I'm not even sure exactly what you're asking here, but emotional states like suffering are subjective expressions of feeling, not opinions.
Trying to argue about some else's experiences with regards to suffering is like trying to argue that someone isn't happy, sad, cold, warm, hungry, thirsty, tired, scared, etc.
As always the ultimate authority on how a person thinks and feels is the person themselves.
In other words, you can argue opinions (hopefully based on a foundation of unarguable, objective facts), but it makes no sense to try to argue against another person's feelings.
You could argue, if you do desired, the opinion that people are too emotionally sensitive, but even that seems like a waste of time to me, because it's very unlikely emotional sensitivity is a choice. (If it was, you could also simply choose to be more empathetic and understanding of others, just in the same way that you want other people to become less sensitive to their own feelings.)
Personally I have better things to do with my time than argue about other people's feelings.
You see how this creates a privileged class of information, right? Any information based upon a claim of suffering becomes inscrutable. That’s a good argument for disallowing it. It kind of breaks the system.
No. It simply reflects the reality that human feelings are only knowable…
Clearly not. There are a thousand ways to read a person. And they work pretty well. But that is beside my point. I didn’t address why the information is valid or not. I stated that it is a privileged class of information. One that is excluded from scrutiny because we declare scrutiny, in this case, untrustworthy.
Objective truth and facts cannot be argued…
Have you met humans? We play games all the time. Truth, clarity. It’s the last thing on the mind of 99% of us. That’s a reality that must be acknowledged.
Disallowing what…
Disallowing privileged classes of information. Because our system of talking, comparing notes, synthesizing models, depends upon scrutinizability. Privileged classes of information mangle that.
You’re being disingenuous saying in one place “I’m thinking wrong and need you to help me” and another place arguing with people who are answering you. This is flamebait and you’re a troll. Pure and simple.
Clearly not. There are a thousand ways to read a person. And they work pretty well.
Unless you can read minds, which you can't (even with your tinfoil hat off), then you literally cannot know things which are not somehow expressed (through words, facial expressions, body language, actions, etc.). Words are the most direct way that the vast majority of human beings express themselves, as things like body language and action require third-party interpretation, which obviously adds a second layer of subjectivity, and considerable flaws in terms of misinterpretation, bias, etc.
I stated that it is a privileged class of information. One that is excluded from scrutiny because we declare scrutiny, in this case, untrustworthy.
Simply restarting your opinion may make you feel correct (which you're entitled to feel), but it doesn't actually change the objective truth:
Feelings are "excluded from scrutiny" not because "we [who?] declare scrutiny untrustworthy", but because of the simple objective truth (that almost every human being has intuitively understood since the dawn of time) that the internal thoughts and feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable, and that we rely on expression to have a window into the minds of others.
If you believe that's not true, then answer this:
If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry right now, what basis could you possibly have to tell me that I'm not?
If you can't answer that question, then you straight up have no argument in the first place, and that alone answers your original question.
So now I've lead you to water, and it's up to you whether you drink or not. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this.
Well just pulling one from my butt. If I saw you consume a large dinner, and state that you stuffed as a goat, I might conclude that you are tripping if you say “I’m hungry”.
You could also argue that people lie. Again, it's quite hard to prove, as you say, but it's entirely possible. Especially when someone gains sympathy or recompense for that perceived suffering.
Often people of privilege, who lose some of the benefits of their privilege, claim suffering and demand to be treated in a way they prefer. One can't say they don't suffer in some way, especially from their perspective, but one can't say they do either.
Of course people lie, and they could easily lie about how they're feeling. But what possible basis do you have to argue against what someone else says they're feeling?
If I tell you that I'm feeling hungry, for example, how could you possibly make an argument that I'm not?
You could see that I just ate a sandwich, but that doesn't mean I don't still feel hungry. In fact, you could see that I just ate 10 sandwiches, but it's entirely possible for someone to still feel hungry, based on how the brain and human psyche work.
The best case arguement is the opinion that a person's actions are seemingly inconsistent with a certain stated feeling: for example a widow who says that she's crippled with sorrow, only to be caught going on dates with other men. But again, you're not arguing feelings there, you're arguing an opinion about the consistency of behavior.
The feelings of others are fundamentally unknowable to us. Expression (words, facial expressions, body language, behavior, etc) is our only window into the feelings of others.
But you are by definition speaking from a position of less knowledge that the person claiming to suffer. So, you are most likely wrong.
Given that arguing like that is disrespectful and arrogant (due to talking without knowledge) in the first place, people will not hesitate to call your argument bullshit loud and clear.
“the people” here refers to it’s usage a couple replies up. “people will not hesitate to call your argument bullshit loud and clear.” Those are the people to whom I refer.
Yes. They have the same powers of observation as you.
They observe that you are speaking without knowledge, and you observe it as well. They, however, may better understand the significance of that observation.
With all due respect (read: none), if they are the one speaking about their own troubles, their judgment about their own personal situation does trump your own.
Further, human relationships being boiled down to “whose judgment trumps whose” exposes your entire argument for its purpose: which is to allow you to dominate others and tell them they are “wrong” for feeling ways. Exactly the thing you are complaining of happening to you. Conversations are not attempts to dominate one another, and your view of conversations as an argument to be “won” reveals why no one likes your company.
So here’s my perspective, as somebody who took many years of struggle and therapy to come to grips with the idea that I was abused and raped by a romantic partner:
For the person from the position of power, or a third party, you don’t get to decide the reality of the person experiencing the suffering. For the person it’s happening to - whatever their suffering is, it’s valid and real. That doesn’t belittle someone who has experienced worse. Everyone has their personal struggles. We’d all do better to consider other people’s experiences as valid and come at disagreements from a desire to learn and care.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is furiously jacking off your privilege boner for no real progress or useful outcome, other than feeling superior to someone lesser than you.
I have no earthly idea the context of why you’re asking though.
Oh this guy has some cringe history on here. Looks like he complains about “censorship” when mods delete his shit. He also has a recent comment implying that minorities don’t suffer that much
Edit: OP, the real question is why would anyone deny the reality of racism, sexism, and other biases/bigotries in our world?
No, she’s giving you good advice and an intro to Stoic philosophy. Your suffering comes not from what others say to you, but from your perception of their words. You can’t control what others say or do, so to avoid suffering you must adjust your own perceptions.
Well we do have Rob’s testimony. Which is certainly vastly superior to your judgment based on minimal information. The obvious thing to do would be to trust Rob. But you prefer the minimal information. Interesting.
Rob has no “testimony”. Rob has questioned Bob’s statement without making any attempt to see things from Bob’s perspective or to ask Bob about his suffering. Rob, and by Rob I mean you, lack any empathy or curiosity that would open him to any possibility of understanding another person’s struggles.
Do you have some reason to think they’re not suffering? That they’re feigning suffering to manipulate you or something? If not, don’t be a dick and tell them they’re not. That’s basically gaslighting. And if so, I’m not sure what benefit can come from denying that they feel a certain way.
Imagine going to the doctor and saying you’ve been having terrible headaches and the doctor’s response is “I don’t think you’re having headaches.”
No one can prove they’re actually having any particular feeling. But everyone has feelings constantly. If they’re saying they feel a certain way, their assertion is automatically more valid than your denial. You don’t live in their head. They do.
People sometimes feel a certain way for no apparent reason. (Depression, for instance, is sometimes idiopathic.) But it’s not as if people aren’t really having feelings. And you have no basis on which to tell them they’re not. Nor that their feelings are baseless (or for that matter not baseless.)
If someone says they feel a certain way, there’s usually no constructive benefit that can come from denying that they even have those feelings.
I personally suspect that in most cases even those who use their own feelings to manipulate others (folks suffering from “cluster B” personality disorders, for instance) generally are still subjectively having the feelings they use to manipulate. If they say “you hurt me deeply” because you set a reasonable boundary or some such, it’s probably the case that they do indeed feel “deeply hurt” even if they are using that feeling as a weapon against you. (And, again, don’t be assuming they are unless you’ve got good reason to.) Denying that they feel that way is a) probably strictly false and b) completely unconstructive even if you are (in some sense) correct. Better would be to work out a solution/compromise that works even in the presence of those feelings. (And in extreme situations, it can theoretically be best to, for instance, cut off all contact with a manipulative person. But even in that case, I don’t really see how denying the manipulative person’s feelings could be helpful.)
All that said, when it comes to manipulative people, I can understand the impulse to deny their feelings. It’s cathartic in a really unhelpful vindictive kind of way. But still, it’s unhelpful.
But I think I’ve gone way off on a tangent here. You’re not asking about manipulative people so far as I can tell. The example you gave was just transphobic conspiracy-theory-level bullshit that you’re trying to pass off as somehow lOgIcAl.
I read all sorts of things from people all the time and can often overthink the results or have missed something else I could've read that would've created more context, but I wasn't there to see, or perhaps, with time, I read and then forgot.
Basically, I think you'd then need to go down another rabbit hole of figuring out how good Rob actually is at reading people before his testimony is really worth all that much, because while Bob could lie about his feelings, Rob could lie about how he's interpreting Bob, dismantling the efficacy of his callout, and even if Rob were honest it wouldn't really prove anything. Just that Rob doesn't think Bob is being honest, so you'd just be arguing eternally until Bob somehow lets slip his mask, under the assumption he is actually lying, at which point you prove Bob is a liar who likes attention.
But in the majority times that you'd be wrong, or you wouldn't get the mask to slip, you'd just prove yourself an asshole, and would progressively lose friends/popular trust and credibility until arguing anyone's true feelings wouldn't be a truly valid option any longer, since no one would want to believe you, even if you were right due to being more often incorrect.
Basically, if you wanted to spend your time/have some sort of hobby or job where you attempted to force people to be honest about things they might lie about for emotional, popular, or financial reward, you'd have to go about it in a non confrontational investigative way, because you'd otherwise destroy your own opinion's worth or career long before it would get the public to change beliefs.
So you could argue claims of suffering, but there'd only be two reasons to do so, to be a dick, or to prove they were lying for their own gain, and the first isn't worth discussing, while the second is better served through less direct means.
What does Rob know about Bob better than Bob knows themself? You don’t have to look outwardly hurt for it to be true. Rob should mind their own business. It’s not a “sin”, it’s just inconsiderate. If Rob weren’t a jerk they would take Bob’s word for it and say “that sucks” despite their judgement.
You don’t have to believe their words. But arguing against their claim of suffering is where the line is crossed of being a dick about it or being a friend there to listen to them.
Either way your eyes don’t see what is inside someone’s mind, so why are you placing so much trust in their judgement? Why does even it matter, and why do you feel the need to deny something you can’t prove anyway? Just want to argue?
To answer your original question, it’s because it makes you insufferable.
That’s not what they said, you’re presenting a false dichotomy. The truth is, in determining what another person feels, if you refuse to trust their words, then you can trust nothing. Yes, there are signals that hint at things that might lay below, but you cannot tell someone what their inner thoughts are better than they themselves.
In that vein, something often said of those who have killed themselves is “but I saw them yesterday and they looked so happy!” By your logic, if they looked happy they must have been happy, and just felt like ending it one day for no real reason.
What in the world is Rob actually tangibly observing? The inside of Bob’s brain? Is Bob wearing a sign that says “my current emotion: happy & content”? The point stands that Rob does not see everything and isn’t necessarily correct about what he thinks he sees.
This misunderstands the premise. You cannot intuit someone's subjective experience of reality because it is impossible for you to experience their experience of reality. You have only what they're able to explain to you.
To come at this from the other direction, if a friend says to you "I'm having a good day" and does not appear obviously distressed, how could you judge the relative goodness of their day or if it was actually good at all?
Add comment