Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Hurting the other by a "no" Message-ID: <902@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 06:13:45 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.902 Posted: Sat Jul 27 06:13:45 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 29-Jul-85 05:57:26 EDT References: <5557@cbscc.UUCP> <591@unc.UUCP> Organization: U Chicago -- Linguistics Dept Lines: 58 [Chris Andersen was put off by some of my comments on the claims of the ``self-actualizing'' point of view, and remarks about Epictetus] Chris, I'm sorry this proved offensive. If we're all here for serious discussion of ideas, sooner or later ideas get attacked. One way of saying that is simply "The idea is wrong" -- as long as we're in such a subjective topic, the "In my view.." is there implicitly, and doesn't need to be reiterated. On the other hand, while I think that attacking ideas is a normal part of rational discourse, I agree that there's no reason to attack people. That wasn't my intention, but I see that calling an idea "obviously wrong" could be taken as an attack on the people who hold it -- if it's obviously wrong, they must be stupid to hold it, or something like that. Actually I was throwing in some emphasis ion the wrong place, and should better have said something like "... and I emphatically believe that idea is wrong ". So I apologise for putting it that way, and assure you and all readers of this newsgroup that I mean no personal denigration. I don't know if my attitude in quoting Epictetus came through clearly enough -- I don't say you misread it, but in part your posting sounded a little as though you were `defending' him from an `attack' by me. No, I meant it quite seriously when I called this marvelous old book things like 'inspiring' and 'beautiful'. I still think it ends up bleak when you think about what's involved in seriously applying it (and Epictetus does a lot of that explicating for us -- it is after all "The Manual" or "The Handbook", and he gives lots of practical cases). I would boil it down something like this: if you can manage not to ever care very much about anything that might turn out wrong, you will be safe from being disappointed in anything you care about. I don't think that this sort of "I am a rock, I am an island" approach, put so starkly, carries much appeal: not for me, not for Chris, not for anyone else who has been contributing to this discussion.Yet I think that starkness is the logical projection of the claim that "I am in control of / responsible for my emotions". Chris and I must read that claim in quite different ways, to disagree on whether (so formulated) it's correct, yet to agree on so many down-to-earth specific points. If emotional reactions are in part hard-wired, as he says; and are in part the result of socialization (I add); and are only sometimes and partially subject to conscious over-ride; then what is left to the claim that emotions are subject to individiual, internal control? Yes, something is left of it, but that's something partial and part-time. And I took the original posting to claim something much more extensive, something near-absolute. Further, I certainly agree that you're responsible for what you DO, in response to emotion, or reason, or whatever. You're responsible if you hit people, or lash out verbally and cruelly, when you get mad. But you're not responsible for getting mad. We can even say that it's *wrong* to hit people, or make unfair and cruel remarks, when you get mad -- but not that it's wrong to get mad. Or happy, or sad, or feeling sorry for yourself, or loving, or lustful, or enthusiastic, or embarassed, or shy and self-conscious, or proud. You can't blame (or praise) anybody for having those feelings, only for what they do about them. (Of course, there's room for 'incorrect' emotion of a more quotidian sort, based on error of fact -- if someone is angry that you've done such-and-such, when in fact you haven't, you can say "You're wrong to be angry at me over that") -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar