Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

In those back-and-forths with loved one’s – family and friends – one may be agitated at the direction they take (personal rather than philosophical), but with understanding one may become somewhat inured to the allegations, derogation’s and characterization which – dare we say – inevitably come from the emotionally ordered. Characterizations range from arrogance, to uncaring, to plain evil; and of course, discussing the meaning of such characterizations requires rational dispositions, but rationally ordered individuals do not so casually impugn another… That is to say, one would hope to get people to consider what they generally cannot be prompted to consider, to wit: their dispositions render them incapable of objectivity…

This culture programs/encourages rational agents/beings (us humans; each with the capacity to understand so much more than most of us do; and in particular one would wish that all humans understand what they – as humans – ought to be, and why they ought to strive to be what they are, viz: moral beings), to behave as sentimental agents/beings – via cultural prompts which are organically derived from the principles which circumscribe – for the lion-share of people – their worldview. And so when people ascribe – to others – motivations and directives which are emotionally justified (if the ego feels something to be so, and the ego is the judge, then what is felt to be true, is true, thus emotional justification!), but not morally justified, we would like the individual – making the charge – to be prompted by peers to attempt to reconcile what they “feel,” with the acts which they see the individual they characterize do. Generally, the rational individual is mischaracterized by the sentimentally ordered; in some manner repaying the moral treatment they receive with immoral treatment (note: the sentimentalist cannot help themselves, they are slaves to their passions…).

An example: A son, a daughter (a spouse et al,), may assert his/her father/mother (or spouse) doesn’t love him/her, or doesn’t care about them – because that is what the son/daughter may feel, and that feeling makes him feel good about their selves and how he/she has maltreated his father/mother; if the son/daughter attempted to explain their parent’s consistent sacrifices made on their children’s behalf, one wonders how the reconciliation of the parent’s actions with the children’s feelings about their parents would alter their relationship? The problem is, however, the son/daughter cannot look at him/her self (they are sentimental), and so he/she blames his/her parent!

In former ages, society was organized morally; family, friends relatives and anyone one would meet on the street would rebuff the jeremiad (tale-of-woe, or ‘pity-party’) of the sentimentalist as exemplifying ingratitude and selfishness, and as incompatible with moral-comity/justice and thus, as inimical to loving relations (note: morality, truth and love may not be separated or be at odds), but those days are gone; this culture does not promote rational (i.e., moral) thought, but the opposite; relationships are fundamentally built and sustained on moral grounds, not on emotional grounds… So in this culture, people like to speak of love (e.g., God is love), but (we repeat) love, truth, and morality are always on the same page, always in agreement – and a culture which separates love from truth and/or from moral responsibility is one which is headed for extinction…

iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?