[lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you glad you no longer have a Hitler problem?
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 18:26:45 -0400
I see your point, but the applications are somewhat limited, and the first
example probably wouldn't work for me. Emotions are the body's way of
giving us information about our environment. Anger tells us we've been
hurt, grief that we've lost something, and so on. If I think if I found
out someone I care about has been lying to me, there probably was a time
when I would have been angry. Now I would wonder why they need to lie.
Are they afraid of me, I would wonder, such that they're afraid to tell me
the truth? Are they afraid of their own anger and thereby asking me to
carry their anger for them, and they know I'll get angry if they lie? In
any case, most likely, I like to think, I would see their lying as their
problem and not take it personally.
In the second example, I would certainly not continue to grieve and would
instead rejoice.
In the third instance, I'd probably go through shock, and then, like it or
not, go through the grief process. Having cleared the emotional air, I'd
probably take the test again.
In any case, none of these examples invalidates that humans are emotional
creatures. In fact it supports that premise since all the reactions you
mention are emotional, as needs they must be since we are humans and not
machines. The problem is that a huge, if not vast, majority of people are
emotional in a vague, unfocused way. Needing, as T.S. Eliot said, an
objective correlative (gosh, I haven't used that word in years) for their
emotions, they find an "enemy". Obviously that's what all terrorists do,
but also everyone in general. And *everyone* justifies the way they
express, or mis-express, their emotions by saying their actions are moral.
Kill 100,000 witches? It's perfectly moral. Is it rational? Of course
not. It is absolutely, completely emotional.
So, I think we're agreeing after all. May I offer you some oregano, Mr.
Paul?
> [Original Message]
> From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 6/25/2006 6:02:44 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Aren't you glad you no longer have a Hitler
problem?
>
> > Morality may be grounded in rationality, but rationality is subservient
to
> > the emotions. Therefore, morality is either grounded in the emotions or
> > it's an academic construct. Maybe that's why humanity talks a good line
> > about morality while their behavior is downright venal. And that's on a
> > good day. On a bad day ...
>
> Suppose you're angry because you believe someone has been lying to you.
> It turns out that they've been telling the truth. Do you continue to be
> angry with them? Is this a case of 'rationality' being 'subservient' to
> the emotions, or vice versa?
>
> Imagine that the War Department mistakenly informs you that your brother
> has been killed in battle. Do you continue to feel grief, anger, and
> shock, when you learn that he's safe and sound? Specifically, do you
> still grieve for him?
>
> You're happy because you've passed the bar exam. Woops, computer error!
> Still celebrating?
>
> Robert Paul
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
