You give up the notion “if <thing I don’t prefer is the case in the universe> then ”.
Right, so I think what is being missed here is the functional role sadness, anxiety and offense play in motivating human action. Sadness has intensionality—it is about something—and its proper role in a human mind is to motivate various complex responses along the lines of “avoid this” or “prevent this from ever happening again.” Lose the sadness and you lose the motivational power it contains. I don’t think this motivational power is actually replaceable by a more generic abstract preference. (Or else charity fundraising would just say “we offer 20 utilitons per dollar” and that would be enough.)
Of course, the kind of emotional distancing recommended here might be necessary if the sadness/anxiety/offense actually becomes, in itself, an obstacle to achieving your goals—which can certainly happen. But it is not the general case.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I am talking descriptively about humans, not prescriptively here. It’s too bad that we aren’t strongly motivated by “20 utilitons per dollar.” We should be! But we aren’t.
The functional role sadness, fear, suffering, and all such emotions plays is the same role pain plays: It is an indicator, telling the mind where the problem is.
There are certainly multiple ways to “fix” the problem. In the end, however, the methods that in any way dampen progress are methods that don’t actually fix the problem. (The problem is never external)
Roughly 80% of the time, people are offended by things that they don’t know they do themselves.
That’s why it is very important to listen to the emotional pain: to figure that out.
Roughly 20% of the time, people are offended by things that they do the opposite of on purpose, and take pride in.
In this case, it is equally important to listen to the emotional pain: to figure out that they are doing the wrong thing.
These two things can overlap.
Roughly 50% of the time, people get offended at their own imaginations; and what they are offended by has no bearing in reality. As in: they put words in people’s mouths, or they alter definitions.
At these times, there is no reasonable way to avoid offending these people. They alter their understanding of reality so that they can be offended. They’re basically addicted to getting offended.
Yes, I really mean 50%.
I don’t think this motivational power is actually replaceable by a more generic abstract preference. (Or else charity fundraising would just say “we offer 20 utilitons per dollar” and that would be enough.)
This does not follow. If the motivational power of sadness is replaceable by a more generic abstract preference, but most people do not perform that replacement, then charity fundraising would appeal to the “most people” baseline.
Right, so I think what is being missed here is the functional role sadness, anxiety and offense play in motivating human action. Sadness has intensionality—it is about something—and its proper role in a human mind is to motivate various complex responses along the lines of “avoid this” or “prevent this from ever happening again.” Lose the sadness and you lose the motivational power it contains. I don’t think this motivational power is actually replaceable by a more generic abstract preference. (Or else charity fundraising would just say “we offer 20 utilitons per dollar” and that would be enough.)
Of course, the kind of emotional distancing recommended here might be necessary if the sadness/anxiety/offense actually becomes, in itself, an obstacle to achieving your goals—which can certainly happen. But it is not the general case.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I am talking descriptively about humans, not prescriptively here. It’s too bad that we aren’t strongly motivated by “20 utilitons per dollar.” We should be! But we aren’t.
The functional role sadness, fear, suffering, and all such emotions plays is the same role pain plays: It is an indicator, telling the mind where the problem is. There are certainly multiple ways to “fix” the problem. In the end, however, the methods that in any way dampen progress are methods that don’t actually fix the problem. (The problem is never external)
Roughly 80% of the time, people are offended by things that they don’t know they do themselves. That’s why it is very important to listen to the emotional pain: to figure that out.
Roughly 20% of the time, people are offended by things that they do the opposite of on purpose, and take pride in. In this case, it is equally important to listen to the emotional pain: to figure out that they are doing the wrong thing. These two things can overlap.
Roughly 50% of the time, people get offended at their own imaginations; and what they are offended by has no bearing in reality. As in: they put words in people’s mouths, or they alter definitions. At these times, there is no reasonable way to avoid offending these people. They alter their understanding of reality so that they can be offended. They’re basically addicted to getting offended. Yes, I really mean 50%.
This does not follow. If the motivational power of sadness is replaceable by a more generic abstract preference, but most people do not perform that replacement, then charity fundraising would appeal to the “most people” baseline.