Q!
Oh Q, I have missed you!
* * *
Light,
What preconceptions? I haven't brought any to the table.
Your preconceptions about what is "normal" and what constitutes a "fool".
Ah, but I do distinguish between the two!
When?
The vast majority of people do indeed act as if those two things are true (which they are). It's always been a tiny majority of rotten apples that makes the whole basket seem bad. So now who is it that cannot distinguish the difference, eh?
You are arguing from the argument of appealing to the majority or presumed majority, but not that there is any reliable statistics on it. And even if there were, all empirical evidence is inherently relativistic and not useful to base any absolute statements on it.
You are arguing from empirical observation. Deriving ethical arguments from observations leads to the the pattern:
"what is (the majority), is normal, what is normal is desirable".
The popular form of this is "Everybody else is doing it, so I must do it too". I hope you see that this is not a sufficient ethical basis, as it includes both behaviours that we consider bad, as well as behaviours we consider good -- and so the basic consideration of ethics (good vs. bad) is completely relativized if we base ethical arguments on observation.
If you think those two premises ("we need other people in order to be happy and safe" and "we are per default responsible for eachother's well-being") are true, then you are saying that we have no choice but to act on them -- and so in fact, we have no choice but be unhappy if others cause us harm, and that those who are not unhappy in such a situation, are in denial.
So, according to your logic, if someone speaks insults to me, I am obligated to be unhappy and hurt; the person says hurtful things, and because my happiness or unhappiness depends on other people (according to your logic), I am hurt and unhappy, or in denial.
You've never asked me before why I think the way I do. I could write a book on that.
I'm asking now - so start writing. I promise to read every word.
Simply put: In my experience, it turned out that there is no necessary relationship between what others do to me, and how I feel.
If I am unhappy, no matter what people do can make me happy. If I am happy, no matter what people do can make unhappy.
Surely, this realization goes totally against the grain of what we are socially trained to believe -- that you have to get angry or cry if someone speaks badly to you, for example.
But as much as I'd like to slip back into those old comfortable ways of making others responsible for how I feel -- this is not it. How I feel doesn't depend on others, nor on circumstances. How I feel depends on *my response* to what others do to me, or what circumstances I am in. And this response is mine, it is not conditioned by others.
It's frightening, really, and it would be so much more cozy to simply say to someone who spoke hurtfully to me, "You make me so unhappy! It's your fault that I'm so miserable!" But it is not true.
I have come to find that some major religions, each in their particular way, agree with me. Ask any consequent Christian, Buddhist or Krishna follower, and they'll tell you what I told you.
I see. However, perception is all that matters in other's opinion of your attitude. Even if you only seem bitter they are left with the firm impression that you are bitter.
Well, this is your doing. Your perceptions, based on your preconceptions.
People in general are not very good at seeing through a solid wall that someone has built around themselves.
I have no walls. I'm just not your "average nice proper middle-class girl". I'm not at your mercy. You can't fuck with me. How inconvenient, isn't it?
