The Rise Of Emotionality

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Re: The Rise Of Emotionality

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:30 am

Social justice is effectively the secular equivalent of a belief system that comes equipped with its very own moral code
This allows social justice warriors to assume a monopoly on wisdom and so anyone who disagrees with them is both wrong and morally weak as a consequence
The outrage therefore is a consequence of said moral code being violated by events that are beyond their control such as the result of an election for example

The puritanical element within social justice is very damaging indeed even if its core principles are fundamentally sound
Everyone must abide by the rules of identity politics and so no one can think for themslves individually only collectively
For anyone deviating from this will be publicly demonised for their betrayal from the script which is simply not allowed

However anyone can be a snowflake so it is not something exclusive to the left even though it is predominantly associated with them
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The Rise Of Emotionality

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:49 am

Sometimes the rigidity of the moral code will defy logic but it must still be upheld by all
To reject this is to be labelled a derogatory term simply for refusing to toe the party line

The emphasis is on solidarity rather than any fundamental acceptance of reality as it really is
Idealism is therefore more important than pragmatism regardless of how unrealistic it may be
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The Rise Of Emotionality

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 25, 2019 7:08 pm

Seriously, you get into a discussion regarding the rise of emotionalism in today's world. As noted in the OP.

Someone reacts to that by noting this:

The only appropriate response is admitting fallibility, humility, so as to belong to the collective.
We are not omnipotent, so we must be equally feeble.
The specimen must receive this validation.

No certainty, no pride, no arrogance. Only humility.
Admit that you may be wrong, to belong to the collective of equally wrong.
Either omniscient, or ignorant.
Either/Or.
1/0
Dualities.
If not absolutely good, then absolutely evil.


He calls this "serious philosophy".

Now, you tell me:

In regard to your own interactions with others, some liberals, some conservatives, what would be the use value and exchange value of an assessment of this sort when the discussion does in fact precipitate all manner of fierce emotional outbursts. From both sides.

In regard to the impeachment of Trump. Or Jews. Or race. Or gender. Or homosexuality.

Et cetera.

Back to this:

What emotions are appropriate and to what degree in regard to what particular set of circumstances? Why don't you start by noting experiences you have had of late in which you felt that the emotions expressed were not appropriate, or, if appropriate, not to the right degree.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 37298
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users