fucktoyprincess
Posts: 2337
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
I think the classic interpretation isn't one of non-feeling but of horrible ignorance, that the phrase is supposed to be an example of a Romney-ism.
On my trudges through way too many Marie Antoinette biographies (she fascinated me as a kid), my sense was that it was presented as a bit of both--heartlessness and cluelessness.
While we're in the world of revolutionary France, it's interesting to note that the French turned many of their churches, including Notre Dame, into "Temples of Reason" and then unleashed the Reign of Terror, which took tens of thousands of lives.
quote:
However, from the context it's pretty clear that fucktoyprincess didn't mean it as an example of intellectual reasoning with bad data but as an example of the dangers of overusing emotional reasoning.
Hence I picked an example which I think fits her position that we can agree actually happened.
And it was, I agree, a cringe-worthy example. That flack was not deviating from her talking points!
Yes, in all fairness, I was using it an an illustration. We can certainly have a debate about whether she said it or not, but it's not really in furtherance of the topic at hand.
If it makes you feel better about the dialogue, I hear people say things that are the equivalent quite frequently. In reference to homeless people, in reference to welfare mothers, in reference to certain communities of people. I often hear statements that come more from anger and frustration, than reason. So, in reference to welfare, people will say, "we need to cut them all off!". But then when you stop them and actually have a discussion, they calm down, and usually back peddle, and say they are just frustrated about the existence of welfare abuse, but will often acknowledge that some people do need public assistance. In other words, in my experience, talking through things with actual people who I know, often makes them concede that their extreme point of view is probably not workable in real life. But their emotions tend to push them towards an extreme viewpoint.
Perhaps this is all I am even trying to say with this. Is that for a pluralistic society to survive long term, requires a flexible enough political system to allow for tremendous variance. And emotions tend to produce more extreme reactions and solutions. Whereas stepping back and trying to think through things, again, in my experience, often usually produces a more fair result.
From personal experience, I know, that when I feel I am about to lose my temper, it is far better for me to count to 10, or remove myself from the situation before I say something that I will regret. In my own life, emotion just usually doesn't result in the better outcome for the overall friendship, or family, etc. even though it does result in my being able to vent my anger. I have almost always found, especially with negative emotions, that reasoning is a very important thing. To stop and assess things before letting anger, or sadness, or some other negative emotion, cause one to do or say something that usually harms those close to one.
Positive emotions are only somewhat different. The spontaneity of a first kiss, or other things, are not something that generally produce negative effects, per se, and part of being human is to have that spontaneity. But again, even those positive emotions don't always produce the best public policies. Someone feeling overwhelmed to make sexual contact with someone works only if the other person is receptive. Again, one's personal emotion does not answer for us how to address issues of sexual abuse, rape, unwanted touchings. The fact that people enjoy sex does not mean that therefore our public policy should have no restrictions on sexual contact. But the moment we start talking about things like consent - we are not in the emotional world anymore. We are in the rational world.
And again, I think it is possible to fashion rules of behavior for a society by not having to rely on any religion at all. If you utilize principles of fairness, equality, etc (many of which are not actually part of religion at all - certainly most religions are very unequal in the way, for example, that they view gender) as goals for a society, you can fashion rules that achieve those goals as best as possible given a multitude of situations. Reasoning can get us there in a way that emotion simply cannot. And again, reasoning does not presume a single outcome. It can include negotiation and compromise. But isn't this the way law always works? There are few absolutes. Even in religion, oddly, there are few absolutes, except, of course, for the absolute of "belief".
_____________________________
~ ftp
|
RE: Why Atheism Scares People - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread