Quote:
Originally Posted by JellyBrat  Hello everyone! This is my first post on the forum, so please be gentle(ish)! I’ve only recently joined, but I admire the way that members of DF aren’t afraid to get their teeth into volatile topics….so here goes! Last night I was watching “The Manson Family” film/documentary with my boyfriend. Having seen it before, he told me that it was food for thought because you could really begin to see the participants’ point of view, and sympathise with them. Well I sat through it ( with an open mind and knowing nothing much about the Manson murders etc beforehand – this was one of the reasons I wanted to see it) and definitely did not sympathise. Quick definition: “Sympathy” (in my view) = having emotive and/or intellectual synergy with a person or persons as a consequence of “getting inside their head” or understanding their stance/viewpoint. The reason I did not have sympathy was because I cannot understand the “sheep-mentality” of certain human beings. I myself have always been an outsider, and I like to think of myself as a free-thinker. Of course, this isn’t to say that I’m not influenced to any degree by anybody or anything – but it does mean that my bottom line is my own personal rationality. In “The Manson Family”, it seemed to me like all of Manson’s “followers” were exactly that: People who had given up thinking for themselves (or perhaps they never could?) in favour of letting somebody else make huge decisions for them. I’m not denying that Manson was a charismatic figure, or that these people chose him as a leader because he reflected feelings and ideals that they already harboured to some degree. However, what I am saying is that there are the leaders (the people who think independently and are for the most part uninfluenced by current trends or modes) and the followers (those who rely on leaders and who are pretty much defined by current trends or modes). In my view there isn’t really a middle ground – you will ultimately end up in one camp or the other, depending on your actions. Then my boyfriend got pissy because he thought I was calling him a sheep…. Then he said that woops – it was the philosophy behind the whole thing that he sympathised with, not the people themselves: That is to say, he sympathises with nihilism. Something else to think about! I only did a little nihilism as part of my degree, but from what I can remember it basically advocates that morals are necessarily subjective, and that no objective constructs exist. Well if that’s the case then why on earth did these people treat Manson as an objective moral construct that couldn’t be questioned?! Or is that just tragic human irony creeping in again? So (if you managed to get through all of those disgustingly convoluted paragraphs) really I’ve got two questions that I’d love some help with! 1) Could the Manson followers be “sympathised” with, or not, and why? 2) How does nihilism fit in, and could you give me some more info on the philosophy behind it generally? x Jelly |
well, i think you answer your first question yourself: you say that to sympathi(se)(ze) with someone you have to be able to get into their head, and admit you can't understand the sheep mentality. so it's obvious that you can't sympathi(se)(ze) but those who hypothetically can understand the sheep mentality have that ability. i guess then the real question is whether anyone worth counting can understand the sheep mentality. i, for one, like to think i can sympathi(se)(ze) with them, but perhaps it's not real sympathy, in the sense that i do hold myself above them. you see i think to symoathi(se)(ze) with somoeone you have to be at most their equal. otherwise it's pity, not sympathy. it's really a question of connotation.
i'm not really sure what nihilism is all about, i have a vague idea but 666 definitely answered that question better than i can hope to.
and as far as billy the kidd goes, i would like to recommend you look past the abrasive, offensive and ass-holish image he throws up and reali(se)(ze) that he's only saying what lots of us are thinking. he's attacked me in the past, and probably everyone, but i've come to respect his candor. i'll admit it's tempting to want to kick him in the pills, but then again it does say something when you feel the need to argue with him about something he obviously can't really know better than you. i'll be honest with you, i think billy might be on to something once again: from the one episode, taken out of context, i wouldn't compare your boyfriend to, say, descartes (depends on whether you like descartes or not, i guess). my point is that if you know you're boyfriend's not a moron, don't waste time defending him and don't even listen to billy. unless you were getting defensive because deep down you do agree with billy, but then, it's realyl none of my business.
btw i like the thread topic. post often! i love fresh ideas (or at least freshly rehashed) ideas in the philosophy forum as often as i can get them.