I’m sick of it: sick of hearing that dry computer-logic should govern human beings.
I embrace pathetic discourse. I have discussed very emotionally charged issues under strict parliamentary procedure. This method is terribly stilted and disrupts the crafted argument of those with compelling positions. It is important to express how much an issue matters and to explain what it means to those affected. We must remember that humanity should be defined not only by reason but also by compassion. Emotion cannot be neglected in debate which affects the lives of others.
Again I say: I embrace pathetic reason. Those who can use it well should do so. Emotion is important to humans.
The British Houses of Parliament were bombed in World War II. Upon reconstruction of the House of Commons, Churchill opted to keep the original arrangement of the chamber: two sets of benches which directly face each other. He felt that the confrontational nature of debate was essential to government proceedings of the head of a global empire.
Regarding pathetic discourse and its blatant overuse, I see emotional discourse exposing true colors. What happens when pathetic language is overexploited is this: it begins to be noticed and pointed out. Those who ridiculously overuse pathetic fallacy are countered and laughed down, AND the formerly unwitting public develops a healthy cynicism. Let us separate the wheat from the chaff: those who have mastered an effective tool from those who seek its power, yet fail to understand the device.
There is wisdom in calm consideration, in allowing emotion to subside from its hot, overwhelming upwelling.
ReplyDeleteRemember that the space between opposing galleries in the House of Commons is two sword-lengths across. Obviously debates could become heated. Parlipro was invented because of this problem.
We know that emotion can be irrational. Policy-making should be logical and rational, thus pathetic debate is not a reasonable decision process. Contemporaries and successors will question the meanings and the motivations behind every word of a policy, decision or statement. There must be infallible logic behind any action taken by a governing body.
Shouting and tears have no place in official debate on legislative issues. Such lenience invites anarchy and chaos into what should be solidly reasoned debate.
You are unfairly equating anarchy with chaos.
ReplyDelete