Has the secular culture taught people to embrace feelings instead of facts (the truth)?

[ManOnFire]

Has the secular culture taught people to ignore the truth if the truth seems “uncharitable?” It seems that the secular cuture’s promotion of individualism has given peole such strong egos, and that many of those egos ignore facts and embrace feelings. Let’s face it, it’s easier to embrace feelings than it is to discern the truth. Has the mainstream media programmed people to reject truth if the truth “feels bad” or is inconvenient?

 

[KCT]

I love the commercial that’s out now related to tax returns. (forget which company…) The woman says, “We get money back, but I always feel like it should be more.”

She FEELS like it should be more. I FEEL like I shouldn’t have to pay so much in taxes.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Has the secular culture taught people to ignore the truth if the truth seems “uncharitable?” It seems that the secular cuture’s promotion of individualism has given peole such strong egos, and that many of those egos ignore facts and embrace feelings. Let’s face it, it’s easier to embrace feelings than it is to discern the truth. Has the mainstream media programmed people to reject truth if the truth “feels bad” or is inconvenient?

Yes. Most people don’t even know the difference.

 

[jc4751]

Has the secular culture taught people to ignore the truth if the truth seems “uncharitable?” It seems that the secular cuture’s promotion of individualism has given peole such strong egos, and that many of those egos ignore facts and embrace feelings. Let’s face it, it’s easier to embrace feelings than it is to discern the truth. Has the mainstream media programmed people to reject truth if the truth “feels bad” or is inconvenient?

Absolutely. The devil is the father of lies – there is Truth (God) or there is lies. There’s no middle ground. A “feeling” is our body’s biology affecting our intellect. at best. Truth is based on logic. Compare “new age wishful thinking” to what was taught to us by Jesus and the Apostles. Feelings vs. truth.

Now, the modern media is largely built on Marxist ideology, particularly the Frankfurt school. We are taught by them that Truth (God) is offensive and divisive, that we should “feel” positive about people regardless of their lifestyle (perversion, abortion, etc). We should not apply Truth.

The Frankfurters thought they would bring about Marxist revolution by destroying the pursuit of truth in favor of feelings. Instead, they have not gotten their Marxist revolution and instead of have opened the door to all manner of evil now, some of which they embrace, some of which they reject but are saddled with anyway. Of course, in the end, they’re still advancing the goals of evil, whether or not they realize it.

 

[Marie5890]

Using critical thinking skills can be a tricky business.

1. many dont know what they are.
   2)Many dont know how to wisely implement them if they do know what they are
   3)They can also challenge the development of faith.

 

[ahs]

Definitely, people judge things based on “feelings” rather than fact. I believe “most” people do, but I voted for “substantial” amount because I think a great deal of those who base their beliefs on feelings don’t even realize it. But even when you show them “here is a fact” they will fight the facts and use their emotions to support their positions. “That doesn’t seem right…it doesn’t feel fair…I don’t feel…my feelings are that…” Ugh. It’s almost difficult to tell someone, “put your feelings about it aside for a moment and let’s look at the facts…” and have them agree to that. It seems to always go back to how they feel about it, and making the final decision based solely on those feelings.

 

[Dale_M]

Has the mainstream media programmed people to reject truth if the truth “feels bad” or is inconvenient?

No, that is nothing new. The ancient Greeks recognized that appeals to emotion can be an important part of rhetoric. And Plato recognized that rhetoric can be used to manipulate people not only by emotion but by a deceptive presentation of carefully selected facts.

I suspect that human nature is why people are often swayed by appeals to emotion. However, I don’t agree with the poll choices because I think it entirely possible for an individual to sometimes make informed, rational decisions and yet sometimes make decision based upon emotion.

 

[Bezant]

Has the secular culture taught people to ignore the truth if the truth seems “uncharitable?” It seems that the secular cuture’s promotion of individualism has given peole such strong egos, and that many of those egos ignore facts and embrace feelings. Let’s face it, it’s easier to embrace feelings than it is to discern the truth. Has the mainstream media programmed people to reject truth if the truth “feels bad” or is inconvenient?

I don’t necessarily agree. Information and education is more accessible now than in the ‘past’ (whenever that is) and considering that, depending on what we’re talking about, perhaps people are more likely to question things and ideas than they did in the past. But if people make decision through feelings, well, that’s nothing new.

 

[BrJuniper]

Has the secular culture taught people to ignore the truth if the truth seems “uncharitable?” It seems that the secular cuture’s promotion of individualism has given peole such strong egos, and that many of those egos ignore facts and embrace feelings. Let’s face it, it’s easier to embrace feelings than it is to discern the truth. Has the mainstream media programmed people to reject truth if the truth “feels bad” or is inconvenient?

A few problems with your theory as stated. The most blatant is that truth and fact are not the same. The second is, for your argument to work feelings must be “not fact” or unreal. You then move to ego, latin for I and Freudian for part of out 'self", not sure what you mean, but again you bring up fact.

I think you are trying to argue against the ad populem fallacy but not sure what you are for.

 

[ASimon]

Has the secular culture taught people to ignore the truth if the truth seems “uncharitable?” It seems that the secular cuture’s promotion of individualism has given peole such strong egos, and that many of those egos ignore facts and embrace feelings. Let’s face it, it’s easier to embrace feelings than it is to discern the truth. Has the mainstream media programmed people to reject truth if the truth “feels bad” or is inconvenient?

I definitely think that one of the failings of secular culture is its willingness to apologize for religious craziness and stupidity in the service of “good manners.” So, in that sense, I absolutely think that secularists often let their feelings cloud their judgment.

 

[Qoeleth]

There is no real difference between feeling and facts, e.g.:
“I feel that 1+1=2”
“I feel that it is a fact that 1+1=2”
“It is a fact that 1+1=2”
“It is a fact that I feel that 1+1+2”
“1+1=2”

Etymologically, ‘fact’ is from the Latin- factus- something we make up.

Both feelings and fact, like truth, are only functions of language.

 

[BrJuniper]

There is no real difference between feeling and facts, e.g.:
“I feel that 1+1=2”
“I feel that it is a fact that 1+1=2”
“It is a fact that 1+1=2”
“It is a fact that I feel that 1+1+2”
“1+1=2”

Etymologically, ‘fact’ is from the Latin- factus- something we make up.

Both feelings and fact, like truth, are only functions of language.

LOL misuse of the term feel. I know two ones is two. Removing the word thought from the lexicon does not indicate intelligence.

 

[Dale_M]

Etymologically, ‘fact’ is from the Latin- factus- something we make up.

I disagree. The English word “fact” seems to be derived from the Latin word “factum” which means an event or an occurrence.
etymonline.com/index.php?term=fact&allowed_in_frame=0

 

[ManOnFire]

Information and education is more accessible now than in the ‘past’ (whenever that is) and considering that, depending on what we’re talking about, perhaps people are more likely to question things and ideas than they did in the past. But if people make decision through feelings, well, that’s nothing new.

There’s nothing wrong with asking questions, but I think that the promotion of Individualism has produced an ego boost in the average person, and the inflated ego causes many to not be humble. I learned the we must humble ourselves to seek truth. That’s one source of the conflict. Plus, it’s impossible to know all, so humility is required by each of us as we continue to learn. I think the best we can hope for is to find a “best” solution. That’s my best solution.

 

[LemonAndLime]

No, I think the oppposite.

Fact - what I can see (secular).

Feel - what I cannot see (God).

Swap those words round in your OP title and it makes more sense.

 

[Pug]

Has the secular culture taught people to ignore the truth if the truth seems “uncharitable?” It seems that the secular cuture’s promotion of individualism has given peole such strong egos, and that many of those egos ignore facts and embrace feelings. Let’s face it, it’s easier to embrace feelings than it is to discern the truth. Has the mainstream media programmed people to reject truth if the truth “feels bad” or is inconvenient?

I think it is very difficult for someone with no formal formation in moral reasoning to routinely distinguish feelings from the promptings of conscience from our concerns as social beings from our natural respect for authority, etc. It appears to me that most people receive little formal formation in moral reasoning. I didn’t receive any that I know of until I randomly encountered a formal textbook.

What I’m saying is that I don’t think it requires mass media or any such thing to make the task difficult. However, being surrounded by people with formal formation would help dramatically, just by example. The media could effect such a thing, presuming they know how.

Looking back through my life, the things that I have felt “I really don’t wanna do it” have all been good guidance that I ought to have followed, now that I know enough to know. I don’t mean “that is work, so I am lazy and don’t wanna”, btw.

 

[Baelor]

I disagree. The English word “fact” seems to be derived from the Latin word “factum” which means an event or an occurrence.
etymonline.com/index.php?term=fact&allowed_in_frame=0

“Factum” is the fourth principle part of facio, which means “I do/make.” It refers to deeds or acts that were done (by people), and “factum” the noun does also.

There is, however, another possibility: “factum” is also the past participle of “fio,” which happens to mean “take place” or “occur.” So I would say it is hard to determine the correct etymology.

That being said, why does the OP believe that Catholic culture is less feeling-based on average than secular culture? I would say that many posts on CAF are based on feelings rather than fact.

 

[Qoeleth]

That being said, why does the OP believe that Catholic culture is less feeling-based on average than secular culture? I would say that many posts on CAF are based on feelings rather than fact.

I agree. Catholicism is the religion of the heart, not the head. There is no greater summary of the Catholic Faith than this:

At the Cross her station keeping,
stood the mournful Mother weeping,
close to her Son to the last.

Through her heart, His sorrow sharing,
all His bitter anguish bearing,
now at length the sword has passed.

Is there one who would not weep,
whelmed in miseries so deep,
Christ’s dear Mother to behold?

Can the human heart refrain
from partaking in her pain,
in that Mother’s pain untold?

Let me mingle tears with thee,
mourning Him who mourned for me,
all the days that I may live:

By the Cross with thee to stay,
there with thee to weep and pray,
is all I ask of thee to give.

Catholicism is the religion of the broken hearted, not the rationalist. It is alone the union of our tears for suffering of Jesus and His sorrowful Mother that open the gates to belief.

 

[vz71]

Catholicism is the religion of the broken hearted, not the rationalist. It is alone the union of our tears for suffering of Jesus and His sorrowful Mother that open the gates to belief.

I am sure Thomas Aquinas may have a differing opinion.

 

[St_Francis]

No, I think the oppposite.

Fact - what I can see (secular).

Feel - what I cannot see (God).

Swap those words round in your OP title and it makes more sense.

I think you have a good point, but I disagree with what you are doing with the definitions of fact and feeling.

Feeling has two defintions, and you are mixing the two. 1. that which we perceive through the sense of touch or other perceptive sense; 2. our emotions. I actually perceive God, not through the common 5 senses, but through maybe a philosophical sense.

Our emotions are something different. If I am the victim of a crime perpetrated by a minor, for example, I may “feel” that the low sentence he receives is unjust, but “perceive” that putting a long sentence on someone who did something when very young would be counter-productive (or whatever). Can you see the difference? The first “feeling” arises out of my emotions of anger, hurt, fear, vengefulness; the second arises from reflecting on facts or real considerations.

As to your point, I think that in this society, we have elevated material facts over non-material facts–the latter are considered a part of emotions. Thus, belief in God is considered to arise out of an emotion of some sort rather than out of a reasoned consideration which has led to intellectual belief in God.

It’s as if we have two halves: the emotional and the intellectual, and we have cut each in half and traded them, so now we think that some types of emotions are evidence of fact and some types of facts arise from emotions.

No wonder we are confused!