Hacker News Reader

Comment by flashback2199 | Hacker News Reader

I find it ironic that "We think too much and feel to little" appears to contradict the conclusion at the end "Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness."

View on HN

I don’t see the contradiction. Humans can be emotional and at the same use science to make all humans life better! In fact why would we ever develop any technology that makes life better for others if we don’t have any feelings for them?

The contradiction arises because the user "flashback" depicts it as an either-or scenario. It shouldn't be interpreted as an exclusive OR statement; instead, there might be a nuanced interplay between thinking and feeling.

It's weird that we live in a time where my initial reaction upon reading your comment was "this guy is definitely an AI bot". "That" phrasal structure + freshly created account? I'm simultaneously thinking that maybe I'm being unfair to a real human being and that I'm not really sure if I should care at this point... maybe the new machine men with machine hearts will be more humane than the machine men with machine hearts we have today.

I apologize if my tone seemed off.

It doesn’t sound like an either or. One could potentially think too much

Too many policies are based on too little reason, with too much feeling, all while thinking they're scientific, but without taking human feelings into account, they fail harder each time they are tried. But who am I to know better; Surely with the right person in charge, this time it will work…

I think feel isn't precise enough, maybe compassion is better? In the speech, Chaplain opposes the Nazis, yet the main tool the Nazis used to gain and hold power in Germany was by emotion, distributed thru speeches on the radio especially. Hitler was a highly emotional speaker. WWII didn't occur due to a lack of feeling.

Was there more emotional rhetoric than is otherwise used in politics?

Personally the “hitler mind controlled everyone with his speach” theory that I was told in the 90s just isn’t convincing. Facism was in the zeitgeist around the world.

No mind control, he said what people wanted to hear after losing WWI

Mind control was how Yuri helped the USSR win the Cold war in Red Alert 2 (joke ;)

> he said what people wanted to hear after losing WWI

In other words, they believed it. It wasn’t a false manipulation.

They believed the "stabbed in the back" narrative like the US establishment believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Irak.

It was a motivated belief, thoroughly uninformed by rational thought, and maintaining and spreading that belief took no small amount of blatant lies and cynicism.

Stabbed in the back, doesn't explain why facism was a popular world view across Europe and Japan.

"It would not be much of a universe if it wasn't home to the people you love."

-- Stephen Hawking

I disagree. Science would suggest that separating a human from their emotions (like via emotional suppression) is illogical — a one-way ticket to mental health disorder. Thus, to obey reason, one must feel enough (and regulate vs suppress those feelings).

Paying attention to our feelings is probably how we become more 'logical'.

On the other hand, following the teachings of Surak, which you effectively reference here, would be seen as highly logical by some. Though perhaps hard to practice by humans.

I would say that's a straw vulcan. Emotion are data and drivers of our actions.

A Vulcan would not say "emotions are illogical." They would say "What does this emotion says and does it make sense in this situation?" Or "how would I feel more appropriately for this situation?". Or "this emotion doesn't make sense for this situation."

Sometime, it's more appropriate for us to rely on intuition and instinct and it would be more rational for us to do that instead. Imagine someone's about to be hit by a car. You have only seconds to move them out of the way. You don't have time to ponder so you just do it.

Thinking and logic is a general problem solving tool that's very useful in certain context, but they are very slow to use. By itself it is not a complete toolkit for dealing with emotional issues. Can't exactly make yourself less angry using just logic alone. You need some emotional tools to dial down counterproductive emotions.

It's interesting how statements can sometimes seem contradictory on their own. The first statement may highlight the importance of emotions, while the concluding one emphasizes reason and progress.

Together they might suggest a balance between thoughtful reflection and the hope of a rational and progressive world.

This reminds me of “The Wise Mind” from DBT sessions.

To find the balance between emotion and reason for wisdom.

https://www.therapistaid.com/therapy-worksheet/wise-mind

Interesting read.

There is no contradiction - it is reasonable to feel more than we do.

Maybe "reason" means thinking and feeling at the same time. Because if you think hard enough, you start thinking about what is important in bigger and bigger ways, and that eventually leads you to fundamental human values, which involve feelings.

Reminds me of Zizek's video "Don't act, just think"[1]

And yes, Zizek is a charlatan[2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgR6uaVqWsQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5yoqjABeBM

I like Captain Disillusion’s motto: “Love with your heart; use your head for everything else.”

Some facts are dangerous.

I can’t think of a single fact on its own that presents any danger. If anything, facts through the lens of ideology may become dangerous, but data on its own is like technology. Neutral without application, good or evil depending on situation.

Hypothetically if the world's scientists were to all prove that blacks were inferior to whites, what good would come out of that? I can't think of a single good thing that would come from that- the world would be worse for knowing such a fact.

Does “inferior” mean statistically less likely to be good at logic games? Because I don’t believe people’s claim to humanity is defined by that.

Right. Humanity is not defined by IQ or knowledge, and it's perfectly okay for people to prefer the company of some without denying the humanity of others.

If this were proven, we would be forced to set a rigorous foundation for our values where all people have the same rights and worth regardless of how smart they are. Instead of saying people are only equally worthy if they are equally smart, and hoping no one proves the latter wrong.

First you would need to define a measure of inferiority.

I'm pretty sure we have measured some very spicific things, and found that different races on average have some genetic advantages and disadvantages. Is saying that Asians are disadvantaged in milk drinking competitions making society worse? Also, because humans are diverse, differences between individuals within any racial group can be far greater than differences between races.

And if you compare men and women, the differences are much much bigger, and the comparisons much more frequent - you can barely turn on the TV or open up any social media without seeing them.

So, ultimately - so what?

The issue with your hypothetical is that it presupposes a factual metric for superiority and inferiority. They’re all at best reductive to a single metric that likely doesn’t have much power in making a determination or a subjective weighting of many different factors. There is no factual superiority or inferiority, you’re again getting at judging facts through the lens of ideology.

People would have to think further than just assuming that blacks are less well off purely because of systemic oppression.

I don't think that it's a contradiction.

Too much of any of those is bad. Four year olds are driven by feeling only. Psychopaths are driven by thought only. You don't want the world in the hands of any of those.

It's a good mix of both feeling and reason that we should strive for.

Paradoxes are beautiful!

It's only a paradox under the widespread myth that reason and feelings are opposites. People who know their science understand that all rational thought is grounded on emotion and deep-rooted feelings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com