Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: clarities

Expand Messages
  • Bobconkawi@aol.com
    Hp3g---Consider, honestly now, if you did not feel strongly about this issue would you have bothered formulation a reasoned argument on it? Feelings are a
    Message 1 of 6 , May 29, 2006
      Hp3g---Consider, honestly now, if you did not feel strongly about this issue would you have bothered formulation a reasoned argument on it? Feelings are a part of the thinking process, not he directional part, but the driving force. Aristotle said, all thought is problem solving and all problems are conflicted feelings. --Bob

      -----Original Message-----
      From: hermanbtriplegood <hb3g@...>
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, 29 May 2006 05:53:33 -0000
      Subject: [existlist] Re: clarities

      Civility on the list is a good thing. There is open discourse and
      there is discourse that dissimulates. It is difficult to engage in
      discourse with an interlocutor who uses a private language. It is
      difficult to engage in discourse based upon the assumption of
      unconditional entitlement to opinion. Lastly, discourse remains
      difficult when it is habitually taken down to the level of what
      constitutes one's favorite kind of people.

      I try not to take what goes on here too personally. I am only human,
      of course, and I have feelings like everybody else, but I strive not
      to look for validation here. The reasonability of the idea being
      communicated, in accordance with an objective standard of discourse,
      ought to be validation enough. Approval or disapproval is secondary
      to the intrinsic standard of reasonability in discourse. This cannot
      be a matter of anything goes. It cannot be a matter of just personal
      opinion. It cannot be a matter of how one happens to feel about the
      idea in question. Rather, it needs to be about what one actually
      thinks about the idea. It cannot be an autocratic ruling.

      Feelings are real. But they get in the way of rational discourse. I
      pose this question. Which seems more appropriate? To ascertain,
      first, how one feels about an idea, then modify one's thinking to
      accommodate that feeling? Or, to decide, with reason, what one thinks
      about an idea, then, to adjust one's feelings toward it
      appropriately? Needless to say, I am one who would put reason, not
      feeling, in the driver's seat, and for good reason. To let feeling
      lead reason around by the nose is simple prejudice. It is lazy
      reason. It is a shortcut, and a copout. It is the opposite of
      enlightenment. We can do better than that. We should strive to be
      better than that. The question, "How do you feel about that?" is, to
      me, trivial, compared to the question, "What do you think about
      that?" We often cannot control our feelings. Our thinking, however,
      is something that we can direct and put to efficacious use. The
      touchstone of thinking is its autonomy. It amazes me how debased our
      appreciation and respect of thinking, compared to feeling, actually
      is in our common every day discourse. See Rand's Atlas Shrugged for
      some valuable insights into this disparity between using a feeling
      for the justification of an idea as opposed to using a thought.

      Annihilate this meta-discussion at will, if it is your will to do so.
      In other words, I invite reasoned, cogent, refutation. Impassioned
      blitherings are justly disregarded.


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
      > One of the main points of dispute in my time at the list has
      > concerned the nature of the personal. It is embarrassing, or
      > undignified, at times, to make statements perceived to relate to
      > matters normally private, or to complain about treatment received.
      > My own ethics require me, on certain occasions, to succumb to these
      > sensations for the reason that I perceive them as a lesser evil. I
      > keep repeating myself, because that is the nature of reality, i.e.,
      > it involves absolutes, relative to the human individual. So if it
      > has not been clear in the past, here it is again - I wish to be
      > treated like any other member of this group. If I am to
      be 'kicked'
      > on any occasion, this would not bother me in the least. I will
      > explain why. Always at existlist I have been treated by the
      > moderators with fairness, and when unhappy I have explained myself
      > to them either at the messageboard or by private e-mail. Theirs is
      > the prerogative, to make decision, as I have maintained
      > The wider question of responsibility, for one's very dreams, and
      > whether that might affect decision-making, is potentially
      > philosophical, though seems to me that national differences may
      > agian be relevant. In USA, for instance, it is hardly socially
      > stigmatising, to go see an analyst, or psychiatrist. I assume it's
      > quite a middle-class thing, though. My own religious faith is
      > perfectly compatible with forms of anger that may be socially
      > unacceptable, or even on the border of legality. So I am
      > to being in dispute ... with humanists, with Christians, with
      > I'm no respecter of persons. Misunderstanding is rife in society,
      > no more so than when solitary types come up against the
      > unimaginative or dogmatic tribes of gregarious. Flocks, yep. They
      > are everywhere. Onwards I wander, looking for my one lost lamb,
      > muttering in impatience at those who are so very eager to help.
      > Louise
      > ... never intentionally an actress

      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
      Yahoo! Groups Links

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.