A paradigm occurred to me during discussion in class today, and I wanted to see if you could find a way to reconcile the paradox.
Here's the thought:
It seems the more passionate a person is about any given controversy, the more angry they become. Think about opponents in prop 8, immigration, healthcare. Anyhow the more angry a proponent is, the less they listen, until all they can hear is their own outraged screaming.
The question is, whats the balance? Is it really possible to be both passionate and an honest listener - not just hearing in order to counter argue, but honestly considering the arguments of the opposition. Is it better to be open minded and less of an activist?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a very interesting and relevant topic on which you have commented. I whole-heartedly agree with your observation of the relationship between anger and passion although I am not surprised. Passion and anger are two of the most extreme and affective emotions. Your greatest passions are often interlaced with your core being and if that is questioned or challenged anger does not seem like an unreasonable response. There in lies the importance difference. If you are able to assess your behavior when advocating or defending that which empassions you, you have greater self-control and function above instinctual human reactions. Humans want to be right and we naturally want to convert others to our philosophy. When engaging in an argument I must consciously remind myself to listen, and in the end admit defeat if I was wrong.
ReplyDeleteIf we cannot do this we are no more civilized than badgers growling at each other over who gets the bigger den in the meadow.
There are copious amounts of angry people right now. Understandable seeing how there are many things to provoke these feelings like the economy, unemployment, and healthcare. You cannot change the emotional state of others but you can act as an example.