Feel and Think

Purple said:
The person who feels that "I feel" is interchangeable with "I think" hasn't thought about it.
Click to expand...
The person who thinks people bother to make the distinction before they open their mouths needs to think some more.

The terms are used interchangeably whether they should be or not and whether you like it or not.
 
Salvadore said:
The person who thinks people bother to make the distinction before they open their mouths needs to think some more.

The terms are used interchangeably whether they should be or not and whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...
The terms feel and think are used interchangeably by people who don't think before they open their mouth.
 
Salvadore said:
The person who thinks people bother to make the distinction before they open their mouths needs to think some more.

The terms are used interchangeably whether they should be or not and whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...
I'd contend the person who cares so little about their choice of words puts little value on their own opinion.
 
Leo said:
I'd contend the person who cares so little about their choice of words puts little value on their own opinion.
Click to expand...
So now you’re thinking for other people?

Maybe they just feel their opinion has little value and haven’t really thought it through. It may be just a feeling they’re experiencing..

God, there’s no off button on this thinking thing is there?
 
Last edited:
Leo said:
I'd contend the person who cares so little about their choice of words puts little value on their own opinion.
Click to expand...
There you go, caring is a feeling and you can't go to a jeweller, auctioneer, or valuer to quantify an opinion.
 
Colloquially, they are used somewhat interchangeably. It doesn't help clarity of communication though so, on that ground alone, shouldn't be encouraged.

But the real problem is when people use "I feel" to bestow or claim validity for some contentious opinion. By insisting that their feelings are real to them, their feelings acquire the status of "their truth" which, as we see with Meghan Markle, are then claimed to be as good as anybody else's truth. Thus truth and reality become slippery concepts where mere feelings and whimsy supplant evidence and logic. Objectivity has suddenly vanished and any insistence on it is deemed to "oppress" those who "feel" differently.

This philosophy has poisoned several current and controversial issues, transgenderism and racial politics being prime examples. A trans woman "feels" like a real woman, ergo 'she' must be one. It's 'her' truth, after all, and never mind what the objective DNA test says!

Likewise when a 'protected' minority claims racial oppression, this must be accepted without question, as to deny their "lived experience" is deemed to be evidence of further racism on the part of the alleged oppressing individual or group! Nice logic - the allegation is self-proving and denial is proof of guilt! Where's Kafka when you need him?

In a further twist of illogic, concepts such as rigour, accuracy and objectivity are deemed to be part of the normative Western oppressive system that gets deployed against the protected minorities. Which of course means that it's racist to deploy them to try and disprove an allegation of racism. Catch 22 alive and well.

There's a possibly unintended irony in that this philosophy goes by the name of "critical theory" in the academic world, which might lead one to conclude that it's somehow related to "critical thinking" and is a good thing. It isn't. Critical theory has spawned critical race theory, critical gender theory and the whole gamut of various grievance studies, race studies, queer theory and every variation thereof. It might be ok if it stayed in academia, but it's now escaping into the real world with disastrous effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register