10 ms·
I find it ironic that "We think too much and feel to little" appears to contradict the conclusion at the end "Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where
by flashback2199 3y ago
I find it ironic that "We think too much and feel to little" appears to contradict the conclusion at the end "Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness."
- fjallstrom 3y agoParadoxes are beautiful!
- TuringTest 3y agoIt's only a paradox under the widespread myth that reason and feelings are opposites. People who know their science understand that all rational thought is grounded on emotion and deep-rooted feelings.
- Der_Einzige 3y agoReminds me of Zizek's video "Don't act, just think"[1] And yes, Zizek is a charlatan[2]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5yoqjABeBM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5yoqjABeBM
- oeta 3y agoIt's interesting how statements can sometimes seem contradictory on their own. The first statement may highlight the importance of emotions, while the concluding one emphasizes reason and progress. Together they might suggest a balance between thoughtful reflection and the hope of a rational and progressive world.
- reqo 3y agoI don’t see the contradiction. Humans can be emotional and at the same use science to make all humans life better! In fact why would we ever develop any technology that makes life better for others if we don’t have any feelings for them?
- oeta 3y agoThe contradiction arises because the user "flashback" depicts it as an either-or scenario. It shouldn't be interpreted as an exclusive OR statement; instead, there might be a nuanced interplay between thinking and feeling.
- flashback2199 3y agoI think feel isn't precise enough, maybe compassion is better? In the speech, Chaplain opposes the Nazis, yet the main tool the Nazis used to gain and hold power in Germany was by emotion, distributed thru speeches on the radio especially. Hitler was a highly emotional speaker. WWII didn't occur due to a lack of feeling.
- bsdpufferfish 3y agoWas there more emotional rhetoric than is otherwise used in politics? Personally the “hitler mind controlled everyone with his speach” theory that I was told in the 90s just isn’t convincing. Facism was in the zeitgeist around the world.
- flashback2199 3y agoNo mind control, he said what people wanted to hear after losing WWI Mind control was how Yuri helped the USSR win the Cold war in Red Alert 2 (joke ;)
- bsdpufferfish 3y ago> he said what people wanted to hear after losing WWI In other words, they believed it. It wasn’t a false manipulation.
- taylorlapeyre 3y agoThere is no contradiction - it is reasonable to feel more than we do.
- derstander 3y agoI disagree. Science would suggest that separating a human from their emotions (like via emotional suppression) is illogical — a one-way ticket to mental health disorder. Thus, to obey reason, one must feel enough (and regulate vs suppress those feelings).
- TeMPOraL 3y agoOn the other hand, following the teachings of Surak, which you effectively reference here, would be seen as highly logical by some. Though perhaps hard to practice by humans.
- kiba 3y agoI would say that's a straw vulcan. Emotion are data and drivers of our actions. A Vulcan would not say "emotions are illogical." They would say "What does this emotion says and does it make sense in this situation?" Or "how would I feel more appropriately for this situation?". Or "this emotion doesn't make sense for this situation." Sometime, it's more appropriate for us to rely on intuition and instinct and it would be more rational for us to do that instead. Imagine someone's about to be hit by a car. You have only seconds to move them out of the way. You don't have time to ponder so you just do it. Thinking and logic is a general problem solving tool that's very useful in certain context, but they are very slow to use. By itself it is not a complete toolkit for dealing with emotional issues. Can't exactly make yourself less angry using just logic alone. You need some emotional tools to dial down counterproductive emotions.
- kiba 3y agoPaying attention to our feelings is probably how we become more 'logical'.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago[flagged]
- TeMPOraL 3y ago> Nazi Germany thought their way to the holocaust. That's bullshit though. You don't think your way to holocaust, you hate and greed and fear your way to it. Those are all feelings. Even indifference to the violence and death of others is a feeling - or at least fear-driven emotional defense mechanism. The Nazis weren't "machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts", no matter how much it nicely riffs off machine guns being a relatively new experience for most of the world back then. They weren't Vulcans or Skynet. It's important to study how and why they ended up doing what they did, but science and reason is not it, and tarnishing those aspects of being human is not the right lesson to take from that period of history.
- vasco 3y agoEugenics and Phrenology were very relevant at the time and used as a scientific basis to justify many attrocities. It's important to remember that science evolves, and what we "know" to be part of scientific knowledge today might be debunked in the future. Specially with the state of peer review in the social sciences my feeling is many things that are said to be scientific fact today will be proven wrong later, including whole fields. Easier to trust more fundamental aspects of math and physics, but even in those fields, on the bleeding edge many things can change. The current zeitgeist is that science is as holy as religion used to be, and because there's so many anti-science people gaining a voice on the internet, it's sometimes easy to forget that we're not perfect at science and we also make wrong turns while we trudge our way through the scientific method.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoSome facts are dangerous.
- noah_buddy 3y agoI can’t think of a single fact on its own that presents any danger. If anything, facts through the lens of ideology may become dangerous, but data on its own is like technology. Neutral without application, good or evil depending on situation.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y agoHypothetically if the world's scientists were to all prove that blacks were inferior to whites, what good would come out of that? I can't think of a single good thing that would come from that- the world would be worse for knowing such a fact.
- bsdpufferfish 3y agoDoes “inferior” mean statistically less likely to be good at logic games? Because I don’t believe people’s claim to humanity is defined by that.
- HKH2 3y agoRight. Humanity is not defined by IQ or knowledge, and it's perfectly okay for people to prefer the company of some without denying the humanity of others.
- eternauta3k 3y agoIf this were proven, we would be forced to set a rigorous foundation for our values where all people have the same rights and worth regardless of how smart they are. Instead of saying people are only equally worthy if they are equally smart, and hoping no one proves the latter wrong.
- deleted 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- AndyPa32 3y agoI don't think that it's a contradiction. Too much of any of those is bad. Four year olds are driven by feeling only. Psychopaths are driven by thought only. You don't want the world in the hands of any of those. It's a good mix of both feeling and reason that we should strive for.
- thenoblesunfish 3y agoMaybe "reason" means thinking and feeling at the same time. Because if you think hard enough, you start thinking about what is important in bigger and bigger ways, and that eventually leads you to fundamental human values, which involve feelings.
- namuol 3y agoI like Captain Disillusion’s motto: “Love with your heart; use your head for everything else.”