Comments for Unspeak

Comment on Make society work happily by Dave Weeden

Dave Weeden — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:39:43 +0000

Two points. It’s not really unspeak is it? It’s not as if Randy Olsen is euphemising (if that’s a word) an unpleasant project. Second, the problem seems to be solely with the word ‘work.’ Steven immediately invoked ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’.

I can see the difficulty with using ‘work’ to apply to society. I thought about suggesting that society was _pace_ Le Courbusier, ‘a machine for living in.’ But the problem with society being a machine is that machines need to be constructed, and who if ‘we’ constructed it (’we’ in the sense of ’society’), then it seems we have a problem… But I still feel that ‘work’ is the best verb to apply to societies. We put something in and we expect something out. And among the things we expect from society are certainly the constituent elements of happiness. (Justice, freedom for fear, etc.) The Tories think ‘Britain is broken.’ I don’t agree but are we only allowed the machine metaphor when we think the machine isn’t working? Is it so terrible to consider it might work well?

Would ‘make society happier’ be any less sinister? It still has overtones of soma dosed mind-slaves. But making society happier isn’t far from the point of existence is it? We don’t pursue happiness alone, really.

Comment on Make society work happily by Steven

Steven — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:27:44 +0000

Funny you should ask!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/book.....ook-review

Comment on Unpleasant buffeting by KB Player

KB Player — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:03:52 +0000

I tried the Dyson hand dryer this evening. It dried my hands quickly and efficiently though no more quickly and efficiently than a roller towel would have dried them. It also made a lot of noise..

Comment on Make society work happily by Kirk

Kirk — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:10:30 +0000

The views about well-being that seem most plausible to me are the ones that can accomodate a subjective and objective component. By this I mean paying attention to the ‘lived-experience’ of a person, seen from the inside, as well as their objective capacities etc. Some people think this distinction is an unhelpful one (I think this is Havi Carel’s line), but entirely subjective accounts seem thin on the ground.

Have you thought about reviewing Sen’s new one? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Idea-J.....amp;sr=8-1 I’ve not had time to look at it myself, but some colleagues tell me it is worthwhile.

Comment on Make society work happily by john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:05:06 +0000

It’s awkward usage in contemporary English, but it’s clear that our fearless scientist meant “happily” in the sense of “felicitously”, i.e. well-suited or apt in manner. On the other hand, “happy” derives from “hap”, luck, so maybe he meant we’ll all just get lucky.

Comment on Need by john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:44:44 +0000

Well, that fourth sense = “I am perfect in every way, flawless and faultless” suits the likes of Lord Mandelson, eh?

Comment on Need by richard

richard — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:38:10 +0000

…now I’ve read John’s first comment I’m no longer sure about what I just wrote.

OTOH, the now rather archaic “want” meaning “lack” might have contributed to my early embracing of atheism: I remember having trouble with “the Lord is my shepherd/I’ll not want…” I wondered why I was being told, in a church, no less, that I didn’t want the Lord as my shepherd.

Comment on Need by richard

richard — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:33:50 +0000

while “I need nothing” only has two meanings, which would seem consistent with its imperative character.
Whenever GWB said “need” I imagined he meant “knead.” It made his speeches easier to listen to.

Comment on Make society work happily by Steven

Steven — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:48:07 +0000

Amartya Sen for one argues persuasively that people can indeed be poor judges of their own well-being, such that judging situations according to people’s self-reported happiness can leave injustices in place. These might be (I am paraphrasing from memory) situations of inadequate information (eg such that there is wide cultural acceptance of chronic disease that could in fact be treated), or of people putting a brave face on what fortunate others would perceive as appalling hardships, because that’s the only way they can carry on, etc.

Sen clearly does think that “science” broadly defined in Dave W’s terms (economics etc), if correctly and justly applied, could reduce injustice and improve the lot of many people, and I agree. But this is not the same thing as saying that it could “make society work happily”.

Comment on Make society work happily by Kirk

Kirk — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:21:25 +0000

“But does it really make sense to say that you are not the best judge of your own well-being?”

Well, it certainly makes sense. The real issue is whether it’s true or not. And there doesn’t seem to be anything obvious stopping it being the case – we are not the best judges of all sorts of attributes that we possess. Well-being doesn’t seem like the sort of thing we have privileged access to either.

Just think about how judgements about your own happiness can sometimes go when you think of your past: ‘I was really happy then, but didn’t realise it’ seems a perfectly intelligible thing to say, and if that can be true then we have room for other people to be better judges of our own well-being than ourselves.