| | The outcome of the recent crisis at SOLO is the loss of the presence here of Jennifer and Kelly, who we generally agree were good company. They shared many of our values and yet we were unable to keep them here even though they both agreed with almost everyone that David owed Joseph an apology. Their loss was not a rational outcome. Somehow, the atmosphere became poisoned for some time and emotions went far out of rational control. No one wound up with a desirable result. No one is happy.
Emotions and the resulting foul language did much to poison the atmosphere. They made it very difficult for anyone to keep their eye on the big picture. This is an object lesson in why the more rational and civilized men since the Age of Enlightenment have generally sensed that when their emotions are running to extremes, it is especially important to step back from conflict, especially if with a friend, and re-assess the situation. There is no question that when most of us enter a state of extreme emotionality, especially anger, that we have a harder time making the best rational evaluations of the situation. The more important the consequences of the conflict, the more important it is to be sure that one's emotional state is consistent with reason. Since there is often a correlation between strong emotional states and situations with serious consequences to our well-being, it is clear why rational men generally will rein in their emotional expressions in these cases until they are sure that they have a proper assessment of all the issues and that their emotions are consistent with that assessment.
The ideal for an Objectivist is to achieve such control of his emotions that they are consistent with reason. When that goal is achieved, a wonderful thing happens. Instead of constant or frequent conflict between our emotions and reason, we find that we can really start to enjoy our emotions and sharing them with others whose emotions are consistent with reason. This has clearly been the general atmosphere at SOLO. Because it has been the case, many posters have found a great emotional value in the resulting freedom of expression here. This is something we cannot enjoy with those who do not mostly share a commitment to reason with us. I hear expressions from many who do not want to lose this sharing of emotions, including through the expression of profanity. For many reasons, I would prefer seeing little of the profanity, but I do very much value the sharing of emotional responses to our values. But, as has always been the case, one has to work hard to be sure that our emotions are based upon a rational evaluation of our values and the situations we are in, if this is to continue working. A careful balance is required and to achieve that we have to constantly make judgments about whether an emotional reaction is still based upon reason, especially if the emotion is anger.
SOLO has been dedicated to being a forum for rational discussions and for the sharing of emotions held by rational individuals. This is a wonderful goal, but it is a difficult one. It works through a combination of benevolence and a determination to remember that we are friends bound by a great many shared values. It also requires us to step back and take stock whenever we get too angry at someone whom we have long valued as a friend. It is important to put the situation causing the anger into the context of the many shared values and the long history of the many interactions which have made us friends. It is often critical to do this early, before we egoists start thinking that our egos will be bruised too badly by an apology or a compromise. We should try to remember also that even Objectivists often are benefited by a compromise. Essentially rational people have disagreements and it is rational to reach a compromise in many cases, such as when it helps us to achieve a greater goal together.
|
|
