Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What I'm arguing about is the idea that what I will feel emotional about, others must too.

I don't think anyone on this thread advocated that.

 

I assume we are still stuck on pages 2 and 3 (roughly) where omni said it was "abnormal" not to have certain feelings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 781
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think we project our own experience onto the other person's. It might concur to some extent, but it's the presumption that we 'know' what another's experience is like that I find troublesome. Matching a person's outward behavior to a feeling can be quite easy, but it's wise to remember, I think, my inner state when acting acting one way/speaking one way might be quite different from yours.

 

A classic problem, as you know. I am inclined to go with Wittgenstein's solution: just because one might be mistaken in any case, doesn't mean that one could always be mistaken. The whole idea of being mistaken is parasitic on the possibility of being right. And I think there's much circumstantial evidence that we are right a lot of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm arguing about is the idea that what I will feel emotional about, others must too.

I don't think anyone on this thread advocated that.

 

I assume we are still stuck on pages 2 and 3 (roughly) where omni said it was "abnormal" not to have certain feelings.

 

it has been repeated since. but i think page 2 or even 1 is the appropriate place to be stuck. if we strike from the record the idea that any kind of attitude to motherhood is a "normal, biological imperative" then there's nothing else to talk about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the delusion occurs when jaymes decides that motherhood will be the most intensely joyous role of my life. now..a confidence trickster will go one step further and only highlight the 'joys' to recruit one more for team mommy.

 

That's quite helpful. I agree that member X (because we can't keep using Jaymes as the example) cannot "decide" what the circumstances of your feelings will be. I have agreed with that from page one. In fact, I think there's been a misunderstanding over semantics on that point.

 

However, isn't it obviously wrong, and for just the same reasons, for you to claim superior knowledge of what member X's feelings are (or imply that member X is delusional, or a confidence trickster).

 

Why doesn't it cut both ways?

 

dear god, man...when i see a woman clutching a baby with smelly diapers and claim to be wallowing in intense joy, she is exhibiting signs of delusion. my feelings towards her are as real to me as her feelings are towards her baby. it does cut both ways, doesnt it?

 

one assumes that a preacher really wants to convert an atheist for eternal salvation. but he might as well be a confidence trickster. how do you know? you just label him as someone whose words arent credible until he can prove otherwise. the burden of proof lies with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dear god, man...when i see a woman clutching a baby with smelly diapers and claim to be wallowing in intense joy, she is exhibiting signs of delusion. my feelings towards her are as real to me as her feelings are towards her baby. it does cut both ways, doesnt it?

 

 

unless she says that she loves the smell of poopy diapers i don't see what is delusional about it. i love my dogs and my love for them doesn't diminish while cleaning up their shit. i love them despite having to clean up their shit, which is presumably what women wallowing in joy while clutching babies with smelly diapers mean as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we project our own experience onto the other person's. It might concur to some extent, but it's the presumption that we 'know' what another's experience is like that I find troublesome. Matching a person's outward behavior to a feeling can be quite easy, but it's wise to remember, I think, my inner state when acting acting one way/speaking one way might be quite different from yours.

 

A classic problem, as you know. I am inclined to go with Wittgenstein's solution: just because one might be mistaken in any case, doesn't mean that one could always be mistaken. The whole idea of being mistaken is parasitic on the possibility of being right. And I think there's much circumstantial evidence that we are right a lot of the time.

 

Right, but I still don't see how X's odd reaction to seeing her children grow is relevant to me. "This came out of me and now it's so big. I'm so happy." :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm arguing about is the idea that what I will feel emotional about, others must too.

I don't think anyone on this thread advocated that.

 

I assume we are still stuck on pages 2 and 3 (roughly) where omni said it was "abnormal" not to have certain feelings.

 

it has been repeated since. but i think page 2 or even 1 is the appropriate place to be stuck. if we strike from the record the idea that any kind of attitude to motherhood is a "normal, biological imperative" then there's nothing else to talk about.

 

That has never stopped us though, has it? :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm arguing about is the idea that what I will feel emotional about, others must too.

I don't think anyone on this thread advocated that.

 

I assume we are still stuck on pages 2 and 3 (roughly) where omni said it was "abnormal" not to have certain feelings.

 

it has been repeated since. but i think page 2 or even 1 is the appropriate place to be stuck. if we strike from the record the idea that any kind of attitude to motherhood is a "normal, biological imperative" then there's nothing else to talk about.

 

That has never stopped us though, has it? :P

 

why, i'm certain i have no idea what you are referring to....

Link to post
Share on other sites

it has been repeated since. but i think page 2 or even 1 is the appropriate place to be stuck. if we strike from the record the idea that any kind of attitude to motherhood is a "normal, biological imperative" then there's nothing else to talk about.

 

But is there more than one member who gives that any credence? - and she's not even logged on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all those that "can't feel" or refuse to feel or even care what anyone else is feeling, what do you do when you read a book or watch a film filled with emotion? Do you you just sit there and stare aimlessly?

 

it is difficult to extract joy as the message when one sees erosion of physical and mental faculties, loss of time/sleep/money, extreme dependence...not to mention other 'joyous' displays of poop, drool, farts..graduating to tantrums, yelling, slamming of doors, HUGE bills.

 

when you watch a movie where the hero dies bleeding(only a flesh wound) after being stabbed a couple of times by his friend, but with a huge grin and a shrill giggle on his face, what emotion grabs you as you register the scene?

Link to post
Share on other sites

dear god, man...when i see a woman clutching a baby with smelly diapers and claim to be wallowing in intense joy, she is exhibiting signs of delusion. my feelings towards her are as real to me as her feelings are towards her baby. it does cut both ways, doesnt it?

 

 

unless she says that she loves the smell of poopy diapers i don't see what is delusional about it. i love my dogs and my love for them doesn't diminish while cleaning up their shit. i love them despite having to clean up their shit, which is presumably what women wallowing in joy while clutching babies with smelly diapers mean as well.

 

Of course it's not delusional: which is why I asked how come FB can make that determination, while not allowing other members to determine what their own feelings are. This is another example of someone telling others how they feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm arguing about is the idea that what I will feel emotional about, others must too.

I don't think anyone on this thread advocated that.

 

I assume we are still stuck on pages 2 and 3 (roughly) where omni said it was "abnormal" not to have certain feelings.

Definitions of normal and abnormal are different than saying that someone ought to feel certain emotions. In any case the vast bulk of the pro parenthood posts on this thread merely say that it can be a good thing for some people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. We seem to have the two extreme views: it is joyous for everyone, no matter what you say, and it is hell for everyone no matter you say.

 

Since both views are plainly false, I don't know why we're bothering. Anyway, I shall stop bothering soon and have a beer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neo: This... this isn't the Matrix?

Morpheus: No. It is another training program designed to teach you one thing: if you are not one of us, you are one of them.

Just how many times have you seen that movie?

 

do you want to see it again with me?

 

oh! wait..i know. you are really infatuated with me, arent you? it's a curse to be this interesting! what can i say...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...