As for where the term "conspiracy theory" came about, I've read that it originated with the CIA after the Kennedy assassination. No idea if that's true, but I suspect it is.
Terms such as "conspiracy theorist" are almost always used derogatively. That's why they exist. They are a means of demeaning one's social status.
But at the same time, I don't have a problem with them. The way I use them, it's merely a domain-specific term. In other words, if the discussion is about a "conspiracy", then someone who holds that there is a conspiracy is a conspiracy theorist. Whether the conspiracy theory is true or not is irrelevant to identifying the person as a "conspiracy theorist."
Now whether one wants to be called that is another matter and what is the social impact of being called that is still another matter. That's not my concern.
I suspect that this article came about because you want to hold various theories which are derided as "conspiracy theories" while still distancing yourself from being called a "conspiracy theorist" by claiming that you're more than that.
Good luck with that! As I said, in my use, it's a domain-specific term which is quite applicable to your case. But your problem is that you're on the opposite side of the bulk of the population. And there is no solution to that in terms of getting out from under.
You have to "own it." To quote Anton LaVey, "If you have the Devil's name, play the Devil's game."
"what unites these people is a desire to maintain freedoms hard won by past generations"
LOL Now who's uniting a bunch of people under a "label"? You just blew your whole column with that sentence.
You are completely wrong in judging the reasons I wrote this article Richard. This is based on a chapter of a book I started writing years ago. It is also based on my experience of teaching people to philosophise over many years. If you have missed that basic point - i.e. that this series is about philosophy and not facts - then you have wasted your time reading it.
You were doing psychology Richard and completely missed the point of the whole series. How can you possibly know my mind. Yes, your last sentence could be correct - but I'm not really interested. I am an optimist which, I am aware, can colour my judgement of people. But so what. This is not a competition - though I sometimes get the impression that you think it is.
I was doing observation. How can I know your mind? By observation of behavior, the same way we all do it. You've made it clear over time in your articles what "conspiracy theories" you treat seriously, and then you write an article dismissing people who dismiss conspiracy theories. Pretty obvious in my view. It didn't take much "doing psychology" to see that.
And no, I don't miss the point of your series. It's not a competition, it's merely my opinion of aspects of your articles. Feel free to dismiss it like you would anyone who disagrees with your ideas. Just as I do.
If you're a "philosopher" (which I don't claim to be), if you enter the realm of ideas, be prepared for people to argue points of your philosophy.
If you think you can know my mind by observations made through this medium, you are deluded. Your failed attempt to do this with regard to my motivation for writing this article illustrates that. Forgive me if I simply dismiss what you have said not because you are disagreeing with me but because you don't appear to be making any philosophical points that I am able to identify.
The only way to respond to that hand-waving is to dismiss it. I won't bother reading any more of these musings. I will continue to read your weekly foreign affairs summary even though the Ukraine war is mostly done.
Cheers Rob. I'm glad you used 'labelled' this week. Labelling Theory, which I first came across in criminology studies in the 1970s, studied the biases it generated in policing methods - particularly with regard to the SAS laws. I fully agree that there is a 'political' element to such labelling. Perhaps that agreement indicates 'a conspiracy'? Hadn't thought about it in terms of nouns and adjectives though.
I studied labelling theory as part of my Sociology degree. I also studied the sociology of language and there are connections between this and the philosophy of language - which I also studied.
As for where the term "conspiracy theory" came about, I've read that it originated with the CIA after the Kennedy assassination. No idea if that's true, but I suspect it is.
Terms such as "conspiracy theorist" are almost always used derogatively. That's why they exist. They are a means of demeaning one's social status.
But at the same time, I don't have a problem with them. The way I use them, it's merely a domain-specific term. In other words, if the discussion is about a "conspiracy", then someone who holds that there is a conspiracy is a conspiracy theorist. Whether the conspiracy theory is true or not is irrelevant to identifying the person as a "conspiracy theorist."
Now whether one wants to be called that is another matter and what is the social impact of being called that is still another matter. That's not my concern.
I suspect that this article came about because you want to hold various theories which are derided as "conspiracy theories" while still distancing yourself from being called a "conspiracy theorist" by claiming that you're more than that.
Good luck with that! As I said, in my use, it's a domain-specific term which is quite applicable to your case. But your problem is that you're on the opposite side of the bulk of the population. And there is no solution to that in terms of getting out from under.
You have to "own it." To quote Anton LaVey, "If you have the Devil's name, play the Devil's game."
"what unites these people is a desire to maintain freedoms hard won by past generations"
LOL Now who's uniting a bunch of people under a "label"? You just blew your whole column with that sentence.
You are completely wrong in judging the reasons I wrote this article Richard. This is based on a chapter of a book I started writing years ago. It is also based on my experience of teaching people to philosophise over many years. If you have missed that basic point - i.e. that this series is about philosophy and not facts - then you have wasted your time reading it.
Well, I was speculating. If you say that's not the case, I can't prove you wrong.
I still say my last sentence in my comment is correct.
You were doing psychology Richard and completely missed the point of the whole series. How can you possibly know my mind. Yes, your last sentence could be correct - but I'm not really interested. I am an optimist which, I am aware, can colour my judgement of people. But so what. This is not a competition - though I sometimes get the impression that you think it is.
I was doing observation. How can I know your mind? By observation of behavior, the same way we all do it. You've made it clear over time in your articles what "conspiracy theories" you treat seriously, and then you write an article dismissing people who dismiss conspiracy theories. Pretty obvious in my view. It didn't take much "doing psychology" to see that.
And no, I don't miss the point of your series. It's not a competition, it's merely my opinion of aspects of your articles. Feel free to dismiss it like you would anyone who disagrees with your ideas. Just as I do.
If you're a "philosopher" (which I don't claim to be), if you enter the realm of ideas, be prepared for people to argue points of your philosophy.
If you think you can know my mind by observations made through this medium, you are deluded. Your failed attempt to do this with regard to my motivation for writing this article illustrates that. Forgive me if I simply dismiss what you have said not because you are disagreeing with me but because you don't appear to be making any philosophical points that I am able to identify.
The only way to respond to that hand-waving is to dismiss it. I won't bother reading any more of these musings. I will continue to read your weekly foreign affairs summary even though the Ukraine war is mostly done.
Cheers Rob. I'm glad you used 'labelled' this week. Labelling Theory, which I first came across in criminology studies in the 1970s, studied the biases it generated in policing methods - particularly with regard to the SAS laws. I fully agree that there is a 'political' element to such labelling. Perhaps that agreement indicates 'a conspiracy'? Hadn't thought about it in terms of nouns and adjectives though.
I studied labelling theory as part of my Sociology degree. I also studied the sociology of language and there are connections between this and the philosophy of language - which I also studied.