Arskavain kirjoitti:todellisuudessa voimme oppia joka ihmiseltä jotain jos ymmärrämme hänen käytöksensä syyn - onko ajatteluni naivia ja liian pelkistettyä mielestänne?
Ehkä, mutta se on hedelmällinen lähtökohta.
Minun on hyvin vaikea ymmärtää hellareiden "kiihkeyttä", arvelen sen olevan sentimentaalisuutta. Pitää luntata kirjasta "On Truth, the Tyranny of Illusion", mitä on sentimentaalisuus:
If love is impossible, we are forced to resort to sentimentality, or the shallow show and outward appearance of love.
ja sen asiayhteys on tämä (alleviivaus minun):
It is impossible to have any standards for love if we do not have any standards for truth. Since being honest is better than lying, and courage is better than cowardice, and truth is better than falsehood, we cannot have honesty and courage unless we are standing for something that is true. Thus when we say that we “love” someone, what we really mean is that his actions are consistent, compared to a rational standard of virtue. In the same way, when I say that somebody is “healthy,” what I really mean is that his organs are functioning consistently, relative to a rational standard of well-being.
Thus love is not a subjective preference, or a biological commonality, but our involuntary response to virtuous actions on the part of another.
If we truly understand this definition, then it is easy for us to see that a society that does not know truth cannot ever know love.
If nothing is true, virtue is impossible.
If virtue is impossible, then we are forced to pretend to be virtuous, through patriotism, clan loyalties, cultural pride, superstitious conformities and other such amoral counterfeits.
If virtue is impossible, then love is impossible, because actions cannot be compared to any objective standard of goodness. If love is impossible, we are forced to resort to sentimentality, or the shallow show and outward appearance of love.
