Posts Tagged ‘feelings’

An Important Distinction

Saturday, November 18th, 2017

As we stumble through this modern age, ruled by an individualism that tells us both that we can be “me first” in all of our deeds and that the exterior impulses of our personalities like desires and feelings are more important than either our intuition or the external world, we find ourselves encountering many situations where people argue for the denial of reality in preference to what they wish were true.

We might rebut that proposition with the simple idea that feelings are real, but not necessarily true. To us, feelings seem more real than the rest of reality because they originate inside of our brains, and if we are not disciplined, we can mistake them for outpourings of intuition or even gestures of our souls. Some time spent on honest self-analysis reveals however that these are simply part of the natural human tendency toward solipsism that occurs because our impressions of the world are of a stronger signal than perception itself, and are more immediate to us, thus seem more vivid and important.

Some say that religion is important because it teaches us morality. For others of us, it seems clear that religion does something greater, which is reveal to us that we are insignificant parts of a much larger order, which naturally bunts that solipsism right out the door and sets us on a path of self-actualization by which we lose the external husk of ourselves and discover the kernel of a soul within.

That external husk is made entirely of the human: our feelings, the feelings of others expressed through social gestures, bodily desires and the objects we use to form a narrative of our lives that makes it seem as if we made the best decisions possible. The inner kernel consists of our intelligence, moral character, intuition and aspirations specific to who we are.

The outer kernel proves to be socially acceptable because it is equal; that is, it is under our control, and requires minimal intellect, so anyone can do it. For that reason, it offends no one in a group if we pursue desires or re-configure our appearance to make ourselves seem more important. But if we compare inner selves, then suddenly a hierarchy emerges, and that offends any social group where most people are not exceptional.

As Plato points out in Chapter II of The Republic, people are not challenged by those who are actually on the same level as they are; there is no tension or “inequality” between them. But when shown someone risen or rising above them, people reflect on their own status and become underconfident, which makes them revengeful in retaliation. People are fundamentally defensive regarding others because of competition, which makes people think that if someone else is rising, they themselves are falling.

This shows us the basis of the confusion between feelings=real and feelings=true. Feelings are mental impulses which we perceive with the same intensity as any observations about the world, but because they have an origin within the individual, the individual sees them as most reliable, important and relevant.

However, what we mean by “true” is that something corresponds to the external world, such that it is verified by something other than our own intellect. In this sense, feelings are not true… they exist within a person, and it is true that they are emanating from that person, but they have no claim to the wider world.

This shocks the solipsist.

Humanity is separating. There are those who thrived under the former order of individualism are finding themselves excluded from the future; those who were excluded in the past are finding themselves proven right and, as a result, inheriting the future order where feelings are real but not true, as opposed to the past where they were considered both real and true.

The species will separate into many groups, but within Western Civilization, two main groups are emerging.

Individualists comprise the first group. This consists of those who need to be part of a social group so that their individual needs can be expressed. They are both “me first” self-interested people, and those who need their external characteristics recognized by a social group so they can feel important. In groups, individualists form collectives, or little gangs dedicated to supporting their own members at the expense of civilization.

Naturalists form the second group. These are people who accept their relative insignificance and role as part of a larger structure, which cures them both of “me first” and thinking that having social recognition somehow changes the conditions of life. Instead of dedicating themselves to the self, they spend their effort on families, culture, race, heritage, civilization and abstractions like learning, fairness, honor, wisdom and realism.

Divisions between these groups are vast. Individualists believe that feelings are not just real, but true, because their entire worldview is based on first declaring what they want and later finding a way to rationalize it according to what they know of reality. Naturalists see feelings as real, but that it is necessary to consider them in a broader context where the individual is secondary to the order of nature, civilization and logic.

As humanity enters middle age, we are seeing that individualism always leads to failure, and that we need a naturalism which navigates between the zombie-like collective of the individualists and the blind obedience of those who make “the system” their only goal. It begins with recognizing that feelings are real, but that does not make them important beyond the individual.

Leftism Is A Mental Disease

Sunday, November 27th, 2016

From the latest episode of Leftists being mental defectives, a clueless SJW asserts that feelings are facts:

And this is why it’s such an important interview, because although Cathy Newman didn’t say it, the reason millions would be on her side is something we know so well that it’s hard to see it: feelings are facts. Feelings are a legitimate human response to the world. To deny the legitimacy of feelings is a kind of modern misanthropy.

We are in the logical consistency free zone of modern Leftism where one can make baldly self-contradictory statements, finish with a flourish and claim victory on the basis that the statements look like they could be logical.

The article culminates in the following rambling declaration:

Aristotle’s famous line always bears repeating:

“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.”

The point is not to avoid anger, but find it, feel it, and channel it with dignity. And it’s not just about anger of course, but also sadness, fear, disgust, love and so forth, and then there are more complex feelings like admiration or ‘fear about anger’, which I feel we could say more about.

The point of Aristotle’s comment is that not every emotion is important. Emotions just happen. Aristotle thinks you should wait for your emotion to be consistent with the situation as it really is, and then act to use it in your favor.

That is the opposite of what the author of that incoherent missive argues. To him, all emotions are important, whether or not that correspondent to reality, and he confuses the fact of them having occurred with them having factual value.

Make sense yet? Of course it does not. Leftism is a mental disease, and liberals are either insane or people induced into temporary insanity by social peer pressure that makes them accept this nonsense as true and base their personalities upon it.

No, I Don’t Care About Your Feelings

Tuesday, December 6th, 2011


In physics, work is a force times the distance through which it acts. In real life during modern society, work is getting ready to apply force when someone speaks up about “feelings.”

“Feelings” arose in the 1960s to mean personal perceptions, including emotions. Feelings are any personal thoughts you wish were real. It was popular back then to see business, culture, religion and the military as sociopaths hell-bent on controlling us by stealing our humanity and replacing it with cold logic.

To avoid that, we’re all supposed to respect the feelings that anyone has, which is a rule of the type administered by harried teachers: “Don’t touch anyone else’s books for any reason, ever!” That’ll keep the little bastards for awhile.

However, this means that any collective enterprise must stop as soon as one person, whether right or wrong, has an objection based on feelings. Political correctness may be the worst example, but it is not alone. People get insulted when shown they are doing something incorrectly, even if for their benefit. They get upset when any differences between people are noticed, because that might hurt someone’s feelings. Our entire society is swung by the balls for fear of offending someone or simply not including someone’s feelings. How many times have you heard some person in the self-righteous hollow tones of moral pretense tell you “But not everyone feels that way, so we can’t assume that”? Or have you seen good plans be taken into a committee room and chopped into little bits while every damn person in the room has to weigh in about how they “feel” the project is going to look, smell, or emotional affect others?

We have become a grotesque touchy-feely society. The promise of such a society is pure Disney: everyone is included and everyone is loved. The reality is that everyone has a super-big hammer called But My Feelings and they use it on us regularly. It’s a prison. A prison of other people’s irrational demands.

If a Men’s Rights movement has any founding concept, it is masculinity, and the founding role of masculinity is not to give a damn about your “feelings.” In fact, we need t-shirts that say I Don’t Care About Your Feelings. These would operate as a filter, sending foolish women and emo-beta males away in tears while winning approval from people with actual souls and common sense.

I don’t care about your feelings — or anyone’s. I care about results. In an emergency, emotion makes people break down when they need to act. In daily life, wallowing in emotion blocks us from achieving what we need to in order to feel satisfied of our own worth. The more we try to be soft and comforting like a pillow, the more our “love” chokes people, because feelings are not reality. When we indulge the feelings of other people, we push them away from reality and into a human illusion which crumples when it confronts reality. By endorsing their feelings, we are imprisioning people in denial — and then imprisioning each other in a society in denial.

If you want to know why the Men’s Rights movement is confused, look no further than this division:

  • Liberalism: Feelings. We are all equal, thus our feelings are all important, which requires we do away with the notion that reality somehow unites us. We are each our own worlds.
  • Conservatism: Realism. Order in this world is bigger than us and wiser than us, and our feelings do not matter. What matters is end results, or adapting to reality.

Feminism depends on the notion that reality is optional. In the feminist-world, nature did not create opposite sexes for a reason, and men and women can be made the same despite radical differences in their needs and inclinations. In the feminist-world, just because some people with political power say something, it becomes reality. Feminism is the child of liberalism; without liberalism, feminism never would have occurred. While not all liberals are feminists, all feminists are liberals, because feminism depends on us putting “feelings” before reality itself, and thus is from the genre of liberalism and not conservatism.

Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) are essentially crypto-conservatives, but the big joke is that MRAs don’t know it yet. They’re learning. Look at these juicy statements:

The only way a man will value you is if you made him put in a lot of investment before sex. The more work he puts in, the less he can rationalize that you were meaningless to him, and the more likely he will continue to pursue because he considers you above the rest. Each man you have sex with that doesn’t call you back will kill a part of your soul, and it’s your job to guard against that. Only have sex with men who earn it.

[He tells the above to his sister, who] is absolutely repulsed by the stories I tell her of quickly taking a girl to bed (or car). Her response is along the lines of, “How can they do that? Ewww.” My brainwashing has worked on her, and the truth is she appreciates my lessons. She’s happy not to be like other girls her age, drowning in a shallow life of liquor and anonymous cocks. – Roosh V

Why does marriage exist? To avoid this problem. Why do social conservative values exist? To avoid this problem and others by paying attention to what works. Virginity makes happy, long-lasting marriages. No promiscuity avoids burnouts who are incapable of love. No divorce avoids broken families. Sobriety, hard work and a meditative piety make self-actualized people who can figure out what is more important in life than owning gadgets and impressing the neighbors. Social conservatives didn’t just make this shit up. They derived it from several thousand years of history, which is time enough to see — probably from the vantage point of age 90 — who had the happiest life from birth to the grave, and who served an unsatisfying “life sentence” before settling blissfully into the arms of death.

If you want to know what was taken from you by the great liberal revolution of 1789-2009, it was this sense of a full and whole life. What you get now is table scraps instead. A certification in some industry you don’t care about, a boring job, a city where everything is a ripoff, and being Fuck #137 for some girl who doesn’t care about any of them and will steal from you as soon as it is convenient. The sociopaths won, and they did it by pandering to our feelings.

I believe that humans are not just a bunch of folks with different ideas. We are a bunch of castes, born to have in-alterable predispositions. That used to work, when society was structured differently. – Xsplat

This guy went straight from trying to make a liberal point to endorsing the caste system of ancient feudalism. He’s such a Godwin that he skipped right over the modern forms of control, and resurrected an ancient one. But he’s right. IQ and ability determine what you are capable of, and if you go beyond it, you screw up. We have only to look at our democratic leaders and our nouveau riche captains of industry to see how you can take the prole out of the cornfield but you can’t take the cornfield out of the prole.

I think it has something to do with the Anglo form of government, which is based on an adversarial relationship between the government and the people. From the Magna Carta onward, English speaking people have sought to define themselves apart from their rulers. Americans enshrined distrust of government into our Constitution, and to this day we remain extraordinarily suspicious of government power. – The Spearhead

Do you see what’s being said here? Adversarial relationships with government produce the worst results. By implication, that suggests that we need a society where we are not adversaries to our government. We all need to be on the same page. A homogenous society. You can’t pull that off in the USA, where everyone’s heading in their own direction.

You might as well just give everyone uniforms and pictures of the Kaiser.

If you are sizing a man up as a potential long-term boyfriend I would suggest that you let him know that explicitly.

Be 100% honest with him about both his merits and demerits in that respect. Talk about the future. Interview him to determine his suitability. – Johnny Milfquest

He is advocating that we treat sexual relationships like social contracts. That is the exact opposite of the But My Feelings approach. It denies feelings in favor of reality as a business negotiation.

Soulless? Perhaps not. It avoids misinterpretation, makes it clear what is expected, and perhaps, stops each person from moving in opposite directions. It enforces reality and homogenous belief. It’s fascist, but it’s also the best way to achieve a new kind of freedom — freedom from human failure.

Failure occurs when we do not understand our reality and get caught up in thinking that our thoughts are more real than reality itself. Inevitably, a collision occurs. We, being much smaller than the whole of reality, always lose.

True freedom means that you are not held back by anything. You do not have the ability to do “anything,” because you’re still going to need to find a way to adapt to your world, and you probably don’t want to do anything that is not to your own benefit, which cuts out a lot of activities. But if any person in your society can yell stop, whether or not that person has a good reason to do so, you have the opposite of freedom. You have a prison of the lowest common denominator and the weakest link in the chain.

Imagine being the survivor of a wartime tragedy, in which the city where you grew up had been destroyed in battle and your job was to lead other survivors through ice-shrouded mountains while an enemy pursues you. You would very quickly learn the reality-first principle: Feelings, even if legitimate, do not matter. Reality does; keep moving. If you are pursued, you may have to make some hard choices. For example, the old and infirm who cannot move quickly may need to be left behind. People who are so invested in their self-drama that they slow you down may need to be driven away. If you don’t do these things, all of the survivors may be killed. Everyone would lose.

The MRM will gain its true power the instant it stops caring about feelings and starts waging war against them. We are men. Our job is to focus on facts, causes, effects and strategies. We are not here to be a soft and comforting pillow; we are here to avoid the bad results that would cause that pillow to be your own relief. That is because our rational minds recognize that warm fuzzies lead to doom, and that the reality-first principle leads us away from that disaster.

Recommended Reading