BurnedOut
Beloved Antichrist
We tend to define our relationships with objects and people. Our human wants also warrants predictability, a certain pattern to be seen. When this pattern is something that we get used to, we crave for it. When we crave for it, we try to seek it no matter what and many times we do find it.
When I say that above line, you may feel that I am talking about an illusioned person. Indeed, I am talking about an illusioned person.
The quandary I am mentioning here is that it is okay to let someone revel in misery if its caused by an illusion. It sounds anarchic but it's really not. This is one of the unsaid implications of liberalism - When he/she does not want to pull his/her head out his/her arse, why are you pulling it out?
When someone believes in something, they receive a payoff from it. I feel that a lot of literature on moral keeps delving on the good/bad and assumes a bird's eye view. We humans are microscopic in behaviour and macroscopic in defining the pattern of our behaviour. Not only that, we are also wired to be quite utilitarian. The problem with the whole concept of 'do good to others' only makes sense when the apparent victim is truly feeling debased himself/herself.
When you disillusion someone with truths and evidences, the following things can happen if the person has not the slightest clue of the disillusionment arriving -
1. Confusion - You have broken the predictable pattern of behaviour
2. Despair - You have made the person feel helpless
3. Frustration - The established payoff is gone
4. Anger - You have taken something important away from them
5. Loss of identity - Byproduct of all of the above.
When you disillusion someone by educating them, they are more likely to accept it.
I feel that this is quite a problem in all spheres of life everywhere where people try to wrestle control over someone's mind by the excuse of disillusioning them. They are not. They are just defiling the identity of the other person.
There is a reason why the fallout of a revolution is much more unstable than the fallout of a reform.
When I say that above line, you may feel that I am talking about an illusioned person. Indeed, I am talking about an illusioned person.
The quandary I am mentioning here is that it is okay to let someone revel in misery if its caused by an illusion. It sounds anarchic but it's really not. This is one of the unsaid implications of liberalism - When he/she does not want to pull his/her head out his/her arse, why are you pulling it out?
When someone believes in something, they receive a payoff from it. I feel that a lot of literature on moral keeps delving on the good/bad and assumes a bird's eye view. We humans are microscopic in behaviour and macroscopic in defining the pattern of our behaviour. Not only that, we are also wired to be quite utilitarian. The problem with the whole concept of 'do good to others' only makes sense when the apparent victim is truly feeling debased himself/herself.
When you disillusion someone with truths and evidences, the following things can happen if the person has not the slightest clue of the disillusionment arriving -
1. Confusion - You have broken the predictable pattern of behaviour
2. Despair - You have made the person feel helpless
3. Frustration - The established payoff is gone
4. Anger - You have taken something important away from them
5. Loss of identity - Byproduct of all of the above.
When you disillusion someone by educating them, they are more likely to accept it.
I feel that this is quite a problem in all spheres of life everywhere where people try to wrestle control over someone's mind by the excuse of disillusioning them. They are not. They are just defiling the identity of the other person.
There is a reason why the fallout of a revolution is much more unstable than the fallout of a reform.
