Enigmatica

Something is wrong in John's life. Maybe it's a little bit his fault, but a lot of it was outside of his control, too. His life has clearly and materially been rendered worse than before. Should he feel crappy about it? If you could flip a switch and make all his bad feelings about the event go away, would doing so be the right thing to do?

The most obvious analysis says, "Yes, of course you should stop suffering whenever you can." Obviously, he'd be better off feeling better than feeling worse. But if he feels better even though the facts clearly do not support his happiness, doesn't that denial make him kind of insane? Is he going to be able to find the motivation to fix his objectively lousy situation if he percieves no emotional signal that things ought to be better?

In other words, is it better to be a blissful idiot or a miserable genius? Is that a decision we really have to make?

This thought arises from a forum discussion I had with a poster named Andy. He tells me that it's fundamentally better for the poor to recieve saving alms from a rigid, unfeeling bureaucracy than from a heartfelt benefactor because the recipient doesn't feel guilty taking money from a emotionless political machine. The unemployed shouldn't have to feel bad about being unemployed, the homeless for being homeless. Is he right? Is the emotional protection of denial a positive thing?

There is some relativity in play. Being delighted about your uninsured belongings burning away to nothing is dramatic enough to be strong evidence of crazy, but so is suicide strong evidence that denial for emotional's sake has it's place. What if you only feel neutral? In good times and in bad, on your wedding day and the day you bury your child, if you feel basically the same isn't that evidence of madness? If your emotions don't reflect your actual situation, there's something wrong. Without some feeling, emotional or tangible, to cause your motivations, what's to stop you from starving where you sit, or lobbing your own arm off just to see what's inside? If there's no upside or downside, what's to motivate or dissuade you from doing anything?

I think this ties directly into the big two political views, at least as it applies to charitable aid. If it is more important to you that people feel good than that they see and react rationally their real circumstances, then there's no moral downside to entitlement programs. If seeing reality is the most important thing to you, than it's more important people see their circumstances in full, stark detail in hopes that you'll get your head out of the sand and address your problems. This applies to other political issues, too: is it okay that wars and horrors happen in outer countries so long as we feel safe at home, or is it necessary to put lives, our own and others', into graves in hopes that we can soften the rock and the hard place, perhaps even sweeten our hopes for the distant future?

Feeling or circumstance, evasion or suffering. Whether 'tis nobler to protect the mind from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them. That is the question.