Continuing the previous topic "Is a person reasonable?", Where it was about attempts to define what reason is, in the scientific and philosophical terms, in this article I would like to consider what, in fact, are considered the criteria for the reasonableness of certain statements in everyday life practice, what meaning do people put into their assessment, which sounds, for example, how "this thought is reasonable", and how they constantly violate in their statements all the dozens of times a day try to avoid the need to think, coming up with any tricks so as not to notice the contradictions in their own reasoning.
However, before exposing people to being unreasonable, let's start with the most important thing. Paradoxically, people whose biological species is called "Homo Sapiens", that is, "Homo sapiens", do not want to think at all! These people do not recognize the value of thinking, they do not recognize the importance of seeking truth, they do not see the point in logic. And this is their principled position. It is enough to actually talk to any emotionally minded person for him to voice this position himself. Trying to justify his unreasonableness and his disregard for thinking, this person will certainly begin to come up with excuses, the meaning of which will be as follows: “In fact, it does not matter at all how it is right, but what people want is important. Good relationships between people are more important than truth. If you want to explain something to people, you should pick up a tambourine and dance in front of them, hoping to attract them,as long as you do not earn a good attitude towards yourself / authority / popularity, no one will listen to you. " Well, and so on. In 99 cases out of 100, when a person is faced with a choice - whether to make a logically correct and reasonable conclusion or a conclusion, the whole basis for which is expressed only in “I want it to be so”, the person chooses the latter.
In fact, in modern society, reason does not have the status of a thing characterized by an independent value; reason, in a typical representation of modern society, is just an instrument. Well, since this is only a tool for solving some problems, then, in fact, you need to take it out only when we want to solve these problems. And if you don't want to, then, in principle, you don't need to take it out. “I don’t want to solve this problem! That's why I don't need to think! " - a person who has been caught unwilling or incapable of finding the right solutions grabs the saving stick. The idea of the secondary, non-obligation of reason, deeply rooted in the worldview of people in modern society, the conviction that a reasonable decision, in which case, you can always sacrifice, abandon it if you don't like it,makes it nearly impossible to prove anything to them with reasonable arguments and logical reasoning, as they immediately throw themselves into the arms of the salutary argument "We don't need this!" Here one could, of course, speculate about how much mythical advantages these people acquire by abandoning a rational view of things, but here we will not talk about the slop of those meanings and values that an emotionally thinking person worships (this has already been discussed, in particular, in the first article "Criticism of the value system of modern society"), here we will talk about something else. Paradoxically, a lot of contradictions coexist in the thinking of emotionally minded people. One of the most paradoxical contradictions is that these emotionally minded people,expressing practically openly their disregard for reason and logical thinking, at the same time, they continuously claim the correctness and validity of their arguments, constantly making a choice motivated not by reason, but by desire, they call this choice reasonable, they constantly write off any doubts about the correctness of their conclusions to the incomprehension and stupidity of the opponent and, tearing open the shirt on the chest, shout "Yes, make me thunder, if it is not so!". There is no doubt that any person who tries to think rationally will have to face both blackmail from emotionally minded people who are trying to link their consent to listen to his arguments with the acceptance of their desires and emotional assessments, and with a huge mass of opinions that stand out for truly correct, objective, reasonable, etc., but on closer examination, frankly stupid. And what is the motivation of these people who want to convince you of the correctness of their arguments? "How, how, BSN, do you dare to criticize their arguments, because they wish you well!" Both laughter and sin … So, we should separate the criterion of "rationality", professed by emotionally minded people, and the criterion of true rationality.
Actually, emotionally minded people are not that stupid. Sometimes they have doubts about the correctness of their favorite views, sometimes they realize that they were wrong, sometimes they succeed in explaining what they previously denied. However, despite these particular manifestations of reason, this does not change the essence in any way. Emotionally thinking people are like a person who is afraid to walk, who can sometimes be lifted off the ground and helped to step a couple of steps, but who will then land again and will not be any closer to learning how to move independently. This sporadic and random nature of their thinking leads to the fact that emotionally-minded people each time refuse to understand the final goal of any reasoning, they are unable to formulate a clear and unambiguous conclusion or opinion on any issue, these people,generally believe that normal thinking is to take a random lead and give it an arbitrary interpretation. Often, acting in this way, and as a result, having received a certain random conclusion, people then (if they do not throw it away, not understanding what to do with it), grab onto this conclusion and try to look for this conclusion to use, as some unnecessary thing that they found it by accident, but it's a pity to throw it away. If a reasonable person thinks in such a way that he composes his arguments one to one, moving with each new conclusion to a more general result, if he consistently clarifies and increases his understanding of the world, then an emotionally thinking person thinks chaotically, by chance, his sporadic conclusions remain unapplied to nothing,do not occupy a natural place in his own worldview and do not find a place and do not receive understanding from others. As a result, an emotionally thinking person comes to approximately the following conclusions:
a) all people are fools by nature and do not understand anything (because they do not understand his arguments)
b) it is impossible to solve a significant number of problems by thinking
c) you can rationally prove (and prove) anything at all, and this is normal
The second characteristic feature of the thinking of emotionally minded people, associated with the first, is dogmatism. If a reasonable person understands the relative value of any judgment, then an emotionally thinking person does not understand this. For an emotionally thinking person who is not able to understand at least some complex system of logical arguments, the main mover of his random, sporadic thinking, directing him in one direction or another, is his emotional predilections and subjective assessments. As a result, the collection of ideas formed by him as a result of his sporadic thinking and randomly found and borrowed somewhere arguments begins to play the function of confirming these most subjective assessments and emotional predilections. A person is imbued with an awareness of the absolute value and absolute correctness of these favorite dogmas, which he worships, which he defends and follows, because, by worshiping them, he worships his explicit or hidden desires, emotional assessments, pleasant memories or illusions, etc. dogma data fetish. An emotionally thinking person always perceives criticism of his dogmas painfully, and, since, in fact, he is offended not by the criticism of his beliefs and errors, but by the fact that his emotional sphere is disturbing, he almost always begins to blame his opponent in this direction, trying to convict him of impoliteness, disrespect for the interlocutor, a tendency to unreasonable attacks and other things that have nothing to do with the essence of the issue in question.which he protects and follows, because, by worshiping them, he worships his explicit or hidden desires, emotional assessments, pleasant memories or illusions, etc., makes these dogmas a fetish. An emotionally thinking person always perceives criticism of his dogmas painfully, and, since, in fact, he is offended not by the criticism of his beliefs and errors, but by the fact that his emotional sphere is disturbing, he almost always begins to blame his opponent in this direction, trying to convict him of impoliteness, disrespect for the interlocutor, a tendency to unreasonable attacks and other things that have nothing to do with the essence of the issue in question.which he protects and follows, because, by worshiping them, he worships his explicit or hidden desires, emotional assessments, pleasant memories or illusions, etc., makes these dogmas a fetish. An emotionally thinking person always perceives criticism of his dogmas painfully, and, since, in fact, he is offended not by the criticism of his beliefs and errors, but by the fact that his emotional sphere is disturbing, he almost always begins to blame his opponent in this direction, trying to convict him of impoliteness, disrespect for the interlocutor, a tendency to unreasonable attacks and other things that have nothing to do with the essence of the issue in question.pleasant memories or illusions, etc., makes these dogmas a fetish. An emotionally-minded person always perceives criticism of his dogmas painfully, and, since, in fact, he is offended not by the fact that his beliefs are criticized and errors are found, but by the fact that his emotional sphere is disturbing, he almost always begins to blame his opponent in this direction, trying to convict him of impoliteness, disrespect for the interlocutor, a tendency to unreasonable attacks and other things that have nothing to do with the essence of the issue in question.pleasant memories or illusions, etc., makes these dogmas a fetish. An emotionally-minded person always perceives criticism of his dogmas painfully, and, since, in fact, he is offended not by the fact that his beliefs are criticized and errors are found, but by the fact that his emotional sphere is disturbing, he almost always begins to blame his opponent in this direction, trying to convict him of impoliteness, disrespect for the interlocutor, a tendency to unreasonable attacks and other things that have nothing to do with the essence of the issue in question.he almost always begins to accuse the opponent in this direction, trying to convict him of impoliteness, disrespect to the interlocutor, a tendency to unreasonable attacks and other things that have nothing to do with the essence of the issue in question.he almost always begins to accuse the opponent in this direction, trying to convict him of impoliteness, disrespect to the interlocutor, a tendency to unreasonable attacks and other things that have nothing to do with the essence of the issue in question.
From the dogmatic nature of thinking, an emotionally thinking person develops a very specific idea of correctness. Practically never, these people do not use the concept of correctness in the sense of "correctly made conclusions, correctly solved a problem", etc., these people, rejecting correctness as the correspondence of a solution to specific conditions, as a solution that contributes to the achievement of a goal, rejecting rationality as the ability to draw logical conclusions, build adequate mental models of phenomena, the ability to understand and understand different things, the ability to think IN GENERAL, stick these labels of correctness and rationality on their favorite dogmas. From their point of view, a person is reasonable if he “understands” that their dogma is correct. If he “does not understand” this, then he is not intelligent,and their ability to arrive at the correct solution to a specific problem or give an exact answer to a specific question does not bother them. Let's move on to the "evidence" with the help of which emotionally minded people "prove" the correctness of their favorite dogma.
Almost always, this favorite dogma hangs in the air and has no arguments. However, an emotionally thinking person is not at all embarrassed by this. Actually, due to the sporadic and mystical nature of his thinking, an emotionally thinking person actually has no idea where most of the conclusions that he personally adhere to, and which humanity adhere to, came from. If a reasonable person always tries to correlate new things with what he already knows, and will never be sure of the correctness of his ideas, if he discovers a contradiction in them, then emotionally thinking people behave completely differently. Even while studying physics and mathematics, sciences in which the ability to think and reason is extremely important, these people replace their own reasoning and logical conclusion with a chain of dogmas,each of which is a fixed object, they do not follow the logic of the authors of textbooks, etc., but simply remember that "so right", and that's it. Accordingly, not knowing where the dogmas came from, an emotionally thinking person cannot prove anything. If on some topic, about which a person has made an idea with the help of a system of dogmas, he is asked questions, then the answers are always simply striking in their naivety and absurdity. That is why, by the way, students who try to study physics and mathematics with the help of cramming have no chances to pass the exam by more than "three", since any questions on understanding reveal a complete lack of understanding.an emotionally minded person cannot prove anything. If on some topic, about which a person has made an idea with the help of a system of dogmas, ask him questions, then the answers are always simply striking in their naivety and absurdity. That is why, by the way, students who try to study physics and mathematics with the help of cramming have no chances to pass the exam by more than "three", since any questions on understanding reveal a complete lack of understanding.an emotionally minded person cannot prove anything. If on some topic, about which a person has made an idea with the help of a system of dogmas, ask him questions, then the answers are always simply striking in their naivety and absurdity. That is why, by the way, students who try to study physics and mathematics with the help of cramming have no chances to pass the exam by more than "three", since any questions on understanding reveal a complete lack of understanding.because any questions of understanding reveal a complete misunderstanding.because any questions of understanding reveal a complete misunderstanding.
The proof of dogma undertaken by the emotionally minded person always comes down to gimmicks. The point of the ruse is to put evidence at the base of your dogma that has no probative value. Variants of such tricks can be: a) particular examples b) conjectures c) false generalizations. The essence of a particular example is that two different wholes possessing one particular feature common to both are equated with each other. An example of a trick: “Fascist Hitler ate semolina. You eat semolina. You are also a fascist. " The essence of the conjecture is that a certain hypothesis is put forward, taken from the ceiling, provided that it is true, the thesis defended by an emotionally thinking person receives justification. An example of a trick: "You criticize the Communist Party because you are an accomplice of Putin." The essence of the false generalization isthat two particular cases are declared identical on the grounds that they are brought under the definition of some more general case. An example of a catch: "Genetically modified foods are safe because genotype manipulation has been practiced since the Neolithic."
Actually, "proving", an emotionally thinking person does not try to prove anything. The purpose of his efforts is not to present others with an understanding of what he himself understands, the purpose is to induce them to agree with the judgment that he himself shares. The latent goal is always to get some kind of gain in terms of realizing one's desires or expressing one's emotional assessments. It is surprising that, while proving dogmas to each other with fervor and broadcasting their emotional assessments, emotionally-minded people in the overwhelming majority of cases do not know why they are doing this. Well, let's say you proved to me that this is good, and this is byaka. Well, what should I do with this knowledge? Nothing. Sit back and know. Treat this well and treat this badly. Since the dogmas defended by emotionally minded peoplethey do not correlate with the solution of specific issues, then, in fact, it is difficult to derive practical benefit from them. Moreover, for emotionally minded people it seems quite normal if the project they are nurturing is fantastic, utopian, and has no chance of being implemented in the near future. Reality doesn't matter to them. The current conditions do not matter to them. Only illusions matter, only considerations of what they consider acceptable and what they are ready for (regardless of what really needs to be done) matter. “Do you know,” some say, “that as soon as we introduce a moneyless society, how everyone will live happily, the fools will become smart and engage in self-realization?” “Do you know,” others say, “that as soon as we change a person through genetic modification and the use of neurostimulants,so all people will become superhumans at once, how are they capable of selection, monstrously brilliant and in five minutes make a thousand times more discoveries than has been done for the entire period of human existence? " “Do you know,” some say, “that all of humanity's problems will be immediately solved as soon as we implement the artificial intelligence project, but for this we just need to build a computer the size of the Earth?” Although from the point of view of a reasonable person, at least a bit of a person, the absurdity of the theses defended by emotionally-minded people and the absolute fallacy of their arguments are completely obvious, emotionally-minded people never want to admit they are wrong. As a matter of fact, these people, presenting their evidence, as a rule, are absolutely sure that their dogma is absolutely correct, that their mystical intuitive impression thatthat it is correct, they are not deceived, that a person who wants everyone's well-being can only count as they do, and in general that they are doing a favor, trying to explain to all stupid people who do not understand the correctness of their dogma why it is correct.
Yet what prevents emotionally minded people from starting to think rationally? Nothing but their own psychological and value problems. Their persistence and consistency in dodging the search for the right answers and reasonable decisions, even when they are very close, is simply amazing. The main reason for this, which makes them twist and always stop a step away from the correct answers, is fear. This fear is the fear of realizing the true understanding of things, the fear of realizing the truth. This mechanism is similar to how people who have certain internal complexes based on cases repressed into the subconscious, the stories of which formed the basis of the observations of Freud and his psychoanalytic doctrine, were in every possible way afraid and avoided that hidden information got into consciousness. Likewise, people are emotionally minded, obsessed with troubles,they constantly repeat about some things, but like people in the stories of Freud, they do not really strive to solve the questions about which they are repeating, hiding and refracting their original motives in the most incredible way, they replace these motives with symbolic actions that do not have no point. Self-deception and substitution of nonsense for expedient decisions and searches is the norm for these people. The essence of their reasoning and actions is like a game, avoiding sensible answers, they defend their right to play pretend, procrastinate the same topics, shout that they wish good for humanity and propose all sorts of fantastic projects to solve the stated problems, but in fact, so by doing so, they avoid a real decision, since a real decision, a real understanding of things would lead them out of this game,from this constant meaningless symbolic action, it would put them before a choice - either to stop playing and admit their inability and their ignorance, to admit the utopian nature of their decisions, or to take real responsibility for their words and actually start looking for solutions that, like as a rule, they are much more complicated and not at all as unambiguous as their initial fantastic and symbolic appeals.
Fear of thinking is a significant problem that plagues humanity. During their dialogues with different people, many of whom presented themselves as the authors of large-scale projects to save humanity, I almost always came across the fact that they tried to leave the discussion as soon as it came up with issues related to the specific implementation of their own projects. 99% of people on Earth are afraid to think and prefer to live in illusions rather than reality, fleeing freedom and the realization of their own motives. People who are afraid to think cause double harm - in addition to the fact that, in fact, they themselves are constantly fighting against any progressive and reasonable ideas that threaten to reveal their ignorance, they also constantly introduce confusion, create illusory projects and deceive people who really would like to find the true solution of these problems,buying into their hypocritical slogans and appeals. However, despite the complexity of the struggle with people who are afraid to think, they should not be left alone. It should be remembered that, nevertheless, every emotionally thinking person is potentially intelligent. One should constantly expose his mystical constructions, illusory conclusions, awaken his mind when he is mired in blind worship and fetishism. We need to save these people from the fear of thinking and the false values of the emotional worldview. There is no other way, how to learn to think, for humanity in the future.illusory conclusions, awakening his mind when he is mired in blind worship and fetishism. We need to save these people from the fear of thinking and the false values of the emotional worldview. There is no other way, how to learn to think, for humanity in the future.illusory conclusions, awakening his mind when he is mired in blind worship and fetishism. We need to save these people from the fear of thinking and the false values of the emotional worldview. There is no other way, how to learn to think, for humanity in the future.