A Clarification

It has come to my attention that some followers of Gangadean have found the manner in which I write to be offensive. In particular, there are certain phrases that I have used in my posts that have been taken as personally disparaging. I've always made a concerted effort to avoid making things personal because that's not what this blog is about.  Despite my efforts, some have taken certain phrases, or terms to be offensive in just this way.

For instance, I often refer to those that follow Gangadean's teachings as "Ganagdeanians" or "Gangadean and his kin" or "Gangadean and his ilk." To be sure, I never once intended for these to be disparaging remarks. In fact, these are just not phrases or terms that are offensive among the groups of academic philosophers I run with. 'Ilk' for instance just means "of the same type." Just as 'kin' has essentially the same denotation. And just like an Aristotelian is someone that shares certain core views of Aristotle, 'Gangadeanian' refers to the persons that agree with Ganagadean on certain core issues.  Finally, sometimes I refer to such persons as being semantically chauvinistic. But by that I just mean that they merely assert the meanings of words or analyses of concepts rather than arguing for them. But it turns out that some Gangadeanians have taken my usage of these phrases in different ways so as to find them to be personally disparaging.

Now I don't know the ins and outs of how much responsibility I have when I write and speak should people misconstrue what I have said so as to hear an offensive message. On some occasions I feel like I'm clearly in the wrong (when I've said something that I know or should have known is offensive to others but say it any way, regardless of my intent). In other situations, when what I have said was offensive to another because they misunderstood it or misconstrued it uncharitably (where they know or should have known better), it seems like the listener might be in the wrong. Perhaps there are many situations where the burden of conduct is shared between both listener and hearer. I don't really know. And I don't know where along this spectrum this particular issue stands.

At the end of the day, if it can be avoided within reasonable limits, I don't want anybody to be hurt or feel disparaged by my writing. Since my readers aren't all familiar with the sorts of conventions among the circles I run in, I can see how they might have misunderstood what I meant by some of my words. Hence, I want to offer an apologly to the Gangadeanians who may have read me as being snarky and disparaging in my usage of the terms enumerated above. I hope they understand that that was never my intent. These are just common phrases used among people I am most often around and so I didn't think to the consider the possibility that they might be taken in unintended and unconventional ways.

[Here and here are just a couple of instances of philosophers using 'ilk' in the way that I intended].

[Here and here you find instances of philosophers using 'kin' in the way that I intended].

[Here is an instance of a philosopher's usage of 'chauvinism' in the way that I intended].