Reason v Emotion
There seems to be a discompassionate mind-set in existence that holds that people have 100% control over their actions under all circumstances. I do not believe that to be true. We are a seething soup of chemicals, optimised in primitive times for our genetic survival. The ramifications of extreme states in our brain chemistry can be catastrophic.
It is flawed thinking to expect people to be able to control their actions under all circumstances. Perfectly good and amply intelligent adults are frequently overcome by fear, anger, despair or passion and do unconscionable things.
These are not bad people.
They are simply succumbing to instinctive responses far more powerful, far more entrenched than mere reason. Rationality, after all, is but a pup, evolutionarily speaking. Should we be surprised that under extreme duress, people's reason is overwhelmed by their emotions?
The law provides for a plea of temporary insanity under such circumstances.
Emotionally, I feel that I should have more control. Rationally, I know that that is wishful thinking, grasping for the illusion of order.
It behooves humans to believe that we control our destiny, and at the core of that is control of our own selves, for without that, how can we be safe from things outside ourselves?
The hard-line perspective on responsibility for one's actions under all circumstances is brittle. It goes along with ritualistic behaviours - if I do these things that are right, then everything in my life will be right. Therein lies the illusion of control. If someone else suffers misfortune, it is felt that there is a causal link rather than randomness. We humans don't cope well with the idea of random misfortune, as that would mean that we are vulnerable to it. Causal links - the belief that the victim of misfortune somehow brought it on themselves, protects us from recognising our vulnerability.
If such a believer breaks and does something against their moral code, they have serious trouble processing their bad act. They either deny it or try to justify it, for aside from the agony of guilt, if they face that they have lost control, they are forced to recognise their vulnerability to randomness, and that is frightening. Fear and uncertainty are disheartening, and, like futility, not a survival advantage.
The idea that we can, even must, divorce ourselves from our primal instincts and be entirely rational in order to be truly human is at odds with itself. The dominant culture that is responsible for 'civillising' much of the globe is rooted in beliefs that include this belief that absolute control is a mark of a good person, and that those who don't exhibit it are bad or weak.
This belief in intrinsic superiority has been a useful tool for justifying horriffic actions by the powerful and privelaged against people they believe to be inferior by virtue of being inclined to succumb to instinctive responses instead of nobler ones. Everyone wants to believe that they, under the same circumstances as an offender, would have behaved better. How arrogant is that? To judge something that cannot be known?
For the most part, I believe that education and situation are dominant factors in determining who will break and why, not any inherent good/bad, weak/strong factor.
When we move toward a more educated, wealthy and compassionate society, I believe that the old style hard liners are seen as unnecessarily harsh and unyielding.
On a personal level, I know that the experience that is 'me' is subject to change due to a variety of causes. I am not in control of every reaction or response I have. I try to do right. I try not to harm. Really, I do all I can, and it mostly works okay. Sometimes, I am impaired and still manage to get through without causing chaos. Sometimes I am not so lucky.
I believe that a large part of wisdom is to know your own flaws and limitations, and act accordingly. Of course, when we are in the grips of an intense emotional state, we are less able to regognise and apply wisdom, however our objective self might want to do so. It's a bind, we are in. All of us. Any who deny that fact underline that point with their very hubris.
Personally, I know myself to be imperfect. Of course, I could be wrong...
It is flawed thinking to expect people to be able to control their actions under all circumstances. Perfectly good and amply intelligent adults are frequently overcome by fear, anger, despair or passion and do unconscionable things.
These are not bad people.
They are simply succumbing to instinctive responses far more powerful, far more entrenched than mere reason. Rationality, after all, is but a pup, evolutionarily speaking. Should we be surprised that under extreme duress, people's reason is overwhelmed by their emotions?
The law provides for a plea of temporary insanity under such circumstances.
Emotionally, I feel that I should have more control. Rationally, I know that that is wishful thinking, grasping for the illusion of order.
It behooves humans to believe that we control our destiny, and at the core of that is control of our own selves, for without that, how can we be safe from things outside ourselves?
The hard-line perspective on responsibility for one's actions under all circumstances is brittle. It goes along with ritualistic behaviours - if I do these things that are right, then everything in my life will be right. Therein lies the illusion of control. If someone else suffers misfortune, it is felt that there is a causal link rather than randomness. We humans don't cope well with the idea of random misfortune, as that would mean that we are vulnerable to it. Causal links - the belief that the victim of misfortune somehow brought it on themselves, protects us from recognising our vulnerability.
If such a believer breaks and does something against their moral code, they have serious trouble processing their bad act. They either deny it or try to justify it, for aside from the agony of guilt, if they face that they have lost control, they are forced to recognise their vulnerability to randomness, and that is frightening. Fear and uncertainty are disheartening, and, like futility, not a survival advantage.
The idea that we can, even must, divorce ourselves from our primal instincts and be entirely rational in order to be truly human is at odds with itself. The dominant culture that is responsible for 'civillising' much of the globe is rooted in beliefs that include this belief that absolute control is a mark of a good person, and that those who don't exhibit it are bad or weak.
This belief in intrinsic superiority has been a useful tool for justifying horriffic actions by the powerful and privelaged against people they believe to be inferior by virtue of being inclined to succumb to instinctive responses instead of nobler ones. Everyone wants to believe that they, under the same circumstances as an offender, would have behaved better. How arrogant is that? To judge something that cannot be known?
For the most part, I believe that education and situation are dominant factors in determining who will break and why, not any inherent good/bad, weak/strong factor.
When we move toward a more educated, wealthy and compassionate society, I believe that the old style hard liners are seen as unnecessarily harsh and unyielding.
On a personal level, I know that the experience that is 'me' is subject to change due to a variety of causes. I am not in control of every reaction or response I have. I try to do right. I try not to harm. Really, I do all I can, and it mostly works okay. Sometimes, I am impaired and still manage to get through without causing chaos. Sometimes I am not so lucky.
I believe that a large part of wisdom is to know your own flaws and limitations, and act accordingly. Of course, when we are in the grips of an intense emotional state, we are less able to regognise and apply wisdom, however our objective self might want to do so. It's a bind, we are in. All of us. Any who deny that fact underline that point with their very hubris.
Personally, I know myself to be imperfect. Of course, I could be wrong...
posted by Jac | 10:00 am
1 Comments:
I actually think it's quite useful to have spent some time in a state of denial, as long as you later realise this fact; or indeed to have a major life viewpoint change.
This seems to be the best way to hammer home the point that people are not rational, even when they think they are - in fact the times when your conscious brain is screaming the loudest "this is rational" is usually when it's trying very hard to paper over the cracks in whatever construct of denial you have been living in.
(Note I'm using 'you' here to mean 'me' :) I'd use "one" but it'd just be damn confusing)
My simplest (and least embarrassing, as long as my family don't read this) example is religion. I grew up fairly fundamentalist, and am now solidly agnostic - and I can clearly remember the in-between period, when I thought I was being rational but was in fact being wildly irrational.
It's scary, but it's useful knowledge - you can't trust the sand-castle of hard scientific rational thought, versus the incoming tide of real life. You are better off learning to swim - it's uncertain out there, but it's ultimately more real, and with practise you can survive through flexibility rather than trying to define hard 'rational' rules.
But you might still end up awash with bad metaphors :)
- K
Post a Comment
<< Home