I’m not so sure I really agree that it’s useful to try and separate the emotion and passion from how we respond. Most people engage better with emotional appeals than appeals to logic. It’s also worth keeping in mind that Israel is responsible for the success of Hamas, if they had been willing to live peacefully alongside palestinians then none of this would have gone as far as it did. The majority of Palestinians wanted peace and reconciliation decades ago. It’s only after Likud’s continued fascist antics that palestinians lost hope in that peace process.
I don’t think we should completely neglect our passions. They make us who we are and define our truest selves! Passion is blinding though. Anyone who has ever felt true passion about anything knows this. It takes both passion and cold logic to achieve truly good things. Passion is inherently the stronger of the two though, so you have to set it aside (temporarily) to truly indulge your logic. Then put those together.
I definitely do not agree with using passion as the center of your political movement. That’s demagoguery, by definition. It’s common and we’re all susceptible to it, but it’s not a good thing.
I agree with you re: the origins of Hamas. It truly could not matter less right now. Hamas exists, and they’re doing terrible things to Palestinians and Israelis alike, just like Israel is. They’re both issues we need to solve and I’m not willing to set one aside for the other.
I don’t think it’s truly possible to completely isolate your feelings to make a decision entirely based on logic. It’s one of those little tricks our brain pulls on us, we think we’re being objective, but our reasoning is driven by our emotions even if we think they’re not.
We’re very emotional creatures, and our brains are able to convince us of almost anything, including that we’re making decisions based on pure logic. But we can’t, we’re always in our feelings even when we try not to be. And the history of people who have put “logic” before emotion is extremely dark - eugenics, scientific racism, essentialism, and Ben Shapiro.
Just something to think about. I’m not telling you that you’re wrong or bad or anything like that, I’m sure you aren’t, you seem like a good person who has great intentions. But beware that your “logical” deductions may be very heavily influenced by your emotions even when you try your best to prevent it.
I’m just not sure I’ve gotten my point across to you bc93. I’m not asking anyone to become an emotionless automation. That’s of course a nightmarish outcome. That’s full logic, no passion. Bad. In that same exact manner, all passion, no logic is also horrible. The history of people who have done that is also extremely dark. Nobody is advocating for either of those though!
When I tell someone to “put yourself in someone else’s shoes”, I am not asking them to lose their sense of self or to base their final decision entirely on that other person. It’s a thought mechanism we use to emphasize our sense of empathy, which gives us a new perspective that we fold into our amalgamation of ideas.
I’m not asking for anyone to turn their emotions off forever, or even deluded enough to think you can do that fully at all, in the same way that I don’t expect anyone to fully convert their brain into another person’s to empathize. It doesn’t matter, it’s still a useful exercise in part.
That’s all I’m asking for. There is a lot of nuance and complexity to all situations, and passion is blinding. I’m not a Buddhist, but they have a concept of Bonno, those passions that inspire us to actions that harm ourselves or others. I don’t think Buddhists are quite on the same level as Ben Shapiro and the Nazis just because they recognize that passion can be blinding.
I think we more or less are on the same page - just to clarify though, my reactions have been specifically motivated by this line in your original message: “try to think separate from your feelings” - there is no such thing as thinking separated from feelings. We can’t do that. All we can do is try to consider other people’s perspectives as best we can, learn what our biases are and how they shape our thinking, and accept that we will never be fully objective or unbiased.
To believe that you’re capable of acting without bias is dangerous, but it’s just as bad to disregard the perspectives of others.
I’ve never said that people should ignore any attempt at logic and just focus on their passions, but the modern cult of rationality and stoicism is ironically hugely lacking in self-awareness and rationality.
I’ve never said that people should ignore any attempt at logic and just focus on their passions, but the modern cult of rationality and stoicism is ironically hugely lacking in self-awareness and rationality.
I’ve never said that people should ignore any attempt at passion and just focus on their logic, but the modern mobs of righteous indignation and fury are ironically hugely lacking in empathy, tolerance (not of intolerance, before that gets tossed at me), and pragmatism.
I agree that we mostly seem to be on the same page, but I really need to stress that I have not asked people to be soulless and I think that’s a mischaracterization of my asking for people to set their passion aside as much as possible as an exercise which is inherently temporary. We’re both just looking for balance here.
I’ve never thought or said that were asking people to be soulless or that you think people should become unfeeling machines or anything like that - a person doesn’t need to go that far. All we need to do is trick ourselves into believing that we’re making a decision based on logic and reason rather than emotions and passions, and that’s easy to do.
By the way, just to clear the air, I’m not really trying or intending to argue with you or anything, I’m just expanding on your ideas and sharing my own thoughts. I’m not the person downvoting your comments, either, for whatever that’s worth.
Thank you for the discussion, I appreciate your thoughts, you seem like a decent person.
I’m not so sure I really agree that it’s useful to try and separate the emotion and passion from how we respond. Most people engage better with emotional appeals than appeals to logic. It’s also worth keeping in mind that Israel is responsible for the success of Hamas, if they had been willing to live peacefully alongside palestinians then none of this would have gone as far as it did. The majority of Palestinians wanted peace and reconciliation decades ago. It’s only after Likud’s continued fascist antics that palestinians lost hope in that peace process.
I don’t think we should completely neglect our passions. They make us who we are and define our truest selves! Passion is blinding though. Anyone who has ever felt true passion about anything knows this. It takes both passion and cold logic to achieve truly good things. Passion is inherently the stronger of the two though, so you have to set it aside (temporarily) to truly indulge your logic. Then put those together.
I definitely do not agree with using passion as the center of your political movement. That’s demagoguery, by definition. It’s common and we’re all susceptible to it, but it’s not a good thing.
I agree with you re: the origins of Hamas. It truly could not matter less right now. Hamas exists, and they’re doing terrible things to Palestinians and Israelis alike, just like Israel is. They’re both issues we need to solve and I’m not willing to set one aside for the other.
I don’t think it’s truly possible to completely isolate your feelings to make a decision entirely based on logic. It’s one of those little tricks our brain pulls on us, we think we’re being objective, but our reasoning is driven by our emotions even if we think they’re not.
We’re very emotional creatures, and our brains are able to convince us of almost anything, including that we’re making decisions based on pure logic. But we can’t, we’re always in our feelings even when we try not to be. And the history of people who have put “logic” before emotion is extremely dark - eugenics, scientific racism, essentialism, and Ben Shapiro.
Just something to think about. I’m not telling you that you’re wrong or bad or anything like that, I’m sure you aren’t, you seem like a good person who has great intentions. But beware that your “logical” deductions may be very heavily influenced by your emotions even when you try your best to prevent it.
I’m just not sure I’ve gotten my point across to you bc93. I’m not asking anyone to become an emotionless automation. That’s of course a nightmarish outcome. That’s full logic, no passion. Bad. In that same exact manner, all passion, no logic is also horrible. The history of people who have done that is also extremely dark. Nobody is advocating for either of those though!
When I tell someone to “put yourself in someone else’s shoes”, I am not asking them to lose their sense of self or to base their final decision entirely on that other person. It’s a thought mechanism we use to emphasize our sense of empathy, which gives us a new perspective that we fold into our amalgamation of ideas.
I’m not asking for anyone to turn their emotions off forever, or even deluded enough to think you can do that fully at all, in the same way that I don’t expect anyone to fully convert their brain into another person’s to empathize. It doesn’t matter, it’s still a useful exercise in part.
That’s all I’m asking for. There is a lot of nuance and complexity to all situations, and passion is blinding. I’m not a Buddhist, but they have a concept of Bonno, those passions that inspire us to actions that harm ourselves or others. I don’t think Buddhists are quite on the same level as Ben Shapiro and the Nazis just because they recognize that passion can be blinding.
I think we more or less are on the same page - just to clarify though, my reactions have been specifically motivated by this line in your original message: “try to think separate from your feelings” - there is no such thing as thinking separated from feelings. We can’t do that. All we can do is try to consider other people’s perspectives as best we can, learn what our biases are and how they shape our thinking, and accept that we will never be fully objective or unbiased.
To believe that you’re capable of acting without bias is dangerous, but it’s just as bad to disregard the perspectives of others.
I’ve never said that people should ignore any attempt at logic and just focus on their passions, but the modern cult of rationality and stoicism is ironically hugely lacking in self-awareness and rationality.
I’ve never said that people should ignore any attempt at passion and just focus on their logic, but the modern mobs of righteous indignation and fury are ironically hugely lacking in empathy, tolerance (not of intolerance, before that gets tossed at me), and pragmatism.
I agree that we mostly seem to be on the same page, but I really need to stress that I have not asked people to be soulless and I think that’s a mischaracterization of my asking for people to set their passion aside as much as possible as an exercise which is inherently temporary. We’re both just looking for balance here.
I’ve never thought or said that were asking people to be soulless or that you think people should become unfeeling machines or anything like that - a person doesn’t need to go that far. All we need to do is trick ourselves into believing that we’re making a decision based on logic and reason rather than emotions and passions, and that’s easy to do.
By the way, just to clear the air, I’m not really trying or intending to argue with you or anything, I’m just expanding on your ideas and sharing my own thoughts. I’m not the person downvoting your comments, either, for whatever that’s worth.
Thank you for the discussion, I appreciate your thoughts, you seem like a decent person.