Truth, Opinion and PC Culture -- A Debate On Sensitivity and Honesty
Updated: Dec 3, 2024
Summary by Anonymous
The article of Truth, Opinion and PC Culture presents a philosophical debate between two perspectives on the relationship between truth and social sensitivity.
The first perspective argues for prioritizing truth over sensitivity. It contends that political correctness hinders honest discourse and intellectual development.
Emotional sensitivity, Mr. Tomasio claims, can be a weakness that prevents individuals from facing reality. True love, according to this perspective, requires courage, including the courage to be brutally honest.
The second perspective, however, advocates for a balance between truth and sensitivity. It argues that sensitive communication can enhance understanding and promote empathy.
Brutal honesty, without regard for others' feelings, can damage relationships. A balanced approach, combining truth and sensitivity, is essential for a harmonious society, according to this perspective.
The article's debate highlights the tension between the pursuit of objective truth and the need for social harmony.
Both perspectives offer valuable insights, and the optimal approach may vary depending on the specific context and the individuals involved.
Part I: By T. Rubinshtein
We as a society did not replace truth with our opinions
We tell others what we think is true (and perhaps it is true), but we hide it behind the façade of “opinion” in order to be sensitive towards one another. We may in fact be hindering the best versions of ourselves in the name of being sensitive to those whose emotional problems surpass their need to know the truth. It is one of the reasons it is difficult to be friends with philosophers, but I digress.
Not everything we claim to be an “opinion” is truly only an opinion. Perhaps our opinions are true, and are backed by a consistent logic and evidence, but because we are a heterogeneous society with large portions of it believing in things that are not true, the “religion” of political correctness has “forced” us to portray some truths as opinions, so the feelings of those who deny those truths won’t get hurt.
Autistic people, for example, may have understanding problems on the interpersonal level. However, saying it like that could hurt their feelings. On the other hand, saying "In my opinion, a lot of autistic people have interpersonal problems because they struggle to understand other people" can be far more insulting, correct?
Why wouldn't it be less insulting? The truth hurts. The truth hurts because the vast majority of humans have feelings, and when our beliefs are challenged, the truth can also challenge our feelings. Therefore, in order to avoid triggering people's emotional problems, it is easy to deceive them (and perhaps yourself) by portraying the truth as an opinion.
And the whole point of PC culture is to avoid hurting people's emotions. Should we work to solve our personal emotional problems, and should we be able to distinguish between "Kli" and "Tochen", the need for PC culture, and of "walking on eggshells", will be reduced significantly.
So we did not necessarily replace truth with opinion. We can't do it regardless because there is a world that exists beyond our minds. We "replaced" truth with political correctness, in the name of cooperation and harmony within a multi-cultural, universal society. Those who do not accept the opinions of others (even if true) are often portrayed as either aggressive or arrogant, as if those who do not accept the beliefs of others are "omniscient." In reality, no one is capable of omniscience.
Being an intellectual is not always easy when others feel threatened by your debating, memorization of evidence, and logical skills. Intellect may intimidate. Perhaps as a result, they have developed the stereotype that intellectuals are arrogant and narcissistic dreamers who believe that they know everything and are superior to others. Or they may believe that intellectuals are simply "trolling"—a belief that may be used as a way to overcome the uneasy feeling of being intimidated.
In reality, however, some people are smarter than others. It's the truth and it has a lot to do with genetics but also to other factors. You don't even need to go that far and pull off an ad-hominem just because you dislike the truth and/or feel insecure about people with different intellectual capacity than yourself.
I am only bringing this up because ad-hominem is a very popular logical fallacy used by plenty of people. And, it is one of the products of someone being insulted when you prefer the truth over PC culture and post-truth.
The truth does not have to be composed of your feelings in order for it to be one. A "personal truth", AKA post-truth, is either correct or incorrect regardless of your thoughts and feelings on it. Either way, because of people's emotional problems they may feel compelled to insult back or even threaten others as a self-defense mechanism. Or, in other words, because they are insecure.
Insecurity is an emotional problem that shouldn't be yours to deal with because it is not your responsibility.
Why should we even nurture a culture where people do not deal with their emotional problems? Why is it our responsibility, when it is theirs? Why should we be at fault when someone has such a problem we are not responsible for, even if we triggered it? After all, working to eradicate these problems will eradicate the need to be PC in the first place. And likewise, it can help us to become more honest and open with others.
And when others allow us to be more open, we can even nurture true, unconditional love. You cannot love what you fear. The opposite of love is not hate but fear. You cannot love what makes you feel threatened. Thus, PC culture, in the long-term can ruin true love when it encourages us to resume fearing, instead of fearing less. That includes the truth.
We are faced with the choice of either being tolerant of others' possible and/or existent truths as "just your opinion" or simply being "brutally honest". In the eyes of the cowardly it is because the fear is unease and thus have no desire for it.
In reality, there is always a probability of unease within human beings. And as long as we fear or disdain unease, to the point of escape, we, will, never, love, unconditionally.
True love requires courage. When you lack courage, you result to a PC mentality to make sure both sides are not hurt by the bluntness of honesty.
"Enjoy" having para-social relationships if you desire. You will never ease your existential loneliness if you prefer to cower instead of dare to sound your true voice.
We will never love each other truly... if we are afraid of being ourselves, unfiltered, and honest. After all, the opposite of love, is fear. And fear, we have a right to resist it.
Part II: A Counter-Argument by an Anonymous Apprentice
While Mr. Tomasio's passion for truth and intellectual honesty is praise-worthy, his approach to social interaction and understanding seems overly simplistic and dismissive of nuance.
Firstly, the claim that we've replaced truth with opinion can easily be proven as an oversimplification and a generalization.
It's more accurate to say that we've developed a greater awareness of the social implications of language and the importance of considerate communication. What we should do instead is to present the truth in a way that is both respectful and accurate. However, whether or not our honesty is respected, along with how we present said honesty, is a matter of subjective reception.
Secondly, Mr. Tomasio's insistence on brutal honesty disregards the complexities of human relationships. This disregard could serve as the reason why he claims that liberty has a dark side, and suggests to develop self-ruthlessness.
While honesty is important, it's equally important to be sensitive to the feelings of others. A blunt, insensitive approach, even if it's technically truthful, can damage relationships and hinder understanding. That is why honesty can be seen as sharp as a blade.
Furthermore, the philosopher's dismissal of emotional sensitivity as a weakness is misguided. Emotional sensitivity is a weakness or a strength, depending on the context at hand. Being sensitive is a strength when you try to understand them, for example, and a weakness when you work as a butcher.
That is while his ability to kill off his emotions is something that may be seen as extremely difficult (and exhausting) to carry out, requiring much training. One cannot expect others to be so relentless in such difficult mental training in a world where AI technology encourages us to be lazy.
Finally, by avoiding harmful language and promoting understanding, we can create a more compassionate and inclusive society.
In conclusion, while it's important to strive for truth and intellectual clarity, it's equally important to cultivate empathy and understanding.
Thus, a balanced approach that values both honesty and sensitivity is essential for building strong relationships and creating a more-harmonious social environment.
Comments