If you scream at your television when your favorite player does something ‘wrong’ and costs a game, it is ok.
If you go to the movies and weep or scream in terror over the experiences of people who do not exist, this is ok.
If you were reading the paper on a train and reacted with as much passion as you did in either of the above situations to some killings in the Middle East or in Trenton, people would be afraid of you. People would think you were being unseemly. Too emotional. Out of control.
If your boss treated you like a piece of shit for hours - but all rather indirectly through condescending tone, etc. - and you reacted in direct anger on the level you might while watching a playoffs game, you might get fired.
Our society calls for us to invest passion in make believe scenarios - films, tv programs, sports teams - and have our little catharses in relation to these
and then
the rest of the time,
walk around like zombies, eating crow, not reacting, poker faced, in control, stiff upper lip, cool, detached, objective - ha, ha - rational, polite
in reaction to things that really matter.
Like the gerbil who gets to run - instead of in nature - in a little metal exercise wheel
we get to emote
in extremely expensive fantasy scenarios. Which we pay for. We bought our cages and exercise wheels.
Hell, the gerbil is one up on us. The gerbil does not pay for his or cage and wheel, he or she is more like a prisoner of war.
Actually, I see no reason to believe it. In fact it only becomes catharsis when it is shut up in the basement for a long time. This judgment that we must defer, displace and really never actually deal with emotions is just a judgment. As far as I can see some of the civilizations that deferred, controlled and displaced emotions the most - Pre-WW2 Germany, the 20 century communist regimes - managed to have a lot of cathartic violence without ever dealing with the emotions. Hot blooded violence can be a problem, but it is very hard to commit genocide without rigid control, a lot of preparation and organization, a populationt that has been trained to live under control and only have permitted catharsis and then top this off with some BS rationcination.
As someone who has dropped much of the permitted catharsis and does not sit on his feelings, I find much less urge to do anything physically violent. And oddly I can hold down a job, participate in social contracts and other kinds of contracts. On the other hand I am vastly more expressive than most in my day to day interactions. Of course, I tone stuff down simply to protect myself from people who can’t handle their own reactions to other people’s emotions. But I push the envelope and I wish more would. And by the way…this is not an excuse to yell at everyone. It is not just about anger, but about all feelings. I am in some ways much more honest about my cautions than most people, who tend to want to pretend things do not scare them - especially things that are taken for granted or seen as inevitable (which, of course, makes them more inevitable.)
Well, I could guess at the position you are taking, but it would probably be better if you went ahead and stated it. Can you generalize the position implicit in how you are using my quote?
It’s obvious enough, but I am simply stating that in your first example the situation is someone watching their own TV, which gives me cause to assume that said person is in his/her own home. The rest of your examples take place outside of the home, in the public forum.
For example, I have been known on occasion to take a piss off of my back deck if my wife is in the shower, because nobody is in a position to see my back deck. (Unless they are on my property) On the other hand, I do not believe that gives me free reign to take a piss in any other outdoor area that I deem appropriate, because those areas do not belong to me and are commonly inhabited by others.
The exception is your theater example, but openly crying or screaming in theaters also pisses me off.
Thanks, and that was more less my interpretation, but I’ve ‘interpreted’ before and been so far off I figured…
OK. As far as sports go, one can be at a ballgame or in a bar and scream one’s ass off. Public place. Others experience it. Further, in one’s own house, I think a good number of men and some women show more emotion in relation to sports than they do about anything else. So the family members are exposed to these permitted catharses and suffer whatever damage this is assumed to cause. Sure they are family, but the contradiction, as I see it still holds.
I notice also that you are equating pissing with expressing emotions - not unfair, given the potential metaphorical nature of ‘to express’, but perhaps it is not the equivalent. Is crying at weddings like taking a piss? Is a passionate reaction to condescension like taking a piss or is condescension like taking a piss - I refer with tongue in cheek to the australian use of the phrase ‘taking the piss out of someone’ (OK, it’s half serious, half tongue in cheek).
A well place cutting remark, said without affect is the sort of thing that can ruin a weekend and more. To me that is more like being pissed on. Of course context matters and intent. Again I am not saying that all emotional expression is fine. One can dump. But the generalized rule out there is that it is better NOT to be expressive and this seems both damaging and founded on, at the very least, unproven assumptions.
And which culture has it right? What level of expression is over the line? Why do people assume that where they line is currently drawn is best? Are upper class WASP or British norms correct or working class Mediterranean ones? How do we know? If both are OK, why do the former cultures assume that their lines are the correct ones for those members of their society who veer?
Well, what function does the stoic mask we’re all expected to wear to one degree or another serve then? I agree that there is something primal and pent up about the rage of catharthis we get from watching competitive sports or listening to angry music - but do you really think those feelings would dissappear or diminish if we let them have free reign? Obviously, there is a balance to be struck - and i’m not saying commercial sports, etc are the healthiest outlet for these things, but a certain amount of restraint and tact seems like it would be essential. That’s a judgement, yes - but it’s one based on experience - we, as humans, generally suffer more emotional turmoil than we can ever conveniently and harmlessly express - i’m all for being honest about one’s feelings, but you do reach a point where it starts to inflict itself upon the feelings of others. Sure, we’re all repressed to some degree or another, but does that make lack of restraint virtuous in itself? You see it here all the time - under the mask of anonymity, discussion dissolves into a contest to see who can shout the loudest and be the most insulting - it’s only the same kinds of ethics and maxims that restrain us from venting our every emotion that also allow for constructive, civilized, discourse - which brings us back to balance, i guess . . .
Like you said, it’s not about an excuse to yell at everyone - but then it becomes a question of when and where it IS okay to yell (because, after all, sometimes you just need to shout out loud), which puts us back where we started. I really think that to some degree, emotional repression is inevitable in a social world and probably even essential to the process of effective communication . . . like all else, however, it can get taken too far - and that is certainly a lesson to draw from your OP …
(I think I’ll trust my intuitive skills on this issue.) Well, it sounds like you, as an individual, are consistent. You dislike strong expression of emotion - in most contexts - restrict yourself around this, except perhaps in private and expect others, or at the very least, prefer that others do this also. So the societal contradiction I brought up in this thread happens around you but it is not one that you participate in.
OK.
But you’ve probably, though I suppose not necessarily, run into different subcultures within your own society.
And I will take this as a personal preference. To me once a society develops a habit - whether a formal rule like a law or a set of directly and indirectly enforced customs - that goes against nature, I think there should be some justification for this, perhaps even scientific support. An individual, such as yourself, who prefers things a certain way does not need to provide these things for me. But a society, on the other hand, should.
Not disappear, but not build up so much. Also I think we would learn not to have so many positive feedback loops, which is part of the problem. Now if one person raises their voice, we take it as a last straw kind of thing. So our reaction - fear, shame, whatever - increases because the exception or the build up has finally hit the fan. Our defensive reaction to this apparantly exceptional expression, because of its strength, adds to the liklihood of positive feedback loops when the other person does not feel heard or received and feels either attacked or treated as a perpetrator for something, really, rather natural.
I actually do not experience it this way. And I think the obviousness of this to most people is because of all the judgments about the expression of emotion. See above around positive feedback loops as one example of why. We also tend to couple emotion with action, or think that strong emotions must be coupled to action. I also do not experience it this way.
this is already happening. I can inflict my emotions, needs, thoughts, judgments on you without being expressive at all. To use a literary example: Imagine Oscar Wilde is your brother and he wants to make you feel guilty, ashamed, stupid. Fine, he was a wizard with language, but the truth is people do this with less art and probably less consciousness than he did all the time. And the fact that one cannot respond, often with how such jabs, implied assertions, subtle tone shifts make one feel only adds to the problem. One must, if one follows custom, sit on one’s reaction OR fight fire with fire. 2) I am not saying that if we free up emotional expression all problems and jerks miraculously disappear. But any system that demands that we hold one portion of ourselves in check has the onus to prove this is wise or necessary. Perhaps we would have as many jerks dumping their feelings as we do now. But then a) we could react more bluntly to them and b) we would not have the job of being our own jailer’s. As it is now we are all guilty until proven innocent, the latter never happening. And why? because of what some people would do with this freedom. As far as I can tell, some people are already managing to communicate in ways that make people feel terrible. 3) One must also be honest about one’s feelings of caution. The sociopaths who do not care about how their communication affects others just do this now, for the most part, within the customary boundaries. IOW those of us who care about how our communication/expression affects others will continue to do this, though it might look a little will from our currect repressed perspective. The suggestion is also not that tomorrow we just let the whole thing out. That is not how one learns. Baby steps.
No. But again, restraint has the onus.
And if we were in person, we would hold our masks more carefully in place. But in the end we would still go home thinking so and so was an asshole and this person always goes off topic and so on. I can’t see the internet forum is a bad thing because we are more free. You ‘name’ here for example is probably not the nickname you would introduce yourself as at a weekly in-person philosophy circle, but then…seems fine here.
This part made me think of how fast children can change moods. They sound like the world is ending. They hate you. Two minutes later - or two seconds later - they’ve moved on. they have to be young kids of course. But five or six they are already learning to hold grudges and yearn for revenge like us adults.
As far as expectations of others, I do not expect anyone to do other than what they will do, I have no control over it.
Naturally. I’m not very observant when it comes to other people in general society, though.
Society does (on the whole) what society wants to do. If society did not wish for things to be a certain way, then they would be a different way. I almost look at what is, “socially acceptable,” as an average, a mean if you will, which takes into account the personal preferences of each individual on every societal level.
By this I mean, that within a certain household we generally behave in this way.
Within the extended family, we generally behave in that way.
Within the city, we behave in this way.
In a region, we behave in that way.
As a state, we typically behave in this way.
As a country, that way.
As, “The West,” this way.
Globally, that way.
But the societal result you experience on all of these different levels and sub-levels is nothing more than a culmination of the desire of each individual when combined.
I meant expect in more moral than prophetic or causal terms.
This seems to take a rather democratic view of causation. I don’t think it’s one desire, one person that decides this election.
But I agree to some degree. Of course, then you could look at my posts as being at the potential avant garde of a new norm. There are always a few who realize certain things are no longer necessary or moral. ( I realize the same is true of idiots with ideas that should not be tried. My point is more that this all seems like it is begging the question OR it is an appeal to majority). It also seems implicit that you are saying it is a mere matter of taste, in this case as in others, determined by a kind of tallying of tastes. Do you really think this is all it is, a preference, or do you believe your taste is ‘better’? And if you do, why?
Regardless of the terms let me put it this way, I have no expectations for people, things or events that I do not directly control. Beyond that, my degree of expectation for any of the aforementioned items is indexed to the degree that I believe I control any specific item.
New Norm: Perhaps, we are always changing, individually and from the societal standpoint. I won’t rule out the possibility.
Preference: I believe that is all anything is. If we (humanity) wished for something to be other than that which it is, it already would be.
My Taste, Better: Nope, again, personal preference. If anything, my taste is worse because it deviates greatly from the mean (average) taste.
Here’s an off topic question - well, it is my thread - …
Do you have more expectations related to what is inside you as opposed to what is outside you?
Does your sense of what you should be able to control in these realms work out to be so in reality?