Submitted by derstarkerewille t3_11stbvk in philosophy
Comments
Aggravating-Fan-522 t1_jcfgxmf wrote
The argument here is that we need to be aware of both our "instincts, emotions and feelings" as well as our rational mind. This is a view that's been supported by psychological research for a long time.
I think Compassion Focused Therapy does the best job at modelling all of this. Paul Gilber's "Living Like Crazy" would be good for anyone interested in this stuff
[deleted] t1_jcjlkzj wrote
[deleted]
bortlip t1_jcfgv8y wrote
Really?
The way I read it, I would say the opposite with a title of
"Why we should stop thinking and just live by embracing our instincts, emotions, and feelings."
Skibur1 t1_jcfk1tv wrote
Why should we when we already know billionaires wants to think beyond our own planet?
Shield_Lyger t1_jcfmhsc wrote
I think that the essay is too ambitious. I admire that ambition, especially given that English is not the author's first language, but there is an attempt to pack too much into this, and so, despite its length, it tends to rely on superficial assertions of facts. This results in an interesting contradiction; despite the main thrust of the essay being how many people hold their worldviews uncritically when they should engaged in deeper examination and reflection, the essay itself is uncritical of the myriad assertions it makes, and comes across as cherry-picking from the lengthy history of philosophy and psychology those select quotes that support the points being made, and dismissing all else.
This essay also indulges in the common trope of treating the whole of homo sapiens as if it were some sort of singular hive-mind, rather than a vast collection of individuals who see one another in different lights depending on their own worldviews. In other words, the author routinely refers to "we" to mean humanity writ large, rather than speaking of those people who fit the specific description. Because clearly, the "we" who "are stubbornly refusing to embrace our 'irrational side' and waiting for things to make rational sense" is not the whole of humanity, given the number of people the author quotes in support of their viewpoint.
And there is little point in positing some unenumerated percentage of humanity must go along with some random Substack essay in order to conclude that "we" are now right-thinking and properly cognizant of all of the factors that drive "us." Especially when there seems to be no allowance made for different cultures or circumstances.
derstarkerewille OP t1_jcrrdbt wrote
My article is obviously going to be my interpretation of the world. Sure, there are other possible interpretations as well, but if you read the first paragraph, I have linked articles as to what is considered better interpretations than others. Others cultures and individuals have their own interpretations, but they aren't better than what I have shared there (in fact they are worse than mine)- and if there are, feel free to actually share them.
Vague general claims about why I am wrong, is not useful in the slightest manner. You have made claims about me cherry picking but haven't actually wrote anything to refute my point. So all you have done is make an argument that is entirely baseless, because you didn't even post quotes or evidence of such cherry picking.
I think what you are feeling is also another form of cognitive dissonance, and I can't help you there if you are not willing to actually discuss your points more clearly. You are right that English is not my first language, but at least I have made actual arguments and not beat around the bush. Btw pointing that out is absolutely irrelevant to any of the points being made here. If you don't understand something, speak up and don't mock the author. It comes off as a shameful tactic that almost made me ignore anything else you had to say.
nemoLx t1_jcfpjm2 wrote
The words "save" and "world" need to be defined first.
Not sure how you could do that without some kind of artificial value system that is universal and needs no further justification.
derstarkerewille OP t1_jch207b wrote
Depends on what conclusions we arrive at, after integrating both our rational and irrational minds. However, without enough understanding of our drives, we won't ever know what that is or how to get there.
[deleted] t1_jcgz45p wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jcja166 wrote
[deleted]
quake3d t1_jckt7tf wrote
No one is capable or interested in saving the world.
Bowgentle t1_jcwf0lc wrote
It seems harsh to suggest that the author has little understanding of science, but the alternative charge is one of choosing an excessive title.
Virtually nothing in the article relates to "science" - it is entirely about a certain number of disciplines which call themselves the "social sciences", but which you won't find in the science buildings of a university, and for good reason. In general, the social "sciences" actually exemplify the problem Socrates originally pointed out:
>Socrates made it clear that many people simply believed in things because they have always believed in them, and not because it made rational sense.
Much of social science consists of pet theories about humanity dressed up in the borrowed robes of science - a case of using rationality, or rather rationalisation, to bolster what we believe to be intuitively, or instinctively, or traditionally, or conventionally, to be the case. Hard to do otherwise, when the human mind is still largely a black box into which one can put almost any set of claims.
Unlike actual science, the social sciences neither really discover nor experiment at any level above the elephant's toenail - the shape of the elephant can then be deduced to be almost whatever one prefers. As a result, social science paradigms tend to follow social and political change rather than lead it - the opposite of the relationship between science and technology.
derstarkerewille OP t1_jcwom6h wrote
It is interesting to see how difficult it can be for people to see outside the framework of science, when they have spent much of their life living with that perspective. To call the title excessive, you have to see the point being made first.
We should always remember that science is supposed to help understand the world, but the world isn't limited to science. In other words, social aspects of our lives are just as important as learning anything else. Just because they are difficult to study through the framework of science, doesn't mean they are not important or worse - that they are inferior in any way. If anything, they are more important than the material sciences because it involves the interpreter i.e. the scientist and it is far more difficult to study. That being said, I agree with you that the social sciences are poor overall currently. But that's not because the field is poor, but those who are leading it are terrible at it - like what you have mentioned yourself.
Bowgentle t1_jcx2x50 wrote
>We should always remember that science is supposed to help understand the world, but the world isn't limited to science. In other words, social aspects of our lives are just as important as learning anything else.
I wouldn't disagree - "the proper study of man is man" is something that seems truer to me as time goes by. Unfortunately, it is also the study most plagued by preconceived notions, and the prevalence of those in the social sciences is what makes me question whether they yet deserve to be called 'sciences' at all. Still, it's something to aspire to...
I suppose I'm tilting at windmills to object to the author using "science" when they evidently mean "the rationalist assumptions of the social sciences", much as I object to claims of a "replication crisis in science" when, again, the data applies to the social sciences.
But then, I evidently have time to tilt at windmills, otherwise I wouldn't be on reddit.
Maximum-Carry5682 t1_jcgj128 wrote
Why do we even want to save the world? I feel we end up destroying what we want to improve or make better. The society as we see.
derstarkerewille OP t1_jcgz9y4 wrote
So you don't feel either way about life and our species existing? Or is it only because we fail in making things better?
JarrickDe t1_jcferc2 wrote
A better title for this article might have been "Why we need to think beyond our instincts, emotions, and feelings." I recommend Rationality by Steven Pinker.