Whats your view on human nature

[Vergazi]

It would depend largely on the matter at hand as far as my thinking goes. So in that sense I may or may not suggest someone is being too sensitive, But I would say they had too thin a skin, rather than oversensitive. Extreme example being: I don't feel one jot bad for a human explosive device's personal demise. Someone who would anguish over that person's poor or unfortunate childhood or the circumstances of their birth are definitely oversensitive imo, but I wouldn't tell them if I saw them... I would run the hell away as fast as I can. Well, I would run away from both of them...nothing but trouble there.

It occurs to me now...and has in the past, but it slips my mind easily...one of the things that people do that makes me crazy is utter or accept others' absolute assertions. I'm philosophically a great fan or believer in grey areas and shading of meanings because humans are so varied in their beliefs and opinions that absolutists are usually very, desperately unhappy people imo. Perhaps this is one aspect of our seeming disagreement.

 

[DeletedUser20951]

Perhaps this is one aspect of our seeming disagreement.

Ah, but you seem to have forgotten that I change my mind often on matters, simply not at the behest of another, but your subtle insults were of higher caliber than usual and I applaud you for that, insinuating so much that I have never stated. Have you ever wondered why you have great difficulty with interpersonal relationships, where others are always the ones at fault? If it continues to happen and the common denominator is yourself, some self-reflection may be in order, but how you jump to the worst conclusions with limited information is telling in and of itself.

 

[Vergazi]

Ah, but you seem to have forgotten that I change my mind often on matters, simply not at the behest of another, but your subtle insults were of higher caliber than usual and I applaud you for that, insinuating so much that I have never stated. Have you ever wondered why you have great difficulty with interpersonal relationships, where others are always the ones at fault? If it continues to happen and the common denominator is yourself, some self-reflection may be in order, but how you jump to the worst conclusions with limited information is telling in and of itself.

1) I believe you see insults where there are none.
2) I don't have great difficulty with interpersonal relationships in general, just with a very few people as would be expected for anyone.
3) You and I differ in that you seem to believe that there must always be one person at fault or wrong and I do not believe that. I believe that it is possible that two people be both at fault or neither at fault.
4) You are constantly contradicting yourself or making self-contradicting statements and making judgements on other people with limited information, so it seems to my mind you are doing a bit of projection onto other people.
5) As it has become painfully obvious one cannot discuss anything with you without you taking it personally I will no longer participate with you in this thread. Supposedly it was a "human nature" thread, but if you take everything personally then it's just a poor, shoddy sort of trolling and not worthy of your true trolling ability.

 

[DeletedUser20951]

As it has become painfully obvious one cannot discuss anything with you without you taking it personally I will no longer participate with you in this thread. Supposedly it was a "human nature" thread, but if you take everything personally then it's just a poor, shoddy sort of trolling and not worthy of your true trolling ability.

As you were not taking my hints, thank the Gods! I could bring up all the bigoted and demeaning noise you have sent me in private messaging, but I won't, specifically, and will instead point out what is obvious here, which how I have very rarely gone after you unprovoked; it has been the reverse.

 

[DeletedUser16929]

edited for grummar...yes, yes, must have good grummar!

yes what you said is valid, except to remember that we as a society have progrummed reactions and seldom do we act accordingly to the situation, therefore it is important to reprogum one's mind to act according to the situation and do the right thing as they say.
insurrection is a real thing and is being used every day by companies advertising to tell us how we feel, react, do, live, speak and more
... don't be a vidiot!

 

[DeletedUser20951]

except to remember that we as a society have progrummed reactions and seldom do we act accordingly to the situation,

Everyday, every interaction, we're being programmed. Yes, indeed!

insurrection is a real thing and is being used every day by companies advertising to tell us how we feel, react, do, live, speak and more

This is why I argue for conscientiousness in advertisement, media, and a body's own words. It has impact. It influences us.

don't be a vidiot!

: D AMEN.

I would also like to tack on that proper grammar does not equal intelligence. Any idiot can speak or type "properly" (acceptably by the privileged in society) with enough repetition.

 

[ajqtrz]

Hmmm.... "sensitivity" as a problem. It appears to me that asking someone to be less sensitive is like asking a dog not to salivate. On the other hand, what is meant, I think, is not "don't be so sensitive" as "recognize that your sensitivity is more than it should be." The "should be," of course, is a measure of what the speaker expected the persons range of sensitivity was going to be (assuming the speaker did not want to cause harm). In other words, the level of sensitivity at which the receiver reacts may be higher than the level the speaker anticipated. In such cases the phrase, "don't be so sensitive" may be taken as an opening for discussion. In such a discussion it might be that one person comes to recognize the way the statement was made was harsher than intended while the receiver may come to recognize that the speaker did not intend to harm them. And in this the speaker becomes better equipped to realize his or her words could cause harm and the receiver becomes better equipped to realize that not all statements that hurt were intended to hurt. Usually the speaker, if approached calmly and rationally, will "walk back" his or her statement, and the receiver will accept the implied or even clearly expressed apology.

Of course, when you are upset you are upset and when emotions rule they seldom rule well.

AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

I would also like to tack on that proper grammar does not equal intelligence. Any idiot can speak or type "properly" (acceptably by the privileged in society) with enough repetition.

If the point of communication is to communicate clearly and precisely so that others understand and are influenced, proper grammar is essential. If it's to merely express oneself, then anything will do. However, while it is true that proper grammar does not equal intelligence, it is pretty much one of the signals to others that you are intelligent and thus, they should listen to you. You may, or may not be intelligent, and maybe they should or maybe they should not listen to you, but using proper grammar does give you a leg up in persuading others, especially if you also include strong arguments and other forms of evidence. It's not about morality but effectiveness.

AJ

 

[DeletedUser20951]

And in this the speaker becomes better equipped to realize his or her words could cause harm and the receiver becomes better equipped to realize that not all statements that hurt were intended to hurt. Usually the speaker, if approached calmly and rationally, will "walk back" his or her statement, and the receiver will accept the implied or even clearly expressed apology.

Where the "respect" part of my convoluted sentence tinkering on the matter comes into play. XD It's not often that a body will say, "You're being too sensitive" in a respectful manner; it is meant to relinquish responsibility for the effect of their words and place the blame solely back on the 'wronged' 'sensitive' person, basically demanding that the 'overly emotional' (code word for irrational) individual turn around and placate the speaker. This twisted pawned off accountability is indicated by how the receiver must approach "calmly and rationally" the one who has upset them. See this tactic employed all the time by those who want free reign to say whatever they want without giving consideration to the harm they might cause, and it usually is unconscious, but still a form of emotional manipulation, albeit mild, unless used repeatedly to undermine and invalidate the feelings of another until they trust the speaker's judgment over that of their own mind.

Of course, when you are upset you are upset and when emotions rule they seldom rule well.

TRUTH. People are always responsible for how they behave, even while upset (using this as justification for being a terrible person is no more acceptable), but have legitimate grounds for not burying how they feel in order to spare prompting hostile defensiveness from whoever upset them, regardless.

but using proper grammar does give you a leg up in persuading others

Absolutely, it does, but I think this is a failing of our culture that we rely so heavily upon it, even going so far as to judge someone's worth by their level of conformity.

 

[DeletedUser16929]

Hmmm.... "sensitivity" as a problem. It appears to me that asking someone to be less sensitive is like asking a dog not to salivate. On the other hand, what is meant, I think, is not "don't be so sensitive" as "recognize that your sensitivity is more than it should be." The "should be," of course, is a measure of what the speaker expected the persons range of sensitivity was going to be (assuming the speaker did not want to cause harm). In other words, the level of sensitivity at which the receiver reacts may be higher than the level the speaker anticipated. In such cases the phrase, "don't be so sensitive" may be taken as an opening for discussion. In such a discussion it might be that one person comes to recognize the way the statement was made was harsher than intended while the receiver may come to recognize that the speaker did not intend to harm them. And in this the speaker becomes better equipped to realize his or her words could cause harm and the receiver becomes better equipped to realize that not all statements that hurt were intended to hurt. Usually the speaker, if approached calmly and rationally, will "walk back" his or her statement, and the receiver will accept the implied or even clearly expressed apology.

Of course, when you are upset you are upset and when emotions rule they seldom rule well.

AJ

this is very well written AJ
i do agree with most of what you wrote, especially " when emotions rule they seldom rule well."

 

[DeletedUser16929]

If the point of communication is to communicate clearly and precisely so that others understand and are influenced, proper grammar is essential. If it's to merely express oneself, then anything will do. However, while it is true that proper grammar does not equal intelligence, it is pretty much one of the signals to others that you are intelligent and thus, they should listen to you. You may, or may not be intelligent, and maybe they should or maybe they should not listen to you, but using proper grammar does give you a leg up in persuading others, especially if you also include strong arguments and other forms of evidence. It's not about morality but effectiveness.

AJ

"but using proper grammar does give you a leg up in persuading others" you have an opinion AJ and are 100% correct when it comes to communicating to other people whom or who use proper grammar, however not everyone has a command of the english language as well as you do AJ
the english language is a throw together of other languages, mostly germanic, latin, french, norse, etc.
the english language is not a good language to express yourself, as there are many words that are spelled the same, but mean different
the english language is the hardest language to learn for that very reason
people of the world have languages that are better than english, for expressing themselves
english is a second language for me, i find myself thinking in my first language and converting to english
to me grummer is not as important as using the correct word, which proper is not always correct

 

[ajqtrz]

"but using proper grammar does give you a leg up in persuading others" you have an opinion AJ and are 100% correct when it comes to communicating to other people whom or who use proper grammar, however not everyone has a command of the english language as well as you do AJ
the english language is a throw together of other languages, mostly germanic, latin, french, norse, etc.
the english language is not a good language to express yourself, as there are many words that are spelled the same, but mean different
the english language is the hardest language to learn for that very reason
people of the world have languages that are better than english, for expressing themselves
english is a second language for me, i find myself thinking in my first language and converting to english
to me grummer is not as important as using the correct word, which proper is not always correct

Saying that others don't have command of the English language as well as I is sort of like saying a professional basketball player has a better grasp on how to shoot a basket than I. But how did he develop that skill? He wasn't born with it. He studied, practiced and got to that very high level. I have spent a good deal of my 60+ years writing badly. Now I write better and continue to improve.

You are correct that English is sort of a hodge-podge of other languages. But that also means it's a more creative language in the sense that it can draw upon words and ideas expressed by those words and phrases it has borrowed from other languages. There are two reasons English is the lingua franca of the world: The British Empire, and it's extreme ability to absorb words from other languages. At least that's the opinion of a great deal of linguists.

I think by your third point you only mean to say it is difficult to master and thus to express yourself, not that it is not a good language with which to do so.

You are right, the only language more difficult for an English speaker to master, is any other one. LOL. If you grow up with it, it's easy! I am, frankly speaking, very blessed to have done so. All the work other have to put in to communicate with us native speakers is sort of sad and I wish other English speakers would make the effort to learn at least one other language. I'm working on Spanish and Korean myself -- though progress is slow I can at least understand Spanish. Korean, not yet, but moving in the right direction.

A thing of which we have not spoken though, is the role of grammar in the rational part of communication. The grammatical structure of a sentence not only makes it more clear, it may influence the logic of the sentence. There is a book out there called, "Eats, shoots and leaves." The front cover is that of a Panda holding a gun. He has just shot somebody after having a nice meal. That is what "Eats, shoots and leaves" means logically. The intended meaning was that when the Panda eats it consumes shoots and leaves, not that it eats, takes a shot at somebody, and then leaves the building. Thus, the addition of the comma after "Eats" changes the entire logical meaning and gives us some humor in the process. Grammar does effect meaning and thus is important.

If your English ever gets to the point where you need not translate in your head into your native tongue you will find the grammar will become more important to you because you will begin to notice when it is incorrect. This happens in the learning of any language and the speaker is not considered fluent until he or she thinks in that language and can hear the ungrammatical things of that language.

Good luck in your efforts to master the maddening world of English.

AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

Where the "respect" part of my convoluted sentence tinkering on the matter comes into play. XD It's not often that a body will say, "You're being too sensitive" in a respectful manner; it is meant to relinquish responsibility for the effect of their words and place the blame solely back on the 'wronged' 'sensitive' person, basically demanding that the 'overly emotional' (code word for irrational) individual turn around and placate the speaker. This twisted pawned off accountability is indicated by how the receiver must approach "calmly and rationally" the one who has upset them. See this tactic employed all the time by those who want free reign to say whatever they want without giving consideration to the harm they might cause, and it usually is unconscious, but still a form of emotional manipulation, albeit mild, unless used repeatedly to undermine and invalidate the feelings of another until they trust the speaker's judgment over that of their own mind.

TRUTH. People are always responsible for how they behave, even while upset (using this as justification for being a terrible person is no more acceptable), but have legitimate grounds for not burying how they feel in order to spare prompting hostile defensiveness from whoever upset them, regardless.

Absolutely, it does, but I think this is a failing of our culture that we rely so heavily upon it, even going so far as to judge someone's worth by their level of conformity.

You may be right when you say, "it's meant to relinquish responsibility for the effect of their words and place the blame back on the wrong 'sensitive' person..." and "by those who want free reign to say whatever they want without giving consideration to the harm they might cause..." are just a couple of the lines which display the characteristic of assuming motives and intent. Can you really be certain of the intent of the request that the receiver be less sensitive? If their intent was not as you imagine it to be, then what?

There are three things communication experts consider in a speech act. First, the match between what the speaker intended to say and what actually said (and how it was said). Second, the distortion and loss or gain of the media across which the speaker's message travels, and, third, the match between what the receiver perceived and what the speaker intended. If you think of it as a code you get a pretty good idea.

Let's pretend you and I are spies. Each day, you receive a coded message from me in the morning with instructions, then, using the key for that day, you decode it and follow the instructions given.

One day I decide I'm going to kill you. You have out-lived your usefulness and, well, too bad. The fish need fed. So I send you a coded message: "Meet me at the boatyard at 9pm." You get the message and decode it using the day key. It says, "Meet me at the boatyard at 9pm." This is a high fidelity transmission because what I encoded was what you got. What could possibly go wrong?

First, it may be that when I encoded the message, I was thinking about murdering you and that made me so nervous I was wrote "boatyard" instead of "restaurant." My intentions were to kill you at the restaurant, not the boatyard. So you get a night of wondering why I didn't show up instead of sleeping with the fish.

Second, suppose, due to a rainstorm, the message got wet, the ink smeared and you decrypted the smudges as: "Me saith boatyard at 8am." You would scratch your head and probably send a message to me and we'd have to take a whole day to sort it all out. Again, you get to sleep with other than the fishes.

Third, suppose I wrote "restaurant" instead of boatyard, as I intended but you are getting nervous and suspect I want you to visit the fishes, and mistakenly use tomorrows key to decode the message. "Qjts sd sgw algheiaa ru l3r," is a low fidelity message and you toss it out, again sending a giant, "What?" to me to get clarification and putting away the tartar sauce. Another day, another nap, No fish.

Finally, suppose I encode what I intended correctly, the message gets to you sans smudges, you decode it properly, it says, "Meet me at the restaurant at 9pm" but as you read it you are nervous because you suspect I want you to bath with the fishes, and so, in your nervousness, you read, "boathouse," which is where you go. Who says fear is a bad thing? Good night and no fish for you!

In the end a lot has to occur for a message to go from one place to another. A lot of things can go wrong and often they do. In the general communication almost everything we say can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways and we use our experience with intent as just one of the things we look for when interpreting the things we receive. But we can be wrong and it is, perhaps best, to realize and give the benefit of the doubt as to the speakers intent. Otherwise our conversation might end up sleeping with the fish.

Of course the idea of judging intent is an old one. It's old because when we speak we do intend to say something and our own experience tells us that sometimes we intend to say something more or less hurtful. Thus, we expect in the course of speaking to others to occasionally hear something that sounds as if it was intended to harm. And if we are already tense, tired, upset, or other wise not at our best, we easily assume that what we heard -- the way it was said usually -- was meant to have been said that way...i.e. hurtfully.

On the other hand, a person who is upset, tired, tense or otherwise not at his/her best, may utter things where the language is forceful, the tone more rough, and so on. And they may not have intended it....or they might.

My point is, intention is difficult to measure and we ought to realize that when our words strike as we did not intend, it may be we could have done a better job. At the same time we ought to realize that our own physical and emotional condition might be raising our own level of sensitivity and what has been said may not have even been noticed had we gotten more sleep last night, were more relaxed or otherwise were better off than currently.

AJ

 

[DeletedUser16929]

i think someone or somebody could write a book on this thread
it should be documented for the rest of world to see and read, of course
as it is a/an interesting conversation
sorry it take so long me to type

 

[DeletedUser20951]

@ajqtrz, I concur with you on communication and intent, but it's not exactly what I was addressing. I'm referring to how a person will react in a belligerent manner when their intent is misunderstood and then ramp it up to the nth degree if somebody has the audacity to say that their feelings were hurt, thus putting all wrongdoing on the injured party, whether the harm was intentional or not, and assuming the role of the victim in further discussion. Now, I have no dispute with this as a form of attack (which should be evident), but when the tactic is used with earnest obliviousness to constantly undermine the validity of emotional response from those held in supposed genuine high regard, I do. It is not a friendly and compassionate way to treat people, flipping out at them for stating how your words made them feel, provided they don't also attack you while expressing their sentiments (very common, and likely the cause of roughly sixty percent of arguments containing naught but escalating defensive insults [number pulled from bottom end])... It's easy to tell who I like and who I don't, really, as I either continue the game with unfettered glee or attempt to de-escalate the situation. XD

@sputnik9009, great to see you venture into our dark domain, and I appreciate your input! Well, technically, it's @NormalMoon's, but, uh, they said we could talk about the nature of anything AND EVERYTHING I SHALL SPEAK OF. I've tried with various amounts of enthusiasm and dedication to learn another language over the years, and failed miserably. The multilingual have my respect, as it seems like magic to me. *bows low* I consider no language to be better than another.

 

[ajqtrz]

@Nonchalant Antipathy Yeah, I get the escalation idea. The problem is that we often react to the emotional upset of others by becoming emotionally upset ourselves. If the person expressing their pain also attacks the motives of the one who did the harm it's an escalation too. This circle of escalation is usually fueled by the same things that started the original speaker down the wrong path and generally that path is to disparage the character/motives of the other. If both parties learn to refrain from turning to the character/motives of the other, the cycle stops and less harm is done. I think you said at one point that rational communication is calm communication? -- maybe it wasn't you, but the thought is right. Calm communication is, as has been shown, more rational than emotional communication.

And, to add to the discussion: What do you think of this hypothesis?

"In linguistics, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis states that there are certain thoughts of an individual in one language that cannot be understood by those who live in another language. The hypothesis states that the way people think is strongly affected by their native languages."

I'm not sure of this exactly but from what I can tell it may have some merit if we group our experiences according to our language. For instance, in Korean society if you want someone to go with you you might grab their wrist and pull them along. This is an accepted action even among strangers. We have no exactly the same gesture in our arsenal of physical gestures though we might grab somebody's hand and pull them along if they are danger or need help up or down something. Thus, we can approximate what the gesture means, but our gestures imply danger or the need for help, while theirs does not, though it might. Words are even more difficult. If I say "I'm hungry" in Spanish it literally translates as "I have hunger." Is that the same as "I'm hungry?" We can use it effectively that way, but the nuances of "I have hunger" in Spanish and "I'm hungry" in English are different. Sapir and Whorf (who developed the ideas independently of each other and thus are both included in the name of the hypothesis), speculated and compared concepts in German with English and hypothesized the German language is more constructive -- as in "building" and therefore (the argument is very complex), lead to a higher degree of militarism in their history. It's a hypothesis of course but an important one. For if our language determines or influences the direction of our culture it would appear that English would be one of the most inclusive languages because it's sources are so widespread AND it has a high degree of flexibility and can absorb a lot of things from other languages. At least that's my take on it.

AJ

 

[DeletedUser20951]

This circle of escalation is usually fueled by the same things that started the original speaker down the wrong path and generally that path is to disparage the character/motives of the other. If both parties learn to refrain from turning to the character/motives of the other, the cycle stops and less harm is done. I think you said at one point that rational communication is calm communication? -- maybe it wasn't you, but the thought is right. Calm communication is, as has been shown, more rational than emotional communication.

Aye, this is the cycle of reactionary immaturity I was trying to pinpoint in a roundabout way, which you encounter in all environments, but seems to be increasing in both severity and frequency because of social media. I blame a lot of our current cultural shifts on social media, although the validity of this assumption could be argued. In historical terms, we haven't had the degree of access to such widespread anonymity in communication for very long and the effects of (relatively) few repercussions regarding online conduct is still shaking out. While there are benefits to being able to act however we want, the childish regression it causes in the majority is undeniable.

Don't think I said that rational communication is calm communication, not with my adoration of hyperbole and melodrama, but I may have rambled on about mental calmness and carefully choosing how to respond, even if it appears irrational. I believe one of the worst forms of subjugation is allowing yourself to be controlled by your own emotions (they deserve consideration, but not the reins), and an offshoot of this view is a strong aversion to granting anybody else power over my emotions. This is, of course, easier said than done, but I have successfully conditioned myself to not react viscerally, except under extreme circumstances (I have to be under a significant amount of duress for an extended period of time to lose a handle on my impulses, and even then, it doesn't last long). Those who value 'authentic' responses no doubt decry this type of rigidity, but no matter.

"In linguistics, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis states that there are certain thoughts of an individual in one language that cannot be understood by those who live in another language. The hypothesis states that the way people think is strongly affected by their native languages."

I've read a bit about this, but it's not a topic I have have studied with any depth, and unless I somehow managed to learn every language in the world, it would remain secondhand knowledge of opinion. Even given a hypothetical language omniscience, judgments in this vein would still be relegated to speculation and individual subjectivity. As I only have proficiency with English, I prefer not to make assumptions about different languages based on conjecture by others. Essentially, since how we speak is a very personal attribute that we are hard-pressed not to examine through a lens of bias, it is actually something I don't feel comfortable deeming to be either inferior or superior, although I allow some room for entertaining the differences that may exist.

 

[DeletedUser20951]

I was pondering my speech mirroring here, which is a common habit of mine for various reasons depending on the context, and this is something I've mentioned before, but I have a very simple opinion when it comes to being wordy. If I'm explaining stuff with excess descriptions and a combination of overly complicated sentence structures that add next to nothing to the conversation, I'm usually just talking to hear myself talk, while I believe that offering explanations that are direct, concise, and easy to interpret shows consideration for the listener(s), that I care about their understanding of what I'm saying. Do love me some pontification, though.

 

[ajqtrz]

I think the addition of the social media anonymity does increase the willingness to enter into "reactionary immaturity" but, in my opinion, it's more of a result in our philosophical stance. You can travel, as I often do, to campuses around the country and hear it in the rhetoric of the average campus student. Since the advent of the "New Left" in the 1950's the idea that all anybody is doing is telling stories has grown to prevail upon our campuses as the way to view truth and falsity. If I present something as true, our students are told, I'm just telling you a story (a "narrative") and you can be pretty sure I'm telling it in a way that enhances my own or my groups power. Thus, the reasoning goes, it must be slanted, biased, etc.... and therefore not really "true" at all, but only "spin."

Now here a short description of how we got there. In the Enlightenment Western philosophy, being impressed by the rapid development of scientific inquiry and discovery, thought, as Descartes says in his "Discourse on Method," that if you could find a single thing that was undeniably true you could build from that, using reasoning, investigation and logic, to discover all truth. Pretty sweet, if "truth" wasn't so complicated and difficult, right? So they started off and pretty soon found that they disagreed in major ways about the meaning of the things they were discovering! Even the old "tried and true" vision of God creating everything as it currently is (with some variations) fell by the wayside to be replaced with a new theory -- that all things evolved from the Big Bang or some other starting point of the Universe, the cause of which was unknown, or maybe the Universe is eternal? In any case, within a few decades it was pretty clear that even if you think, and therefore, are, your knowledge isn't going to get very far because people seem to "know" things differently. So how do we "know" this or that? The answer, eventually -- and the process took several hundred years -- was, "you don't know anything for certain." Okay, but at least I'm still standing, right? Not exactly.

You are standing on, ultimately, subjective sand. Sigh. At the same time, as the Enlightenment ideal of discovering all truth started to get a bit discouraged, especially when people took some of the ideas and applied them. If "survival of the fittest" is the driving mechanism of evolution, shouldn't we get rid of the weak? AND, if we do get rid of all the inferior races, doesn't that prove we are the "supreme one?" Nasty stuff but also logically consistent. Of course long before we got to that result, people were finding the whole failure of evidence and reasoning to, well, "enlighten" us to be a bit stiff. Rules were developed for all kinds of things -- "scientific" and even "theological" to determine precisely which people were inferior and which were not... again, scientifically and/or theologically. The reaction to this mechanistic view of things was Romanticism.

Romanticism says that Nature is good. Nature with a capital "N." And, combined with the radical skepticism of the 18th century, that meant, as Shelley put it, there must be a "divine spark" in every thing of nature. If so then we are all naturally speaking, good. Cool! But then, as Rousseau asks, if we are all so good, why do we have slaves? His answer is that the farther we get from nature -- the higher we go in the ability to control others (the more powerful we are) the more we are corrupted. So.... "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely?" Right! From this two thing occurred.

First, following the lead provided, Marx and Engels concentrate on explaining that the ills of society are caused by men rising too high above other men and therefore class struggle is what it's all about. Their solution is to form a nation "of the people, for the people and, by the people" and hope it never perishes from the earth. Hmmm.... sounds rather familiar, doesn't it? In any case, because the little guy is closer to nature and therefore less corrupted, let's put him in charge. He'll just do what needs to be done or die trying...Hello, Boxer, the horse in "Animal Farm."

Second, this vision of humanity -- that we are, each and every one of us, intrinsically good, means that each and every one of us should be treated as the equal to each and every one of you. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" was the call of the French Revolution and if you didn't agree, you must have lost your head....or were about to. And to the east of the French, just a hundred years later the Bolsheviks instituted the "Red Scare" to insure everybody was properly trained and committed to the equality of anyone who was properly trained and committed and a member of the proper party so everyone knew the same things, even if they might change truth next week -- and that was about 60 years before 1984!. And if you didn't understand the ever changing truth, you needed a long vacation in Siberia to be retrained while your relaxed with the hoe in your hand, and rested on a few potatoes and gruel for a few years.

In the end then, Western civilization rejected the idea of "truth" as an absolute that could be known, and turned instead, to truth as the story you tell yourself. Everything could be shown to reflect this and if you constructed some argument about it I could de-construct it by merely showing how your ideas were motivated by your desire to empower you and/or your group. Hmmm.... we know what that sort of "I'm above you" thinking does, don't we? It corrupts, doesn't it? In the end one guy in Sarajevo decided there should be nobody in charge -- he was called an anarchist -- and shot another guy, the Archduke Ferdinand, in Sarajevo, and that started a big fracas called the WWI, not to be confused with the even bigger fracas called WWII which grew out of a bunch of people at Versailles assumig that winning a war meant they could stick it to the losers. Which they did until a guy called Adolf came along and really stuck it to them. All of which brings us to our current problem...the nastiness of communication.

After the bombs got dropped and people woke up to a very, very different world. The philosophically minded were still saying "truth can't be known for certain, of course, but that got translated to the shortened version, "truth can't be known," and it was a relief that it was so because no I could just tell my story and you had to agree. After all, "your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth," which was very close to "you should believe my truth because I will riot, burn down buildings and otherwise show you just how powerful I am when I am mad! "We're mad as hell and we're not taking it anymore," was presented as the rallying cry of the little guy, even if he or she had a lot of advanced degrees in subjects like, "English," "Women's Studies," or the real granddaddy of them all, "Political Science." All of which means they ended up "believe whatever you want since it's all subjective anyway."

In summary, a good deal of the nastiness is derived from the philosophy of our culture where students are told they can choose what truth they want to believe and since they are closer to "nature" and thus more "pure" ("innocent is usually the term applied to the young), they should just "follow their heart." This gives them permission to do "whatever they think is right in their own eyes," which is how the story Noah is introduced. Funny how things go around and around and around until we are all too dizzy and just fall down. "Follow your heart," really means, "use your own emotional measure of right and wrong to determine your course," and therefore, if people don't feel the way you do it must be because they are morally inferior and "insensitive" and touched by the appropriate "phobia."

It also means that the only thing that counts is the power to enforce your vision of the truth and thus, whatever means you need to use is justified since it makes your vision the only allowed. Shout down the speaker, troll the forum contributor, march, riot, protest, all of it counts as okay so long as you win in the end! "History is dead" it is argued because the "winners write the history" and, that being said, they certainly will never write it in anything but glowing terms where they are the saints and those bad guys the evil ones. Now you have an idea why Regan's "Evil Empire" was so roundly laughed at on our Universities while everybody else didn't get the joke and thought he was actually on to something. But he was only the President and couldn't possibly ever know anything the pointy heads of academia didn't know. In any case, "win at all costs and write a glowing history of how you did it fairly, justly, and always, always, for the "little guy" because he's the pure of heart, naturally speaking," is the mantra now.

The vision of the average politically active college student is that he/she is a little messiah who's understanding of life is superior to all those corrupted people -- you know the ones who disagree with my recipe for "social justice?" All those guys are corrupt and should not be allowed to even think of stepping onto our pure and free campus where all the young, innocent students are being carefully and honestly fed the current politically correct views.

Whew, and I said it was going to be short? Well, it is, actually. Hope it helps.

AJ

 

[Vergazi]

Duke of Ferdinand

That's "Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria". Sorry AJ I HAD to say it!

*pushes `like` button on AJ's post*