaluative respect meaningless .) So, in effect one may be against a statement which uses one definition of the word "respect" ("people have to earn other peoples respect") with a statement that uses a different definition of the word ("every human being has the right to respect from every other human being"). Because the definition of the word is not the same in the two statements, the two statements have independent truth values and do not contradict each other. I am comparing apples and oranges though I am using the same word to stand for both.
We need to establish a working definition of what "respect" is, and it does seem to be a cluster of properties. Do we look at the properties in a pragmatic manner?
Somehow, the idea of respect denotes something that is part of identity, as well as part of interpersonal politics.
There appears to be a generalized "respect" and a specific "respect" so maybe "objective" and "subjective" may be a way to frame the concept. Then again, that may be too confining for the meaning.
We could also delineate between explicit and implicit.
Yet just listing the properties isn't enough to encapsulate the actual referent of respect.
The layman doesn't’t learn to distinguish the difference between true philosophical differences and semantic differences. Thinking, broadly, is a form of behavior ; it is something going on in our minds individually, and what goes on in other minds whether it is thinking or not, we can only assume.
'Analytical' is another kettle of fish; in logic, mathematics, philosophy and language, it applies, again broadly, to the sets of rules and methods by which we derive meaning.
We can read a text or follow an argument and deduce their underlying rules and on that basis make judgments about analysity. So what is analytical thinking or analytical philosophy?
True philosophical discussion is generally not about differences in opinion regarding what words should mean. It is about differences in what we believe - our ideas.
We have to use words to stand for those ideas, to explain what we believe, because that's the only way we have of communicating those ideas.
People must realize, that verbal communication only works properly when the person saying (writing) a word and the person hearing (reading) a word are using the same definition of the word.
Unfortunately, a major obstacle to this is that the great majority of our words have more than one commonly understood meaning - some of the meanings being very similar, some of them very different.
Without the process , what is being communicated sometimes fails to save the phenomenon being discussed.
But I counter with another question to consider.
Is the worth of analysis anything other than specifically designating the a priori?
Doesn't analysis merely lead to just a further understanding of the propositions rather than the develop further thought?
Remember, I do not intend to dis value analysis here; the worth is "in the pudding" in my opinion.
Is the process of philosophy limited to analysis?
I don't think so. Of course the point of this is to introduce people to the mechanisms of analysis to a certain degree, but I think it very important to point out that this is not the end all be all of what constitutes philosophy.
We should not ignore the benefits of synthesis and constructivism. What I "mean" by this is that a great deal of what philosophy entails is not the defining of accurate a priori or analytical propositions, but also with the a posteriori or synthetic inference based development of philosophical thought.
I do like the nature of respect of non "rational" agents. This is where my interests lie in the matter. I see Kant's limiting those that deserve respect to those who are rational, thinking beings as a bad thing. This Cartesian split between the mental and the physical is one of the aspects of modern philosophy that drives me batty. Being a strict materialist I see that this idea is obsolete and interuptive
Where do these concepts lead us rather than "what" these concepts are really saying.
I see people behaving happily with little respect for themselves or others all the time. I usually write it up as ignorance, but it doesn't change the premise. Plenty of folks display "happiness" when doing something with utter disregard for themselves or the world around them. This doesn't mean that they are actually experiencing happiness, but it appears to be the case from my perspective.
You all could just be Zombie robots built by the Cartesian Evil Demon.
I have also seen people who have a great deal of respect for life and others who are terribly unhappy. Sorrow comes with the same knowledge that also brings respect. The Japanese have a word for it, I forget what the word is ; but there is a word in their language that defines the idea of sorrow and respect being aspects of a single epistemological concept.
So if there is a relationship between happiness and respect, then it is probably complex and not easily qualified.
What if respect is biological; based in the physical like fear? What if instead of altruism being a biological function like some scientists are asserting today, respect is a biological imperative. Do we see examples of "respectful" behavior in other species with less cognitive abilities than humans?
The true value of analysis is to enable an accurate switch from deconstructive thinking to constructive thinking; predication, development of world views, holistic coherence, etc.
Without the analytical process the synthetic process would be weak and superstitious.
I believe we can get around that problem, not by insisting that our own particular favorite definition of a word is the only proper definition, but by accepting that in reality words have more than one meaning and explaining which particular definition of a word we are using in any given statement.
"The written word does not codify interpretation nor can it ever include all axioms of perception ; odds are there are always more than just two interpretations, that could never be understated ."
By Santi P
Kinda like the question, 'what is art?' I might responded with; art is a product of human need for recreation and pleasure. At its center are perception (sense perception), emotion and aesthetics; three conditions of human existence which vary in mankind according to culture, education, religion, environment etc. etc. dictate ferociously how when and why we enjoy that which is beautiful.
I use the word beautiful guardedly since I want to claim beauty as the abiding quality in all art. By 'art' I mean the whole complex of visual, performing and literary arts. Perhaps we should link 'mind' with perception as creative movers, and aesthetics with emotions as value markers. The shame is that in evolutionary terms, as I understand it, we are still at a primitive stage in our development as far as our aesthetic and emotional development are concerned.
If art and beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, then all of aesthetics becomes purely subjective . The point of my piece was that there is more to it than this. Great art has to have a universal appeal. But the rules for judging it cannot be specified. It is not like grading apples. What is it that puts us in touch with the "aesthetic object" if there is such a thing? More than the brush strokes ,but not just the imagination?
I just want to add that I see beauty as a perceptual experience not merely a visual one. In a social sense or in an individual sense, beauty is not a unitary product but rather something composed of innumerable elements and horror of all horrors [it was never in the eyes of the beholder]!!
Metaphor and analogy sit on the top shelf next to irony and bewilderment.
The shelves are getting cluttered these days.
Even in death there is a strange beauty ; you may be dead, but living things thrive on your remains. A worm, and future generations of worms owe their existence to your death. Countless bacteria, etc etc. The gases your decomposing body releases may be breathed through tree leaves adding to a magnificent tree.
What part of you actually dies, does the word 'death' or 'life' really encompass what is ?