NationStates Jolt Archive

What does this quote, by Kierkegaard, mean to you?

What does this quote, by Kierkegaard, mean to you?
That people lose their identities and simply become their labels to others.

That you are mislabeled in that you have misspelt "Søren".

It means nearly all politics and language negates the true identity of that being referenced. If I describe someone as a "liberal" I am not saying a damn thing about their personality, history or identity. I am saying as much about myself as them.

That you are mislabeled in that you have misspelt "Søren".
Yeah, we can blame that on my knowledge of computers and my keyboard.

Yeah, we can blame that on my knowledge of computers and my keyboard.

And that the NS nation creator doesn't accept "symbols".

It means nearly all politics and language negates the true identity of that being referenced. If I describe someone as a "liberal" I am not saying a damn thing about their personality, history or identity. I am saying as much about myself as them.
Very true, I like that.

What does this quote, by Kierkegaard, mean to you?

People assume that, once they have the label, they understand a person. This is so false.

And for the record, while I agree on this statement, I really hate Kierkegaard's philosophy. The Danes need a new one to save their reputation.

Interesting, I was just about to make a thread about this myself.

That quote describes it better than i could though. Essestially if you label someone then you can ignore all of their opinions on almost any subject. This is ridiculous in my opinion.

edit: also, what Robbopolis said, about thinking you understand a person if you label them, its just lazy, rather venomous and generally, completely wrong.

What does this quote, by Kierkegaard, mean to you?
You stop seeing the person and only see the Label... wether that label be Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative, Gay/Straight, Black/White, Religious/Not Religious.

Labels hurt.

Mostly I ask this because I've noticed a lot of labeling here. By people that really seem to hate labels. It's like if we classify somebody then we already know everything about the way that person lives, thinks, eats, breathes and dies. It's our way of making sense of the world, and of people. But what if we just took each person on an individual basis. Hmm...

Mostly I ask this because I've noticed a lot of labeling here. By people that really seem to hate labels. It's like if we classify somebody then we already know everything about the way that person lives, thinks, eats, breathes and dies. It's our way of making sense of the world, and of people. But what if we just took each person on an individual basis. Hmm...

That is a nice idea, but people love groups. Like you said is a way of simplifying things so thinking takes less time and effort, they maybe wrong but who cares if you get to rely on your preconceived notions and not do any work? It also seems to be a way of dissmissing people if their ideas make you uncomfortable.

This is only a true statement if the tool labeling or catagorizing people is misused. It is a very functional tool when used properly. However, when using it, it is imperitive to allow for variation within and across catagories of people while at the same time recognizing the charactistics that are common to that group of people.

People label you, so I try to put on an appealing label. Grandmas like me.

"Once you label me, you negate me"
What does this quote, by Kierkegaard, mean to you?
That Kierkegaard was insecure.

That Kierkegaard was insecure.
Haha, yeah, well the man "faked" that he was crazy so that he could break it off with his fiance' without her being publicly disgraced.

People label you, so I try to put on an appealing label. Grandmas like me.
Yeah, my grandma likes Canadians...

... that was a joke... hehe

I agree with most that's been said so far: that labels can hurt because they lump people into a group that automatically makes associations they may not claim for themselves. And yeah, I'm insecure myself and have rallied against being labelled. But there's always the constant reminder that categorizing and naming things is what humans do best, making order from chaos.

I agree with most that's been said so far: that labels can hurt because they lump people into a group that automatically makes associations they may not claim for themselves. And yeah, I'm insecure myself and have rallied against being labelled. But there's always the constant reminder that categorizing and naming things is what humans do best, making order from chaos.

Exactly, Humans can never hope to know someone else as well as they know themselves so they try to make sense out of everything. Bring order to chaos so that they can have the world around them in a perspective that is more recognizable. It really is what we do best, apparently Kierkegaard was indeed insecure.

Notice that even those that claim labels are bad can never escape making labels of their own.

But in bringing our order, we tend to lose sight of the beauty of chaos.

Ahem.
Labeling a person is not necessarily bad; it is destructive when you cease to see the person as a person, but as what that person has been labeled. People are much more complex than that.
Having said that, it does seem to be a human tendency, as others have already observed, to try to make sense out of chaos. Using labels to categorize people is a natural offshoot of that tendency; as long as one is cognizant of the limitations of a label to define a person, it can be quite useful (though limited.)
Much of the labeling that goes on in current society, however, does seem to be of the lazy, "I-can't-take-the-time-to-get-to-know-you" type, which is quite harmful.

As a sidenote, it is interesting to note that the human mind will tend to generate or synthesize patterns in a chaotic system where none truly exist. I'm not sure what that says about how our brains are wired, but it'd be interesting to do some reading on this.

"Once you label me, you negate me."

I like this quote. It makes me feel all fuzzy inside. ;) I agree with it one hundred percent.

I wonder if we can succeed in this: For one Month... ban all forms of Lables. no Democrats, No Repbulicans, No Jesus Freaks, No Gays, no nothing.

wonder how many flamings and trolling we'll have during that one month.

I wonder if we can succeed in this: For one Month... ban all forms of Lables. no Democrats, No Repbulicans, No Jesus Freaks, No Gays, no nothing.

wonder how many flamings and trolling we'll have during that one month.
You mean, ban USING labels in posts or ban all people who ARE labels? Because if you were to ban everyone who fits into a specific label... there wouldn't be anyone left to post.

What it means is that he used an obviously false statement in order to make a point.

I call somebody a "human being". Have I labeled that person? Of course. Have I negated him? No. His statement is false.

I call somebody a "liar". Have a I labeled him? Of course. Have I negated him? Yes, even label is true.

I call someone a "male". Have I labeled him? Of course. Have I negated him? Well, that depends on whether you're going to start an arguement in the thread about gender identification.

So, is the issue whether the statement is true? Or, are we getting deeply philosophical about gender and/or sexual preference?

You mean, ban USING labels in posts or ban all people who ARE labels? Because if you were to ban everyone who fits into a specific label... there wouldn't be anyone left to post.The idea is to ban the USE of Labels. even self Labeling.

The idea is to ban the USE of Labels. even self Labeling.
Ah... that would be interesting.

What it means is that he used an obviously false statement in order to make a point.

I call somebody a "human being". Have I labeled that person? Of course. Have I negated him? No. His statement is false.nope unless you can find a person who isn't a "Human Being"

I call somebody a "liar". Have a I labeled him? Of course. Have I negated him? Yes, even label is true.actually yes. by calling him a "Liar" even if you can prove it, you place a label that automatically calls into doubt the truthfullness anything he/she says. people will start assuming (probably wrongfully) that anything from that person will be false without giving that person the benefit of checking it out first.

I call someone a "male". Have I labeled him? Of course. Have I negated him? Well, that depends on whether you're going to start an arguement in the thread about gender identification.that is a Physical Discriptor. I can call you tall, and to me, chances are you are tall. but that doesn't label you, that describes you.



So, is the issue whether the statement is true? Or, are we getting deeply philosophical about gender and/or sexual preference?perhaps taking it to the Extreme in my opinion. howabout we stick to the non-physically discriptive labels.

nope unless you can find a person who isn't a "Human Being"

actually yes. by calling him a "Liar" even if you can prove it, you place a label that automatically calls into doubt the truthfullness anything he/she says. people will start assuming (probably wrongfully) that anything from that person will be false without giving that person the benefit of checking it out first.

that is a Physical Discriptor. I can call you tall, and to me, chances are you are tall. but that doesn't label you, that describes you.



perhaps taking it to the Extreme in my opinion. howabout we stick to the non-physically discriptive labels.

ok...I've been spending some time in a transgender thread, so I guess I'm keyed to folks shoveling philosophy about gender identification.

ok...I've been spending some time in a transgender thread, so I guess I'm keyed to folks shoveling philosophy about gender identification.No problem... seen alot of threads here were people automatically go to the Extremes to prove a point. :D

interesting question about gender id tho...

I'll post it there.

I would like to have it known that if someone where to label me an asshole I would smile pleasantly and agree whole heartedly. That is all...

What does this quote, by Kierkegaard, mean to you?

In a certain way, it's a statement about the symbolic nature of the human animal--about the ability of good rhetors, through consubstantiation and demonification and like rhetorical strategies, to identify with a large group without any real personal ties to them.

I mean, think of Hitler (I know, there's a law about discussing Nazis on internet conversations, but I'm talking through Burke's lens, here; there's surely an exception for legitimate rhetorical criticism). His propaganda machine encompassed the situation of the German depression of the 1930s with certain labels (demonizing the Jews and exalting Arian blood, mainly). By convincing the German people (mostly) to identify with the labels he provided them (the oppressed Arians, a superior race held in financial ruin by those Hebrew bankers, etc.), he negated their individual ability to oppose him or to accept other identities. Or, more appropriately, they negated their own abilities to oppose him.

Most identities/labels are crafted to sell products or ideologies. The label/identity as victim or "the entitled one" produces empathy towards social justice and socialism. The self-made man or entrepreneur label/identity is more conducive to a capitalist, free market ideology. When you get people to label themselves in a certain way (through a certain interpretation of the situation/world), you take away their ability to disestablish themselves from the ideologies inherent within the label. In that way, a person is negated from free thought of the situation--their understanding of the world is decided by how they view themselves, as a victim or entrepreneur, should feel. In that way, A labeled person is a negated one.

So, I think the saying may be just as viable when phrased as "Once I label myself, I negate myself".

But, then again, as the human is a symbolic animal, there's no real way against identifying oneself too simply, and through these rhetorical labels. I mean, a word doesn't have definition unless we attach it to meaning (dog=slobbery, hairy, "ruff", wagging tail, etc.). Likewise, we don't feel as though we have definition unless we attach meaning to ourselves--through the form of self-labels or identities.

Ahem.
Labeling a person is not necessarily bad; it is destructive when you cease to see the person as a person, but as what that person has been labeled. People are much more complex than that.
Having said that, it does seem to be a human tendency, as others have already observed, to try to make sense out of chaos. Using labels to categorize people is a natural offshoot of that tendency; as long as one is cognizant of the limitations of a label to define a person, it can be quite useful (though limited.)
Much of the labeling that goes on in current society, however, does seem to be of the lazy, "I-can't-take-the-time-to-get-to-know-you" type, which is quite harmful.

As a sidenote, it is interesting to note that the human mind will tend to generate or synthesize patterns in a chaotic system where none truly exist. I'm not sure what that says about how our brains are wired, but it'd be interesting to do some reading on this.
Well, now, there's an interesting idea in that sidenote. Is a pattern inherent or is a pattern what is recognized as such? Is it a pattern if there's no one around to (hear it fall) see it? What sort of pattern is an unrecognized one?

I believe the human consciousness --Man, the Observer --is a necessary part of a pattern. That is the faculty that brings order to chaos.

Labeling saves time. True, it trades accuracy for efficiency, but it is a trade worth making.

What does this quote, by Kierkegaard, mean to you?

It means you have reduced me from the infinite possibilities I once was to the narrow definition of your description. ;)