Words of a Sentimentalist
Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007 UTC
Sentimentality is a criminally misunderstood notion.
Words like “love” have taken connotations so ridiculous and so tired that all beauty is gone from them. The word has become a blasphemy to its true meaning.
To the conventional person, feelings have become awkward, obsolete things, the consolations of those left behind, a trifle, a waste of valuable time.
The conventional person lives his life not only suppressing his emotions, but ignoring them with all his might. He is thus miserably defeated by them. What are psychologists, but those otherworldly saviors that teach him how to “cope” with his feelings, which he takes such trouble to eschew?
Reasoning without feelings should never be attempted, because the ensuing thoughts will be worth nothing. A machine can think objectively. An animal cannot think. What business does man have, then, thinking objectively or not thinking at all? There is no greater joy for man than the innocent hedonism of sentimentality. Everything is slightly more charming when ambiguous or misinterpreted.
The conventional person is boring, and this is an unforgivable fault.
Filed in -by mittens, Critique, et al, Life, Metaphysical Pondering
Tags: angst, indignance, lilac flowers, sentimentality
Mr. Queasy, the fish. 
Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007 UTC at 21:06
What is there to life if not emotion? There are scientific figures, of course. But what relevance, what significance do they hold? Naught, they are mere facts; and facts are only necessary and useful when they fulfil a further goal; this being achieving transcendence—going beyond reality, what is, reaching for the surreal[more than real] until a certain equilibrium is found—in a way or another.
If facts are seen without emotion, without anybody appreciating the beauty of the perplexing complexity, of say, a snow flake, then there is no point in finding out what the inner working of it is. The transcendence is lost. The facts, the data, are rendered useless.
The importance of understanding things objectively comes indeed from the most transcendental and ever-subjective questions. Questions that lamentably are not being asked—or are instantly dismissed; questions to which we might not know the answer, or answers to which we might not know the proper questions[Douglas Adams, anybody?]. Is there a better way to answer “What is the meaning of life?” than by starting off defining and describing reality itself?
Science and sentimentalism are forever bound, I’ll say.
Wednesday, October 24th, 2007 UTC at 17:23
Thank you, Mr. Queasy.
Those who do not find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are terrible, and those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are even worse. [Oscar Wilde once said something like this.]
Purely objective thought is not only completely devoid of significance and transcendence, as you so nicely put it; it is also dull to a fault. Surely it is more worthwhile to misinterpret things rather than frenzy for correctness? Not in practical mundane tasks, of course, but in the abstract. I doubt two people will ever look at the same notion and share the same appreciation of it, or see it for what it actually is, objectively–if such a thing exists– further rendering objectivity meaningless. From a so-called objective standpoint, each of these persons is misinterpreting the notion. If this is so, then the ambiguity is much nicer than a futile attempt to have both people look at the notion completely unambiguously.
How true. Sentimentalism makes for a wonderful science, and any worthwhile science is sentimental.
Sunday, May 26th, 2013 UTC at 06:41
Asking questions are truly nice thing if you are not understanding
anything completely, however this piece of writing presents nice understanding even.