As your heart is, if you listen to it.
Listening to your heart is different to compulsive thoughts or reactions; getting swept up in a mass hysteria of the times; or a spasm that can tear through a crowd.
These types of revolutions, or crowd motions, are more often based on intense intellectual ideas and expressions of subconscious motivations rather than the present intelligence of your actual heart.
So I think the original comment has it very right: if people actually tuned into their heart and listened to that they’d find their way much more surely in the world. I encourage you to try it!! :)
The untrained mind in its raw state, for most people is not the cool, rational, dispassionate instrument of your imagining, (though you may have been blessed with such a faculty, most are not! Including I). Most peoples minds are chaotic places and can usually be swept up in these movements. But even if yours is the cool instrument you speak of, I encourage you to develop your heart sense and listen to its intelligence—it’s vital and a different perspective.
I think most peoples’ hearts are innately sensible, than their minds are in fact. The heart also seems to require less training to make it so—you simply need to listen to it well.
But when you do (trust it -- your heart), you can trust that it will lead you, the right way for you! :)
I guess a more literal reading is it's sad that not everyone is in love and in sync, emotionally and mentally, but...you know...as long as no one's hurting each other, that great diversity is the spice of life!
But if you're against that? I don't know: you got to respect other people's different feelings.
Thanks for sharing that bit of you. Beautiful. I appreciate it! :)
Happy New Year! :)
0: (definitely more an expression of a personal angst and disillusionment by Green Day than anything about the actual reality of the world): At the center of the Earth, in the parkin' lot // Of the 7-Eleven where I was taught // The motto was just a lie // It says "home is where your heart is," but what a shame // 'Cause everyone's heart doesn't beat the same // It's beating out of time
Fear of the "other" is clearly an emotion, but all the justifications, reasons, and overall narratives about the "other" are thoughts.
Yes, that's true for everything, and it is exactly what believing your emotions over facts means.
The current headwinds are a result of ill-equiped individuals being manipulated by other ill-equiped individuals.
That may be, but it also seems perfectly logical to claim democracy is broken because a voice of an educated person carries same weight than that of a high school dropout. All you need to do is extend this logic a bit. I think it is because of our emotions, empathy or maybe something else that we see that this "flaw" in democracy isn't really a flaw.
> ill-equiped individuals being manipulated by other ill-equiped individuals
Except fascism wasn't only a manipulation. Had fascism succeeded it would've made the participating states extremely rich, powerful and influential throughout the next (maybe) hundreds of years.
Is not logical.
> fascism wasn't only a manipulation
No successful ideology is only a manipulation.
> Had fascism succeeded
I doubt anyone really knows why, but the historical fact is that it didn't.
How so?
>No successful ideology is only a manipulation.
Depends on how you define success. We can say "fascism didn't succeed" but it certainly didn't blow over as a trend. Not back then, and not now.
I don't think so. Even "democracy" in the lens of 18th is century America is rife with various prejudice that shouldn't existing in a pure democracy. I wouldn't extrapolate anything accurately from millenia ago if it degregates in a matter of a few centuries.
It's very easy to protest "equal vote for each person" when the ruling body gets to define "person" (or more accurately, "citizen") in their own emotion way
Depends. If you assume succeeded indefinitely then this is a trap because such a thing is impossible (can only be deemed indefinitely successful at its end at which point it cant). Fascism could've been the new feudal era with the masters and slaves clearly defined but yes, I don't think it could've lasted forever if that's what you're saying.
It is always straightforward to uphold what you already believe in.
Like isnt it the famous line of the communists that communism is a historical neccesisty? I think all ideologies have something similar.
We've had them since the first time a group of farming monkeys decided to post day/night guards on the granary.
Those posts have been filled around the clock ever since.
To my knowledge the first ones to formalize this were Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau but, in all cases, very little has changed since.
To me, that's as straight an answer as you're ever going to get
Yet the guards remain and insist that they are still needed.
Ideologies aim to harness people's emotions to gain support. Democracy, fascism, and communism all possess underlying logic. By analyzing these ideologies dispassionately, without moral judgments, one can discern the logic in each of them.
When encountering opposition, there are numerous ways to resolve conflict and achieve one's goals. These include discussion, compromise, and litigation, but also extend to extreme measures like murder and genocide. While one cannot deny the existence of these methods, their acceptability depends on individual values.
I can't find the source right now, but someone said that believing in democracy is like believing in the metric system.
And there's another (Churchill's?) one saying that it's the worst government system, except all the others. Not very exciting definitions, more like cynics' choice.
I have no idea whatsoever the hidden meaning here.
Democracy is very flawed in many aspects in my opinion, starting with the fact that it is the rule of majority over minority.
Yet all other systems of governance seem much worse to me (any rule of minority over majority system like monarchy or dictatorship for example). Monarchy for example is great as long as your monarch is a sensible, smart, and empathetic person - but terrible when the ones after them aren’t.
I really can’t come up with a better alternative to democracy (aka majority rule) even if I think many of the problems in contemporary western society stem from that majority rule.
Of course there are many more devils in the details and democracies can vary widely across the spectrum.
To me a socialist (as in social, as in having the interest of „the people“ as guiding principle) democracy seems to be the best system humans have been able to come up with so far - the best as in resulting in a good outcome for the biggest portion of people. The Nordic states seem to have gotten it right in most aspects, even if there are many problems even there.
I wonder if there are any other good propositions or systems of governance that have been tried and proven that I have been missing (Spain's anarchist or Mexican syndicalism comes to mind, but I know too little about them to pass any judgement - plus they have been very localised systems afaict)
Popular support for fascism is almost exclusively predicated on strong emotions felt about vague/changing subjects. Fascist speakers excelled at driving their audience into a frenzy.
Democracy is not consistently about this, and there's also rational debate about it. Rational debate wasn't the focus of fascism, and in fact it was actively shunned -- fascism was about sacrifice, blood and belief, not reason.
Someone else linked to the reflections on the language of the Third Reich, and how it was meant to drive emotions and irrational thinking.
Fascism cannot coexist with reason. Other forms of evil might, but not this one.
I hope you can understand this is a topic that exceeds the scope of an HN comment. If you want to read about this, there's tons of literature.
I'm sorry you don't like it, but I stand by what I said: go read about fascism, there's plenty written. There are no shortcuts and I won't provide a history lesson for you here.
> Where exactly do you see a lack of logic?
Nothing you described is "logic"; it is a set of axiomatic beliefs. "Might makes right" is not logic, it's a belief. There's very little that is logical about fascism. In fact they had to reject and persecute science because the world wasn't what fascism described.
I mean, they did have a bunch of contradictory foundational ideas, is that what you mean? But there was hardly a logical core to it.
Fascism, as historically understood centers around certain key principles such as the ones I provided above (authoritarian leadership, nationalism, and collectivism over individualism etc). These principles form a coherent, if morally contentious, framework. The logic in this context refers to the internal consistency and the cause-and-effect relationships within the ideology. For example, the fascist belief in authoritarian leadership is logically connected to its emphasis on national unity and strength, as authoritarianism is seen as a means to achieve and maintain this unity.
Your reference to "might makes right" does encapsulate a belief system, within the context of fascist ideology, it also follows a logical pattern. The ideology posits that strength (might) is necessary for national revival and dominance, and therefore, actions that lead to increased strength are justified (right). This is a form of logic, albeit one that many find ethically objectionable.
Regarding the rejection and persecution of science, this was not a reflection of the inherent logic of fascism but rather a consequence of its authoritarian nature, where any dissenting ideas, including scientific ones, were suppressed to maintain control.
Moral and ethical criticisms of fascism are valid, but they are distinct from an analysis of its logical structure. The logical coherence of an ideology is separate from its moral standing, and it's possible to examine the former without endorsing the latter.
It's not my argument alone: a lot has been written about fascism and its lack of logical core! There isn't a lot of "logical structure" to it. I don't think "as historically understood" fascism forms a self-consistent logical core; I think it is well studied that is amorphous, illogical and inconsistent, and that's the historical consensus.
> However, identifying the logical structure of an ideology doesn't necessitate endorsing its moral standing.
To be clear, I'm not making a moral argument. I don't believe you support fascism either, and I understand what you're trying to argue. I just think the consensus of people who studied fascism is different to your opinion.
Fascism (regardless of whether it's right or wrong -- and I believe we both believe it to be wrong) is highly illogical. There's not much to it beyond its propaganda. It's riddled with inconsistencies, it's not just "wrong" but there's not much to it beyond appeals to emotion.
> Your reference to "might makes right" does encapsulate a belief system, within the context of fascist ideology, it also follows a logical pattern
We both agree it's a belief system. I disagree it's logical. Not everything with an "idea" (or a bunch of ideas) is logical. "Ideas" are not enough for something to be called logical.
Again, this is not my argument alone. A lot has been written about fascism espousing what I'm saying here.
It bears repeating again, just in case: I'm not making a moral argument. I don't believe you're "defending" fascism either; that's not what I'm disagreeing with. I'm rejecting your assertion that fascism is logical (if mistaken). I'm asserting it's both illogical and mistaken. I would accept something evil and logical can exist, it's just that fascism is not it!
I am not aware of any experts who have studied this ideology and concluded that it lacks logical structure. If you maintain that such experts exist, could you please provide citations for their arguments along with the relevant sources? Assuming you reference these experts, you should be able to accurately cite their specific arguments and sources. So please provide precise citations relevant to the context of our discussion, along with the sources.
I will argue that you are still conflating between the ideological content of fascism and its logical structure. An ideology can be logically consistent in how its principles interconnect and support each other, even if those principles are based on fallacious premises or lead to unethical conclusions. The fascist emphasis on nationalism and authoritarian control logically leads to policies that suppress dissent and prioritize state power over individual rights. This is a LOGICAL progression of ideas within the framework of the ideology.
You assert that not everything with an "idea" is logical. While this is true, the logical coherence of an ideology is not just about having ideas but about how these ideas are systematically interconnected and rationalized within that ideology. Fascism has demonstrated a certain internal logic in how it articulates and rationalizes its principles, such as the belief that a strong authoritarian leader is necessary for national unity and that individual rights can be sacrificed for the greater good of the nation.
You mention that fascism is riddled with inconsistencies. If these inconsistencies disrupt the internal logic of the ideology, then please identify them.
So if you want to effectively argue that fascism lacks a logical structure, then go beyond stating the consensus of scholars (appeal to authority) and to specifically identify where the ideology fails to maintain logical consistency. Without these specifics, your thesis relies too heavily on an appeal to authority and a general dismissal of the ideology without addressing its internal logic.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is arbitrary, not when they are experts on the topic.
In any case, this has gone on long enough. I have nothing against you, I've explained my point, and I'm not going to give you a history lesson here, "explain" anything to you, or keep reading your walls of text. HN is not suitable for this.
Have a nice day!
> Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is arbitrary, not when they are experts on the topic.
Your responses emphasize a reliance on expert consensus without offering specific examples or references to support your stance. While it's true that an appeal to authority is not fallacious when the authority is relevant and credible, the essence of the argument still requires substantiation beyond just stating that experts agree with a viewpoint. Merely stating that experts agree with a position, without providing any direct references or examples is akin to saying "Trust me, I'm right because experts say so" rather than, "Here's the evidence or arguments presented by experts that support my view."
> In any case, this has gone on long enough. I have nothing against you, I've explained my point, and I'm not going to give you a history lesson here, "explain" anything to you, or keep reading your walls of text. HN is not suitable for this.
Stating that you won't provide a "history lesson" or implying that the other person's efforts constitute mere "walls of text" came across as dismissive and disrespectful.
If the conversation isn't aligning with your expectations, it might be more productive to articulate this directly and respectfully. You could say something like, "I appreciate the depth of your inquiry, but I feel that this platform isn't the right place for such an in-depth discussion, or I don't have the resources/time/depth of knowledge to provide the detailed response this topic deserves." instead of writing that you will not teach someone history or "explain" anything to that person.
So you basically want to converse with ChatGPT?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Every assumption right or wrong comes from emotion. The problem tends to come when people let their emotions are left completely unchecked. "Bankers are taking advantage of me. My banker is an X minority. Therefore, we need to exterminate X minority" indeed has a nonzero degree of logic, but it's not the sort of reasoning 99% of people would come up with in a vacuum.
A counterpoint is that sometimes an irrational degree of emotion may be required to do extraordinary things like soldiers being brainwashed to fight even a defensive war, building a cathedral that fitting of the magnificence of god, or even a lot of cult-like startups.
I disagree. Wrong assumptions are often just a conclusion of limited or false knowledge.
Ah yes - "I am rubber, you are glue". Given that this is a hypothetical, and I have no stake in the outcome, I think it is reasonable to conclude I am not being emotional about this.
> People who thought of themselves as great but were diminished by others for being fools are easy to find in history of science in particular.
And how many claimed to be great that are not in the history books?
And why would you assume that ? If you hand no stake then I'd say it's far less likely to go for descriptions like hubris or ego. I have no stake in chess and I wouldn't call Kasparov anything like that but people more invested in chess certainly do because it's closer to heart for them.
> And how many claimed to be great that are not in the history books?
We don't know, because they're not in the books. But seriously, how exactly does this matter if you are just searching for logical support ?
Therefore, logically, if someone claims to be great, they are mostly likely riding high on hubris and ego. It's statistically the most likely outcome for anyone claiming greatness.
For example to name the most well-known example, Hitler's goals were:
- unite the German people under one country
- more lebensraum (space to live) for said German people
- get rid of undesirables who hold the Germans back (Jews, disabled people, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc)
If you start from the axioms that the German people are the best and should be elevated and all other people don't deserve compassion, it's not hard to arrive at those goals by pure reason. Of course those are bad axioms from our point of view, but you can't reason yourself away from your axioms.
In fact, all sorts of eugenic and racist ideas were popular in the West until the Nazis took them to their obvious conclusion.
Using your mind and getting some distance and perspective would be quite beneficial here. The heart can follow the mind or the other way around. There isn't a clear cut and there cannot be a general answer which direction is the better one.
What probably is true in almost any case is that if you have an image of an enemy to put all the blame on, he probably just looks at you from the mirror.
Caesar was murdered to stop him becoming a King; but the process continued, and Octavian became the first emperor. Murdering the tyrant isn't enough, and imperial Rome lasted 500 years.
I've realized that my knowledge of Julius Caesar is sorely wanting, consisting mainly of vaguely-remembered quotes from Shakespeare's play (which, I realize, I've never read through, and never seen on stage). I evidently have some reading to do.
This then leads to the conclusion that the meaning is “reason alone can not determine all decisions”.
Now a mind in good working order may be confronted with a matter that his or her heart of good working order is objecting to. This phrase reminds us to listen to our heart in these cases.
Maybe the fascist must appeal to mechanical-ism because his philosophy is fundamentally emotion-driven.
The transparent, meritocratic democracy is naturally pretty rational in the first place. The pitch is that we’re already part of a machine, and we can bend it to serve us.
World war 2 was very much not over, when he gave this speech…
It is a doubly-interesting speech because he was giving a counterpoint to the idea that men should sell out their hearts and become cruel machines when it was still up in the air, whether or not that Faustian bargain would pay dividends (it didn’t work out so great for them).
I don't feel like this is the case. Fundamentally all philosophy that has moral prescriptions is emotion-driven.
That is to say, this is the case in all philosophies that say that something "ought" (or "ought not") to be. To say that something "ought" to be a specific way, you can't just rationally and objectively look at the material world. That only tells you how things are, not how they ought to be. You have to cross Hume's Is/Ought gap at some point, and that can't be done objectively. Any philosophy that does this can be undermined by the average two year old asking "Why?" enough times.
You have to start with some fundamental moral assumptions in order to get an ought, and those are just absolutely dripping with emotion.
Quite the opposite: Romanticism was a reaction to (and rejection of) the rationality of the Enlightenment. Romanticism celebrated strong, overwhelming emotions, such as nationalistic zeal.
The "heart" has always symbolized goodness, kindness, love and benevolence.
That's the intended message here: always infuse your decisions with 'humanity'.
But fascists were cold and cruel, but also highly emotional. I mean, listen to their speeches, shouting, spitting saliva, calling for raw strength, sacrifice, honor -- it's all emotion. Emotion used for evil, but not robotic.
(I think however a degree of detachness must have been needed for say, people running extermination camps, gas chambers, etc. You must stop seeing your victims as people, you must detach yourself to be able to sleep at night. But that's different to the rallies and the support for fascism from the masses; that was highly emotional).
Is “about half” an empirical, dispassionate observation? No, it’s a heart-felt, emotional...
I’m pretty sure that Jesus had something to say about seeing the [fascism] in everyone else but yourself.
My point isn't that fascism is a good or reasonable ideology. But that many people's reasons for supporting it weren't just emotional. Also that their support for it wasn't necessarily or primarily racial in origin, but based in strong anti-communist, nationalist beliefs, instead.
Not really. Many of the founding fascists were socialists, including Mussolini. It wouldn't be wrong to call fascism a type of or derivative of socialism.
Nobody believes this line you're spreading other than right wingers in the US.
I always thought he was referring there to compassion.