blueclover_.
Better Never to Have Been: 2006, David Benatar
- Oct 11, 2021
- 668
First of all, i'm a left-leaning centrist who doesn't have any political agenda by making this thread. I don't idiolize or demonize Ben Shapiro for this quote, i simply used it because it represents my conclusion perfectly. If you agree or disagree, feel free to write your comment below so that we can have a polite and fruitful discussion regarding this matter.
A fact is an objective truth with recorded evidences supporting its claim. 1+1=2, that is a fact because (here is the evidence) '2' is a number that humans use to symbolize the existence of a group which contains both the copy of an object and the object itself.
Agreement/disagreement/confusion/etc., those are logical thoughts. Even though one may speak with strong emotions accompanying its messages, the only things that should be notable in discussions and debates are their words and actions—not their personal emotions. If you speak about how people in X region are starving, the focus should not be on your anger, but it should be on your messages about the starving people. Spoken thoughts are the only thing that should be noted during debates.
Anger/sadness/fear/etc., those are emotions. Emotions are subjective as they are a survival tactic to prevent you from being killed off by nature which stems from different kinds of threats from different kinds of environments. Fear has the purpose of getting you to safety, but even then some people are scared by non-harmful things hence why phobias even existed in the first place. We can not predict how a person's emotions are going to influence their actions, therefore emotions should not be a worthwhile notion in debates because they are totally random, unpredictable, and unprovable due to its subjectiveness to each individual. If a person is speaking about how people from X region are starving with angry tones in their voice, then we should not focus on their anger because other people might not even feel angry about that—they might feel sadness, fear, anxiety, etc. but not anger like the person. We should focus on their messages instead, with all of the supporting proveable datas and logical conclusions, as those are the only way to convey the purest truth.
Thoughts (Logical conclusions) VS Feelings (Emotional Responses) = Objectiveness VS Subjectiveness.
The truth is objective. A subjective truth may not even be a 'truth' to another subject's mind. That is why we should always choose logic instead of emotions because with logic, we all have the same evidences to prove every claim there is about a particular matter. We can not do that with emotions because everyone has different triggers for different types of emotions and humans will never emotionally unite as it will only defeat the evolutionary purpose of emotions in the first place—to react to different kinds of threat for different kinds of people.
Another simple example. Can i punch you in the face for no reason at all other than just because i feel like it? The cause/s of my hypothetical hate of you is yet unknown, so nobody can justify my action of punching you before giving a clear, logical explanation of it. Only by a logical argument then i could be justified of punching another person. My feelings should not justify my action of punching someone because feelings are subjective and unique to every individual.
TL;DR: Truths are universally objective, feelings are subjective to every individual. Everyone can work together to gather the most concrete objective truth, but not everyone can work together to gather the most concrete subjective emotion because it is subjective to every subject/individual out there in the world. That is why truth can only be gained through logic and why our personal feelings don't matter in that regard.
Thank you for reading and have a nice day.
A fact is an objective truth with recorded evidences supporting its claim. 1+1=2, that is a fact because (here is the evidence) '2' is a number that humans use to symbolize the existence of a group which contains both the copy of an object and the object itself.
Agreement/disagreement/confusion/etc., those are logical thoughts. Even though one may speak with strong emotions accompanying its messages, the only things that should be notable in discussions and debates are their words and actions—not their personal emotions. If you speak about how people in X region are starving, the focus should not be on your anger, but it should be on your messages about the starving people. Spoken thoughts are the only thing that should be noted during debates.
Anger/sadness/fear/etc., those are emotions. Emotions are subjective as they are a survival tactic to prevent you from being killed off by nature which stems from different kinds of threats from different kinds of environments. Fear has the purpose of getting you to safety, but even then some people are scared by non-harmful things hence why phobias even existed in the first place. We can not predict how a person's emotions are going to influence their actions, therefore emotions should not be a worthwhile notion in debates because they are totally random, unpredictable, and unprovable due to its subjectiveness to each individual. If a person is speaking about how people from X region are starving with angry tones in their voice, then we should not focus on their anger because other people might not even feel angry about that—they might feel sadness, fear, anxiety, etc. but not anger like the person. We should focus on their messages instead, with all of the supporting proveable datas and logical conclusions, as those are the only way to convey the purest truth.
Thoughts (Logical conclusions) VS Feelings (Emotional Responses) = Objectiveness VS Subjectiveness.
The truth is objective. A subjective truth may not even be a 'truth' to another subject's mind. That is why we should always choose logic instead of emotions because with logic, we all have the same evidences to prove every claim there is about a particular matter. We can not do that with emotions because everyone has different triggers for different types of emotions and humans will never emotionally unite as it will only defeat the evolutionary purpose of emotions in the first place—to react to different kinds of threat for different kinds of people.
Another simple example. Can i punch you in the face for no reason at all other than just because i feel like it? The cause/s of my hypothetical hate of you is yet unknown, so nobody can justify my action of punching you before giving a clear, logical explanation of it. Only by a logical argument then i could be justified of punching another person. My feelings should not justify my action of punching someone because feelings are subjective and unique to every individual.
TL;DR: Truths are universally objective, feelings are subjective to every individual. Everyone can work together to gather the most concrete objective truth, but not everyone can work together to gather the most concrete subjective emotion because it is subjective to every subject/individual out there in the world. That is why truth can only be gained through logic and why our personal feelings don't matter in that regard.
Thank you for reading and have a nice day.
Last edited: