Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
ajqtrz
Chef - Loquacious One
A while back somebody made a statement implying passion being a suitable and sufficient base for knowledge. It was in response to a position I took which argued for reason and evidence, implying those, alone, should be the positions taken. In the short exchange it wasn't really appropriate to discuss the distinction as it would have derailed the ongoing exchange, so I let the matter drop, though I did, a few days later, develop some ideas about forum discussions.
This "little" note is about passion itself and it's probably going to be a bit long. If you don't have the time/energy/stomach for such a thing, do feel free to move on.
________________________________
Passion is emotion. It's a degree of emotion that, to the Romans, drove people to action. Aristotle spoke of it as pathos and held that it was a way to persuade. I would take it even farther and say it is so central to communication that if we didn't have passions we wouldn't discuss anything. Or do anything. Passions are the bedrock of action, but also of language itself, in my view. Here's why.
For a person to experience anything, they must sense the thing they are experiencing. Something in them has to react to that experience for it to be noted as having occurred. Language itself is experience. So we experience not only outside phenomenon via our five senses, but we then recognize we are experiencing that world by assigning symbols to that experience. I touch a hot stove and while my body pulls back, I immediately realize "ouch, that burns!" I then turn to look at my hand and see just how stupid I've been. All this is a mixture of external sense and internal responses which are, themselves, sensed. In other words, perception is a mixture of all our senses, and that leads us to passion as the body responds, while then our mental state "corrects" and "adjusts" that response based upon our mental perceptions of what's going on. That the human brain can override physiological responses is well known. This is the basis of a lot of "mind over matter," battlefield altruism, positive thinking, and even faith healing. In each case it may be the intensity of what the person symbolically believes that drives the individual to override the immediate physiological response.
We see this in our own lives as we mature. When we are children we are pretty much without the structures of understanding necessary to override our immediate body response to events around us. If we want something, we take it. If we are hit, we hit back or cry. There's no reflective response because to have that you have to have a memory of what just happened and the symbols to recall it. It's all pretty much stimulus-response. But, as we develop language and the ability to speak we begin to shift what we know to the symbolic realm and that enables us to re-frame our experiences. This process continues as we mature and probably never ends. The shift from strictly physiological basis of knowledge to a symbolic one, results in an ability to recall. It is not surprising people have few to no memories before the age of 2 or 3 since to recall something you have to have some kind of handle on it. That handle can be just about anything, including smells, sounds, images, etc..., but as we grow, becomes more and more the set of symbols we use to recall that event. Which, in turn, shapes our memory of the event even to the point where we can have memories of things that never happened. Change the symbols used to describe a thing, and change the passion you feel about it.
Now having said that, my argument is not that passion should not be used in a debate. It's that when passion is the method of knowledge one should be sure it is founded upon more than our current emotional state. In fact, if we think about it, our own, current emotional state didn’t just pop up. We got to that state because we had our own set of evidences for believing. We may be passionate because we think we should be passionate, we may believe because we have personal experiences, or we may be passionate because we have investigated the general question and have found enough reason and evidence to believe we ought to be passionate about it. But if you consider this you soon come to understand that the emotional state we call passion is unique and idiosyncratic. It may be justified, but it is personal.
Thus, passion, while not automatically irrational, by itself does not show us why you are passionate. For that you have to turn to reason and evidence and be willing to acknowledge maybe you shouldn’t be taking the stand you are taking. Passion and rationality (the use of reason and evidence in persuasion) are not so much opposed as the second is able to change the perception and thus the passion. And, in fact, if both sides let their passion do the talking, neither side will persuade the other as neither is rehearsing why they are passionate.
As we said above, passion is a response to perception. Change the words used to describe the experience and you change the perception. Change the perception and you change the passion. So persuasion is about introducing something which changes the person's perception of reality. And what changes a persons perception is not my passion because my passion is idiosyncratic. It’s my passion! What changes a persons mind is a set of experiences. Personal encounters with things that are relevant to the subject at hand. You show them something, reveal something, quote somebody, count something, etc, -- things the person can confirm for themselves -- and you change their reality. One of the best questions you can ask yourself when you feel passionate about something is, "why?" In other words, what set or experiences do you have with the subject that lead you to feel that passionate? Then ask if those are sufficient for persuading others. Let's say I don't like cats. Absolutly hate them (I love cats, btw, so they won't be offended). I am passionate that all stray cats should be rounded up and killed and that the breeding, selling, and ownership of cats should be stopped! You love cats and feel the opposite. We are both passionate, but why? Maybe I give you some interesting statistics about how cats cause this or that. I recall some written records of how cats harmed people, and so on. You say, "my Tubby likes to purr." Which do you think more persuasive? Since the general question "are cats good for us" is a general question do you really expect you can persuade me cats are good because one cat, Tubby, likes to purr? You can be as passionate about it as you like, but your passion is based upon a very small set of experiences. I claim my argument is based upon the experience of a lot of others, including, perhaps, myself.
The end then, passion is the result of experience. But if a person’s experience isn’t generalized any general statement he/she makes based upon their personal feelings, is very, very, limited. Their passion does not equal my persuasion. At the same time, if we didn't feel as we do, we wouldn’t be discussing the matter. Passion is necessary. What gives us the confidence that everyone should feel the way we do, though, is not our feelings but the amount of human experience -- the evidence and what it tells us -- upon which we base that passion. And it's not surprising that the more reason and evidence we gather for our position the more certain (i.e. passionate) we become about it. The cool thing is, though, the more reason and evidence we have convincing us of our position the less we rely on our passion to persuade. After all, we were persuaded by the reason and evidence, so why shouldn't the other person be so?
When you think about this you can see that passion is necessary, and is a source of some evidence, but it is not the final persuader of anyone, including you. You may get your passion by believing you ought to feel a certain way about something, you may get your passion out of personal experience, and/or you may get your passion out of a long and deep look at the external evidence and reasoning, and that's fine, but, again, it's your passion and your passion does not equal my persuasion. If you want to persuade anyone you must bring out the very things which persuaded you to be passionate about it in the first place. Only then will you have a chance.
AJ
This "little" note is about passion itself and it's probably going to be a bit long. If you don't have the time/energy/stomach for such a thing, do feel free to move on.
________________________________
Passion is emotion. It's a degree of emotion that, to the Romans, drove people to action. Aristotle spoke of it as pathos and held that it was a way to persuade. I would take it even farther and say it is so central to communication that if we didn't have passions we wouldn't discuss anything. Or do anything. Passions are the bedrock of action, but also of language itself, in my view. Here's why.
For a person to experience anything, they must sense the thing they are experiencing. Something in them has to react to that experience for it to be noted as having occurred. Language itself is experience. So we experience not only outside phenomenon via our five senses, but we then recognize we are experiencing that world by assigning symbols to that experience. I touch a hot stove and while my body pulls back, I immediately realize "ouch, that burns!" I then turn to look at my hand and see just how stupid I've been. All this is a mixture of external sense and internal responses which are, themselves, sensed. In other words, perception is a mixture of all our senses, and that leads us to passion as the body responds, while then our mental state "corrects" and "adjusts" that response based upon our mental perceptions of what's going on. That the human brain can override physiological responses is well known. This is the basis of a lot of "mind over matter," battlefield altruism, positive thinking, and even faith healing. In each case it may be the intensity of what the person symbolically believes that drives the individual to override the immediate physiological response.
We see this in our own lives as we mature. When we are children we are pretty much without the structures of understanding necessary to override our immediate body response to events around us. If we want something, we take it. If we are hit, we hit back or cry. There's no reflective response because to have that you have to have a memory of what just happened and the symbols to recall it. It's all pretty much stimulus-response. But, as we develop language and the ability to speak we begin to shift what we know to the symbolic realm and that enables us to re-frame our experiences. This process continues as we mature and probably never ends. The shift from strictly physiological basis of knowledge to a symbolic one, results in an ability to recall. It is not surprising people have few to no memories before the age of 2 or 3 since to recall something you have to have some kind of handle on it. That handle can be just about anything, including smells, sounds, images, etc..., but as we grow, becomes more and more the set of symbols we use to recall that event. Which, in turn, shapes our memory of the event even to the point where we can have memories of things that never happened. Change the symbols used to describe a thing, and change the passion you feel about it.
Now having said that, my argument is not that passion should not be used in a debate. It's that when passion is the method of knowledge one should be sure it is founded upon more than our current emotional state. In fact, if we think about it, our own, current emotional state didn’t just pop up. We got to that state because we had our own set of evidences for believing. We may be passionate because we think we should be passionate, we may believe because we have personal experiences, or we may be passionate because we have investigated the general question and have found enough reason and evidence to believe we ought to be passionate about it. But if you consider this you soon come to understand that the emotional state we call passion is unique and idiosyncratic. It may be justified, but it is personal.
Thus, passion, while not automatically irrational, by itself does not show us why you are passionate. For that you have to turn to reason and evidence and be willing to acknowledge maybe you shouldn’t be taking the stand you are taking. Passion and rationality (the use of reason and evidence in persuasion) are not so much opposed as the second is able to change the perception and thus the passion. And, in fact, if both sides let their passion do the talking, neither side will persuade the other as neither is rehearsing why they are passionate.
As we said above, passion is a response to perception. Change the words used to describe the experience and you change the perception. Change the perception and you change the passion. So persuasion is about introducing something which changes the person's perception of reality. And what changes a persons perception is not my passion because my passion is idiosyncratic. It’s my passion! What changes a persons mind is a set of experiences. Personal encounters with things that are relevant to the subject at hand. You show them something, reveal something, quote somebody, count something, etc, -- things the person can confirm for themselves -- and you change their reality. One of the best questions you can ask yourself when you feel passionate about something is, "why?" In other words, what set or experiences do you have with the subject that lead you to feel that passionate? Then ask if those are sufficient for persuading others. Let's say I don't like cats. Absolutly hate them (I love cats, btw, so they won't be offended). I am passionate that all stray cats should be rounded up and killed and that the breeding, selling, and ownership of cats should be stopped! You love cats and feel the opposite. We are both passionate, but why? Maybe I give you some interesting statistics about how cats cause this or that. I recall some written records of how cats harmed people, and so on. You say, "my Tubby likes to purr." Which do you think more persuasive? Since the general question "are cats good for us" is a general question do you really expect you can persuade me cats are good because one cat, Tubby, likes to purr? You can be as passionate about it as you like, but your passion is based upon a very small set of experiences. I claim my argument is based upon the experience of a lot of others, including, perhaps, myself.
The end then, passion is the result of experience. But if a person’s experience isn’t generalized any general statement he/she makes based upon their personal feelings, is very, very, limited. Their passion does not equal my persuasion. At the same time, if we didn't feel as we do, we wouldn’t be discussing the matter. Passion is necessary. What gives us the confidence that everyone should feel the way we do, though, is not our feelings but the amount of human experience -- the evidence and what it tells us -- upon which we base that passion. And it's not surprising that the more reason and evidence we gather for our position the more certain (i.e. passionate) we become about it. The cool thing is, though, the more reason and evidence we have convincing us of our position the less we rely on our passion to persuade. After all, we were persuaded by the reason and evidence, so why shouldn't the other person be so?
When you think about this you can see that passion is necessary, and is a source of some evidence, but it is not the final persuader of anyone, including you. You may get your passion by believing you ought to feel a certain way about something, you may get your passion out of personal experience, and/or you may get your passion out of a long and deep look at the external evidence and reasoning, and that's fine, but, again, it's your passion and your passion does not equal my persuasion. If you want to persuade anyone you must bring out the very things which persuaded you to be passionate about it in the first place. Only then will you have a chance.
AJ
