The Rise Of Emotionality

sure i can work with some of that, but i’d have to put another angle on it… one that might surprise you. suppose these people weren’t degenerate, or couldn’t be degenerate i should say, because their natural state in this perceived degeneracy is in fact a statement of the perfection of their design. or let me try to say it like this; they are unable to have depth, so there is no absence of substance where one can only be shallow. to call something ‘degenerating’ is to say there is a greater state away from which the thing is moving. but these people never had this greater state to move away from, see. they are literally modern capitalist/consumerist constructs incapable of being other than they are, and as such, they must be considered perfect at being what they are.

the thing to consider is that any one of these subjects wouldn’t ‘feel’ like the reasons and explanations you present in describing their condition are actually true. so this begs the question; how real is such a diagnosis to the first-person if they are neither able to understand it or describe their own behaviors as such? take one of the three musketeers here - you, ecmandu or jakob. in my mind, none of you are ‘ideal’ models that i wouldn’t consider to be degenerate in some way. and yet to call you degenerate would mean that i would first have to expect you to be cognizant of how to not be degenerate, or else this perceived degeneracy is, actually, your natural state. that is to say, you can’t be otherwise, and therefore you aren’t, in fact, degenerate, but perfect at what you are.

see but this stuff could be poked and prodded so much that it would fall apart (if the power of deconstruction compelled me). and these things are not unique only to modern people. it’s in our very nature to want to make our lives meaningful and rich with purpose by finding some cause to identify with that transcends ourselves. one guy identifies with the nazi cause and another with the zionists. both are doing the same thing.

its only the context of the various forms of indulgence that have changed. today we indulge in ‘products’ to satiate that emptiness… yesterday they indulged in ‘ideas’ to do so. actually i should say that today, people indulge in both. but this is worse, because those of yesterday didn’t know any better, while those today who still call themselves philosophers have merely adopted another fetish to fill the void. where they can’t fully occupy themselves with other activities to keep themselves distracted, they enter into these mental reveries and convince themselves that their on to something.

but none of this can be classified as degenerate unless we are able to say they could be otherwise. but they can’t; the western world literally mass produces such people and drops them off the assembly line as if they were toaster ovens.

'course you’d not understand where i’m coming from when i explain things in such shorthand. i’m talking about an all-pervading force that affects every aspect of human life and conditions people to be this way… without them being able to know it. and you know what i call this force in the west. it starts with a C, and it ain’t captain crunch.

See how it works?

I ask of him this:

And he comes back with this:

From his frame of mind, apparently, this is actually how “serious philosophers” were meant to address the “rise of emotionality” as broached in the OP.

The only appropriate response is admitting fallibility, humility, so as to belong to the collective.
We are not omnipotent, so we must be equally feeble.
The specimen must receive this validation.

No certainty, no pride, no arrogance. Only humility.
Admit that you may be wrong, to belong to the collective of equally wrong.
Either omniscient, or ignorant.
If not absolutely good, then absolutely evil.

He wants to ‘bring it down’ to a simpleton’s level - emotional, feminine. Let’s talk private matters.
Dumb-it-down = bring it ‘down to earth’. Lower it to mediocrity. The median.

He doesn’t mean connect it with reality, but simplify it and degrade it to a level he can relate to - make it emotional so he can feel it.
This is how he understood Dasein. Thrown into a private universe of subjectivity, seeking inter-subjectivity to belong to, to validate its own delusions; to create the ideal world, populated by ideal humans, with no conflicts, no disagreements.
Uniformity in and through nil, where the oneness is attained…like the sinner dies, leaving behind his fallible, sinful body, to find completion in the absolute idea - oneness.

Abrahamic narratives using different lingo.
From Christianity to Marx and then…crypto-Marxism - post-modernism.
The power of the nil.

You cannot automatically determine someones psychology just from their politics
I regularly read people from the right and none of them make me remotely angry

Donald Trump is the person that the left love to hate the most but I am indifferent to him
He has never made me angry at all and if he has not then no one on the right probably can

I fully support the First Amendment even though it only applies to the government and not private companies or individuals
I would not be a member of this forum if I did not like being exposed to opinions which are fundamentally different to mine

Now I may not necessarily agree with you but that is not remotely the same as actually wanting to deny your absolute right to free speech
I have never once seen you say anything controversial here so it is academic but you should still speak your mind anytime that you want to

So not all lefties Wendy are anti free speech - only the postmodernist social justice warriors are
But I am not one of them - I am a classical liberal who fully supports the principle of free speech

DNA wise ALL humans are “programmed” to survive at all costs at least till the inevitability of mortality. The exceptions to the above are the mentally ill.

Among other primal impulses, the emotions are one set of the impulses that facilitate the individual to survive to meet the above objective.

The emotions are triggered when their respective receptors are triggered to drive the individual to act accordingly but unfortunate these impulses are crude. Example, in the event of a perceived threat, the person is triggered to be fearful [flight] or angry [fight] depending on various circumstances.

Crude impulses pose a moral issue, thus humans are ‘programmed’ with an evolving moral faculty with an “impulse control” facility.

Example of the need for good impulse control, note Aristotle on the emotion of anger,

Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.

To develop of the power of impulse control is not easy and it needs some degrees of effort on the part of the individual.

Generally, the normal individual will have some degree of control over their impulses and this control is very flimsy and can easily to overpowered by an unmodulated surge of emotional impulses.

In the cases related to Trump with snowflakes lefties, they lost the impulse control when driven by a surge of emotion of anger when they experienced a terrible cognitive dissonance which gave rise to the Trump Derangement Syndrome.
When one suffer a cognitive dissonance which generate terrible mental pains, one will strive for consonance.
These snowflake lefties are driven to seek consonance with an out-of-control surge of emotional anger as childish tantrums and refusing to accept rational arguments.

During bouts of cognitive dissonances, the primary activities are focused on the primal brain which overrides the higher rational brain. This is the reason why the snowflake lefties are behaving like animals.

Social justice is effectively the secular equivalent of a belief system that comes equipped with its very own moral code
This allows social justice warriors to assume a monopoly on wisdom and so anyone who disagrees with them is both wrong and morally weak as a consequence
The outrage therefore is a consequence of said moral code being violated by events that are beyond their control such as the result of an election for example

The puritanical element within social justice is very damaging indeed even if its core principles are fundamentally sound
Everyone must abide by the rules of identity politics and so no one can think for themslves individually only collectively
For anyone deviating from this will be publicly demonised for their betrayal from the script which is simply not allowed

However anyone can be a snowflake so it is not something exclusive to the left even though it is predominantly associated with them

Sometimes the rigidity of the moral code will defy logic but it must still be upheld by all
To reject this is to be labelled a derogatory term simply for refusing to toe the party line

The emphasis is on solidarity rather than any fundamental acceptance of reality as it really is
Idealism is therefore more important than pragmatism regardless of how unrealistic it may be

Seriously, you get into a discussion regarding the rise of emotionalism in today’s world. As noted in the OP.

Someone reacts to that by noting this:

He calls this “serious philosophy”.

Now, you tell me:

In regard to your own interactions with others, some liberals, some conservatives, what would be the use value and exchange value of an assessment of this sort when the discussion does in fact precipitate all manner of fierce emotional outbursts. From both sides.

In regard to the impeachment of Trump. Or Jews. Or race. Or gender. Or homosexuality.

Et cetera.

Back to this:

What emotions are appropriate and to what degree in regard to what particular set of circumstances? Why don’t you start by noting experiences you have had of late in which you felt that the emotions expressed were not appropriate, or, if appropriate, not to the right degree.

I think the phenomenon you’re describing is called cultural neoteny.

Maybe he should be tortured in hell forever.

Nope. Because I got him off for being an ignorant retard.


What men suffer they wish upon those they believe are responsible for their suffering.