Despite all my philosophy I am still embarrassed to confess strong emotions, and you’re probably uncomfortable hearing them.
That’s the core problem, on a philosophical level many agree that emotions are a good thing, but they still feel badly speaking about emotions.
You can reason perfectly well that emotions are okay and rationality and emotions aren’t opposed. That doesn’t mean that you like them. Of course recognizing that you feel bad about the concept of emotions requires you to notice what you feel.
But this is not a specific problem of rationalists.. It’s a broader problem with Western culture. Feeling strongly about things is not ‘cool’ or impressive. Plenty of people enjoy complaining, but passion makes you an alien.. perhaps an inspiring one, but ultimately an alien.. a person of whom people say ‘oh, I could never do that’, even if in the other breath they praise your passion and dedication.
I hesitate to assign a definite cause for that, but I am willing to comment that Western society somewhat deifies disaffected sociopathy, through its presentations in media, and also that I have a strong impression that most people have encountered enflamed evangelists, and they don’t want to be that person. Whether they recognize it as ugly or not, they treat it as ugly, though spectacular.
But this is not a specific problem of rationalists..
Sport fans do have strong feelings while watching basketball and that’s socially acceptable. As a result children want to go into the NFL instead of becoming scientists.
It’s a broader problem with Western culture. Feeling strongly about things is not ‘cool’ or impressive.
Yes. That means that if you manage to have community where having strong positive feeling is the norm, all sorts of people should have an interest into joining that community.
If you manage to succeed at that task you have a pretty big lever on your hand to produce large societal changes.
through its presentations in media, and also that I have a strong impression that most people have encountered enflamed evangelists
The problem with evangelism is that it’s usually targeted at outsiders. Instead it’s much better to target people who are receptive to your message and give them a narrative that allows them to feel more positive emotions by being part of your cause.
As your cause grows and people who are unhappy with their lives have a valid reason to come to your movement and believe your narrative to become happy. You don’t go to them and force your narrative on them but you let them come to you.
If a journalist comes and wants an interview and you have 2-3 free hours you gives them his interview but you don’t really need to go out and try to persuade outsiders. The most important work is getting the community itself right.
I think the way the post ends is quite telling:
That’s the core problem, on a philosophical level many agree that emotions are a good thing, but they still feel badly speaking about emotions.
You can reason perfectly well that emotions are okay and rationality and emotions aren’t opposed. That doesn’t mean that you like them. Of course recognizing that you feel bad about the concept of emotions requires you to notice what you feel.
But this is not a specific problem of rationalists.. It’s a broader problem with Western culture. Feeling strongly about things is not ‘cool’ or impressive. Plenty of people enjoy complaining, but passion makes you an alien.. perhaps an inspiring one, but ultimately an alien.. a person of whom people say ‘oh, I could never do that’, even if in the other breath they praise your passion and dedication.
I hesitate to assign a definite cause for that, but I am willing to comment that Western society somewhat deifies disaffected sociopathy, through its presentations in media, and also that I have a strong impression that most people have encountered enflamed evangelists, and they don’t want to be that person. Whether they recognize it as ugly or not, they treat it as ugly, though spectacular.
Sport fans do have strong feelings while watching basketball and that’s socially acceptable. As a result children want to go into the NFL instead of becoming scientists.
Yes. That means that if you manage to have community where having strong positive feeling is the norm, all sorts of people should have an interest into joining that community. If you manage to succeed at that task you have a pretty big lever on your hand to produce large societal changes.
The problem with evangelism is that it’s usually targeted at outsiders. Instead it’s much better to target people who are receptive to your message and give them a narrative that allows them to feel more positive emotions by being part of your cause.
As your cause grows and people who are unhappy with their lives have a valid reason to come to your movement and believe your narrative to become happy. You don’t go to them and force your narrative on them but you let them come to you.
If a journalist comes and wants an interview and you have 2-3 free hours you gives them his interview but you don’t really need to go out and try to persuade outsiders. The most important work is getting the community itself right.