I have never seen or heard a more straightforward dissertation on the subject, or its impacts. Sadly, those who begin every thought with feelings rarely arrive at logical conclusions. And then we have to take into account Mssrs Dunning and Kruger.
This explains why it is often impossible to reason with woke progressives - they are entirely creatures of ideas and if you do not share those ideas (no matter how much evidence you marshal in support of your critiques) then you are bad person, full stop.
PS - ironic this comes from Plato as he’s usually considered the father of idealism.
Helpful analysis. At the heart of it, it seems, is an emotional stance. Is the world as it is and the more I see how it really is and call things by their accurate name the more useful action or direction to take can become clearer. Or is it in my view that the world is actually wrong, that I know what it should be and will force my view on it no matter what because what is of most importance is the rightness of my view. One way is open, the other closed. There is a tendency to gloss over facts/ideas/events that are painful or uncomfortable to one’s claimed identity or an idea or principle one holds dear. How it’s done is to use inaccurate language. The truth though is wrapped at its heart which is why such denial can be so strident. We tend to praise rationality and reason but the truth is that the form rationality and reason takes is always subject to the emotional stance that underlies it. Honesty is not only the best policy, it’s the only policy that leads to freedom.
I have never seen or heard a more straightforward dissertation on the subject, or its impacts. Sadly, those who begin every thought with feelings rarely arrive at logical conclusions. And then we have to take into account Mssrs Dunning and Kruger.
This explains why it is often impossible to reason with woke progressives - they are entirely creatures of ideas and if you do not share those ideas (no matter how much evidence you marshal in support of your critiques) then you are bad person, full stop.
PS - ironic this comes from Plato as he’s usually considered the father of idealism.
Helpful analysis. At the heart of it, it seems, is an emotional stance. Is the world as it is and the more I see how it really is and call things by their accurate name the more useful action or direction to take can become clearer. Or is it in my view that the world is actually wrong, that I know what it should be and will force my view on it no matter what because what is of most importance is the rightness of my view. One way is open, the other closed. There is a tendency to gloss over facts/ideas/events that are painful or uncomfortable to one’s claimed identity or an idea or principle one holds dear. How it’s done is to use inaccurate language. The truth though is wrapped at its heart which is why such denial can be so strident. We tend to praise rationality and reason but the truth is that the form rationality and reason takes is always subject to the emotional stance that underlies it. Honesty is not only the best policy, it’s the only policy that leads to freedom.
This synopsis explains very well what I discuss with the friends of ideas. They do not relent because it feels too good to be righteous