What Can We Learn from Movie "Bad Guys"?

 Greetings,

In general, we watch movies to be entertained. This is the primary reason that I watch them, to switch off for a little while and be taken on a journey, to be told a story. Within these stories, lessons can be taught, in much the same way that old fables were told, leaving a moral behind. Movies can have subtext within them about social issues, or other things. They can simply tell us something about our lives, or help us deal with some element of our lives, even give us ideas. It is most surprising that while most people focus on the hero or protagonist of the journey, on the "good guys," there are lessons that can be learned from the "bad guys" as well, if we close enough attention. The "bad guys" that have been selected are some of my favourites, you should consider your own list.

Yes, there are a few plot spoilers, hard to explain this whole thing without them.

1. Hannibal Lecter 

The first movie the character Hannibal Lecter appears in is "Silence of the Lambs" (1991), played by Sir Anthony Hopkins. The same character has appeared again in several movies following his exploits and also a Netflix series. The American Film Institute, or AFI, awarded the character No.1 on their Villains list for the "AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains".

What do we know of Hannibal Lecter? For those who have never seen the films, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, also known as "Hannibal the Cannibal" is a character created by Thomas Harris. A former forensic psychiatrist turned serial killer, and who eats his victims. Throughout the movies we see his predilection for violence of the most outrageous kind. 

What can we learn from such a character? What can we learn from an individual who has turned his back on many of the social mores? That is actually rather easy. His violence has timing. He begins in a cell, he waits until the opportune moment to strike, when his targets are at their most vulnerable. So he has timing and patience. His violence also has precision, it is not directed at everyone, only select targets. He projects civility, he talks with others in a civil manner. When he escapes he gets a job and acts in a civil manner toward people. This relates back to his timing and his precision.

Within the mind of the character there are these lessons that can be learned, that it is useful to be polite to everyone that a person meets, because a person never knows who the other might be. The movies teach other lessons, but I think this is the most telling. Politeness doesn't cost us anything.

2. Jason Voorhees

Jason Voorhees appears first in "Friday the 13th Part 2" (1981) as the killer, not the first movie and then appears in series of movies all the way up to "Jason X" (2001) which takes place in the future, for the strict series. Not to mention the re-boot in 2009. Added to this there is a cross-over movie with Freddy Kruger in "Freddy vs Jason" (2003), making twelve movies. 

Jason does not utter a singe line of dialogue throughout the entire set of movies. He just goes about his business killing off, mostly. horny late-teens who come to Camp Crystal Lake through various methods, his favourite method being with a machete. He is known for wearing a hockey goal-keeper's mask,  carrying a machete, and being relentless in his task. The one thing that is for sure, Jason keeps coming back and that nothing will stop him from completing his goal.

From Jason we can learn tenacity. When something knocks us down, we simply get back up again and keep coming back. With the assistance of his writers he keeps getting resurrected, we can't do that but similar things can be applied to other problems in life, not giving up on them. The single-minded focus of Jason can also be an asset, something that can drive us toward our goal.

The Jason movies mostly teach the watchers that people should not go places where they should not go, and where locals tell them they should not go. If the locals keep away from an area, there is a reason that they keep away from that area, in our normal lives it may not be some "psycho-killer" but it may be an equally good reason. The final lesson, actions have consequences.

3. The Kurgan

The Kurgan is the "bad guy" in "Highlander" (1986) and is played by Clancy Brown. It is said that should he win "the prize" then men would suffer an age of darkness. He only appears in the first of the "Highlander" movies, even though it is said that he is the strongest of the immortals.

There are rules that the immortals follow as they try to claim "the prize". They battle against one another in single combats, usually when one another are drawn together. Eventually when few are left there is a "Gathering" where the remaining few will fight for "the prize". It is mostly this "Gathering" that the movie focuses on and the conflict between the protagonist and the Kurgan. They don't fight on holy ground, that is one of their traditions. 

When the two main characters meet, at the end of the meeting the Kurgan remarks, "I have something to say! It's better to burn out than to fade away!" This is an inspiration to life, more it is an inspiration to live a full life rather than just let it go quietly away. Through the entire movie we see individuals who have lived for hundreds of years, whose lives are decided in duels, their ends are swift. They are not affected by illness or other forms of death, only death by the sword. The entire story of the "Highlander" is to live your life well, before it passes by your eyes and is gone.

4. Emperor Palpatine

Emperor Palpatine is the ultimate "bad guy" from the Star Wars franchise, chronologically, he is first seen in "Episode V: Emperor Strikes Back" (1980) where he is seen as the master to Darth Vader, who is previously seen as the ultimate "bad guy" and main antagonist to Luke Skywalker. However his first appearance as the story goes is as Senator Palpatine in "Episode I: The Phantom Menace" (1999). It could be claimed that the first three episodes or movies are actually the story of his rise to power.

Over the span of three movies he rises from a Senator of a relatively out of the way planet in the Republic, first to become Grand Chancellor of the Republic, and then Emperor. He manipulates the Senate so they would vote him into the position, and give him the power to put him in a position where he can rule the galaxy. He does this by clever dealings and political manipulation, and some personal manipulation along the way. 

The question is he really a "bad guy"? There is much talk about the Light and the Dark side of the Force throughout the movies. Maybe it is a matter of perspective, maybe it is just power and it is the manner in which one uses that decides whether a person is evil or not. It is evident that he has done some terrible things, such as wiping out the Jedi, or at least getting others to do it for him. On the other hand, he brought order to the galaxy as he also destroyed the leaders of seditious systems who were going to divide the galaxy. He did bring order to the galaxy for a period.

We learn from the Emperor about playing the long-game. There are things which do not go according to his plan, but he has patience and waits for things to fall into place before acting. He looks at his long-term objective and sacrifices immediate goals to put himself in a position to achieve his long-term goals. He wouldn't have had Anakin Skywalker, later Darth Vader, as an apprentice if he had approached him early, he had to wait until the time was right.

5. Tyler Durden

Continuing on with characters who are questionable "bad guys" we have Tyler Durden, who is played by Brad Pitt in "Fight Club" (1999) he stands as the alter-ego of the Narrator, played by Edward Norton. The pair of them get along very well for the most part of the movie, but there is a split toward the end of the movie where Jack realises Tyler's intent and goes against it. Jack being the protagonist means that Tyler is the antagonist, thus the "bad guy" of the movie.

The question needs to be asked, just as with Emperor Palpatine, above, is he really a "bad guy"? Yes, he causes the protagonist consternation. Yes, he causes property damage on a large scale, or at least three buildings' worth. Yes, he causes untold financial chaos in the end of the movie, to which we never see the results. He also takes the Narrator out of his boring life and allows him to live a better one, free of his previous constraints. Indeed he frees, it would seem, hundreds if not thousands of others from theirs as well. Through his property destruction he erases the debt, bringing everyone back to zero, would this not be better for everyone?

The greatest thing that Tyler Durden teaches, comes from a line just over half-an-hour into the film, "The things you own end up owning you." Think about this carefully and you will see the truth of it. If you buy a car, you need to fill it with fuel, pay registration, insurance, and licensing fees. If you own a house you need to pay rates, and if you don't own it mortgage; if you don't rent or leasing fees, and bond. Even if you have other stuff, you still have to have a place to keep it, to look after it.

Tyler Durden teaches us what freedom is, what it means to be truly free in our modern society, what means to go against the mainstream. The fight clubs he sets up are against the norm because people in our modern day don't want to fight for the most part, they will avoid it as much as they can. Our modern society has tried to drive our fighting instincts from us. He goes against most things in society; he does not dress conventionally; they live in a rundown place on the edge of town; they do what they have to interacting with society to survive and nothing more. Most people could not deal with this level of freedom for many reasons, but his character reminds us that it does exist.

Watch and Learn

Movies tell us stories to entertain us, but within these stories there are lessons. Sometimes these lessons are stark and obvious, sometimes they are hidden within the context and sub-text of the movie. Sometimes you have to look at characters you might not have expected to learn those lessons. 

Most of the time we look at the protagonist and what they do for the answers, for how to deal with a situation. Sometimes it is helpful to also look elsewhere, at the companions of the protagonist, or maybe even at the antagonists, those who oppose the protagonist. The actions of those who stand against one another can be as useful a lesson, each side being as important as the other.

Look further afield. Broaden your mind, and you will find some interesting things to be learned all about you.

Cheers,

Henry.

On Forbearance

 Greetings,

What is forbearance? Why is he rattling on about it? Why is it so important? Yes, these questions I will answer, or at least I will give you my answers to these questions. I think it is one of those words that is not used anymore, it has gone out of circulation. So, it is a concept that we don't think about anymore. It is one that I have come across in parts of my reading and I think it is one we should consider. This question of forbearance is of importance for our associations with others.

What is Forbearance?

"the quality of being patient and being able to forgive someone or control yourself in a difficult situation" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forbearance)

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines forbearance above. It is the quality of being patient with someone else's issues, or about having some self-control in a difficult situation. The definition is applied either to the effect upon another person or upon the self. The "formal" definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary applies primarily to the self, and primarily concerns self-control.

"the quality of someone who is patient and able to deal with a difficult person or situation without becoming angry" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forbearance)

The focus of forbearance from the definitions above would seem to be on self-control, but primarily in dealing with a difficult person or a difficult situation. Here it is expected that the common expectation of patience and self-control are expressed in forbearance, and if we take this as part of its prime expression then we gain understanding. 

Asked, But Not Given

There is often the situation that a person will beg a person's forgiveness because they have been forgetful and forgotten to bring something, or do something for the other. Yet when it comes to another situation, the same person who was forgiven is impatient with the other person and cannot give the same patience, the same forgiveness, the same forbearance as they were given. The situation is also seen when a person with an illness does a bad thing, they expect forgiveness because of their illness.

“Why forbearance. - You suffer, and demand that we should be forbearing towards you when as a result of your suffering you do wrong to things and to men! But what does our forbearance matter! You, however, ought to be more cautious for your own sake! What a fine way of compensating for your suffering it is to go on and destroy your own judgment! Your revenge rebounds upon you yourself when you defame something; it is your own eye you dim, not that of another: you accustom yourself to seeing distortedly!” Nietzsche, F. (1997) Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Translated by R. J. Hollingdale) p.134:214

Nietzsche would argue that the person with the illness should be more careful, more wary in the situation because they know they have the illness. He argues that by allowing their illness to run rampant, letting it have its way, it destroys their judgement. You begin to see in a distorted fashion, everything is viewed askew, primarily about the things the person can be excused for rather than the things that should be countered, avoided or simply dealt with in a more healthy fashion. Learning from these incidences and applying the learning is a start. 

In another case an individual would have no forbearance for those who act the same, even though they do it themselves. There has to be a line, where the excuses stop and a person takes responsibility for their actions and their situation. A person has to question is whether it is right that forbearance is given.

Is it Right?

Why should a person be given forbearance? How have they earned the right? Is a person given forbearance because they had or have no control at the time, or because the individual who gives it does have control at the time? If it is the latter, then the better for the individual who gives than the one who receives, for the giver certainly is the stronger. What of the question of reciprocity? A person who is given forbearance; in equal measure, should they not also be tolerant and patient with others?

The reciprocity is often not seen. Some are excused while others are not, the same occurs with many parts of our world with many parts of our culture that has developed. People expect to be excused because that is the way they have learned, or that is the way they were brought up, or for other reasons and that is fine according to some. Yet others claim the same, and their methods, their ways of doing things have to be changed, there is no forbearance at all. For some, "they need time to learn", so there is some consideration expected. For others, they are expected to have learned, or to learn it quickly.

Forbearance, like self-control, and patience to which it is intimately related to need to be learned by all; they need to be used by all; for the benefit of all. This is the only way it is going to work. 

What you expect, you should give out to begin with and in return.

Cheers,

Henry.

The SCA: A Meritocracy

Greetings

Disclaimer: I speak as an individual member, not as a member of any corporate or organisational body. I am not representing any organisation within or without the Society for Creative Anachronism. Like all of my previous articles, this is my opinion and ideas about the subject.

The SCA

The SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) is an international Medieval and Renaissance recreation organisation, and the only one that I know of that can claim to be an international one. There are satellites of the main group all over the world. Its stated purpose on many of its pamphlets is to "live the period the way it should have been." What does this mean exactly? Well, it means that we focus our attention on all the "good" bits of the period, and there are certain elements of the societies of the period the Society brushes aside.

The Society doesn't do the Inquisition, and up to recently it didn't do the Plague. Certain elements of reality have intruded upon "the game" and have imposed certain elements of the plague upon the game. Within the core of the Society is the chance to show the world a better way.

On the surface, the SCA's traditions seem quaint and medieval, even a little barbaric in certain circumstances. The ruling Crowns (typically a King and Queen) of each Kingdom are chosen by right of arms in a tournament held once every six months. If a person looks below the surface, one finds something more interesting. The individuals who achieve this have to be skilled in their pursuit, have trained to achieve this goal, to become the nominal/titular head of state for this period. The ruling is by right of skill, by ability.

More interestingly, the individuals who hold the real power, the seneschals, think like a president of an organisation, these are selected from among the populace. How? By vote? No, they submit applications, and the best person for the job is selected. This is the case for the SCA, it shows the way as a meritocracy; and has the chance to show the world a better way, a way in which people moved and awarded based on their merits. 

Define "Meritocracy"

To understand exactly what is being spoken about, and to ensure that both author and reader have the same meaning, the term "meritocracy" needs to be defined. There are three different definitions which will be presented, to give a better, more rounded definition. What will be noted with each definition is that success in these systems is based on ability, merit and achievement.

"a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meritocracy)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition is simple and indicates towards individuals being rewarded with increased position and so forth based on their abilities and merits. A meritocracy when examined literally is rule by merit, so this definition goes simply for the source of how individuals attain increased positions.

"a social system, society, or organization in which people get success or power because of their abilities, not because of their money or social position:" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meritocracy)

The Cambridge Dictionary definition tells both the reason that individuals gain success and power, through their abilities, but also examines the subject from a more current perspective, it could be said, stating that individuals do not gain such successes because of their money or their social position. This makes a comparison between the meritocracy and other systems. The Collins Dictionary definition approaches the definition from a similar approach.

"A meritocracy is a society or social system in which people get status or rewards because of what they achieve, rather than because of their wealth or social status." (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/meritocracy)

The definition does not only focus on the merits of the individual, but also upon their achievements, and this is also important, especially in regard to our current conversation. There is also comment about how the meritocracy does not focus on the individual's wealth or social status as in the previous definition from the Cambridge Dictionary.

Achievement Through Merit

The SCA has a system of awards intended to highlight the achievements of its members. To present these members as having done something for their local groups, and even wider groups, as something which is significant to the group. This award system is prevalent throughout the Society and is based on award recommendations which are sent highlighting what individuals have been seen to be doing. Individuals are awarded and achieve levels of rank on the basis of merit, rather than any wealth or social standing they might hold outside the Society. 

Officer positions are granted on the basis, where there is more than one individual applying for the position, on the basis of merit, what the individual can bring to the office, rather than any social standing the individual might have, so on the basis of merit. This means that the best person to do the job is, or should be, given the position out of a selection of candidates. Evaluation is on the basis of merit and achievement. 

The method describes forms a blue-print which allows the most talented, those with most merit to rise to the top. This means that the individual who works well with others, and achieves things for the group is more likely to achieve awards and officers than the individual who does not have such merits. Such is the idea behind a meritocracy. It is not a perfect system because there are those who must choose between one individual and another for the awarding of officers and awards, but it certainly, in its best form demonstrates fewer flaws than other systems.

System Comparison

In an aristocratic system, there is a family which has a certain blood-line which means they are in power. Power is inherited because of the family blood-line. The only way to come to power in this system is through inheritance, inter-marriage or violent over-throw, replacing one family with another, and history can be examined for examples of such incidences of each type of change of family inheritance. It does not allow for much change in the system, when in a truly autocratic system.

Many hail the greatness of the democratic system where each individual gets a vote. The history of the democratic system does not bear out this egalitarian approach. In Athens, only male citizens had the vote, which is to say, a smaller percentage of the population. It was not until the twentieth century that both sexes had the vote in many of our "civilised" western societies. 

Even now that each citizen, male or female has the ability to vote at elections, votes are often bought by the politicians with promises of things that they will do; sometimes they fulfil their promises sometimes they don't. People are scared into voting one way or another; how often are governments returned in times of crisis even though they are not actually in the interest of many of the people? People are subject to the propaganda of external influences in the media, and their votes pushed in one direction or the other.

Further, one vote every four years does not give the individual much control over what the politicians do in between times. How many citizens are politically-active at any time other than elections? How many petition, write letters to their local members? How qualified are these individuals to represent our interests?

In many ways the modern democratic system is more of an oligarchy, a rule by the few. On what basis? In a democracy any individual has the ability to represent their people, yes? How often do independents actually get voted in? Why? Often because we don't hear about them because they can't afford the advertising campaign. Most of the politicians' previous occupations place them in the upper strata of society, which means they have the money to start with. The rich get richer; they are out of touch with "the people" which is why the laws are out of touch.

Socialism has been heralded as the great evener, the great saviour of society, it will see the playing field levelled. Everyone will have the same access to resources and so forth. If the system is so effective, so perfect, why did it fail in the Soviet Union? It is simple, it did not level the playing field. It did not have everyone as equal, there was no equality of access to resources. There were still "haves" and "have nots". Socialism did not solve the human tendency for greed; people want more, and more than the next person. The Chairman and his Council of Ministers certainly were treated much better than their comrades in the factories.

A Perfect System?

Is the system that I have described previously within the SCA perfect? Most certainly it is not. It has flaws like any other system that is designed and operated by an organisation of human beings. These flaws need to be acknowledged.

The first problem with the awards system is that for an award to be bestowed, recommendations about the individual for the award need to be written, and not enough get written. In many situations this is because everyone expects that someone else will do it. Or, because the individual does no think that they are important enough that their award will count for something. This is not the case, of course, every recommendation letter is read, and every letter is taken into account, regardless of whom it is from.

The next problem is that there is a human being, or a group of human beings who compares the merits and achievements of individuals. They compare this either to a scale, sometimes internal sometimes external, against which the individual needs to match up to gain that award. Opinions are often gained about the individual and their impact. In each instance there are personal influences which can impact the situation, sometimes these are purely personal, sometimes they are the result of external forces, such as rumour and reputation. Each one of these will impact whether or not an individual gains an award. Essentially, it comes down to the decision of two people.  

Ironically, like the more important decisions of our lives, the more important decisions of the SCA come down to a single person, usually a seneschal. It must be noted that officers within the Society make these important decisions all of the time, on their own, because that is within their officer description. 

There is no perfect system, because there are people involved. Even if an entire system were computerised, the system would still be flawed, because a human would have to write the program, and a human would have to input the data.

Humans make decisions based on their experiences and the various impacts upon their lives including their beliefs and values. Sometimes these beliefs and values come into conflict with one another, we can just hope that there is a way that we can mediate these situations for the best outcome. If the SCA is examined as a society within a society it will be noted that there is a particular approach, while there is violence within the society, there is also a certain gentleness. While there is a certain forceful nature of the society, there is also a definitive politeness. The SCA has sometimes been termed as showing "the pre-1600s the way we would've liked it to have been" or words to that effect, as a political experiment it shows a way forward; putting the best people ahead.

For those of my readers who would like to find out more about the SCA, there are some links to follow below:

https://www.sca.org/

https://lochac.sca.org/ (for Australian readers)

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Academic Reading: Reading Documents with Emotional Content

 Greetings,

Reading is a skill, we teach it to children, and it is vital that we do so. For the most part, we restrict what our children read, because certain content is not for their eyes, because they simply would not understand the content, or because their young minds simply could not take it. Adults do not have such restrictions on their reading. Well, actually there is some restrictions on what they are allowed to read, some books are "banned", other documents are "restricted" due to their classified or sensitive nature. 

There are also a host of other texts people will read, and they will cause them to have an emotional response. This is often because of the nature of the text as compared to the cultural upbringing of the individual, or the historical significance of the author, or what the text may have led to or been used for. It is these text which I would like to address. To truly read something as an intellectual, and appreciate it for its intellectual value, the emotional response needs to be removed. This is the only way that we may gain a greater understanding of our world, both the positive and the negative, for only this way will we be able to combat the negative. If we do not understand it how can we hope to do anything about it?

I have read Industrial Society and Its Future, the manifesto of Theodore ("Ted") Kaczynski known as the "Unabomber"; he conducted a nationwide bombing campaign across the United States which lasted for 17 years and killed 3 people and injured 23 others.  Why would I want to read the manifesto of some "madman"? It contains some interesting information, and an interesting view of society. Does this potentially make me one of his disciples? Is it going to inspire me to go on a bombing campaign in order to change the world? I think not. I do not believe this is the way to change the world, nor do I now believe that his methods were correct. I read it to understand his perspective, to understand him. To understand why he thought it was necessary to do what he did. A person's writing is a small window into their mind... including what you are reading now.

So the question is can you read something with emotional content, without the emotion clouding your impression of the document? If you can, this is an intellectual or academic reading of the document.  This is a logical, as in read with logic rather than emotion controlling you, reading of the document. The intellectual discussion of a document should contain no emotional content, only discussion of what's present in the document, nothing of what emotion may have placed there.

Emotion clouds our senses, derails the intellect, gets in its way, sees things in the intent of the writer which are not necessarily present or meant in the words. It will put meaning to words which are on the page, often to the most extreme, positive or negative, depending on the document being read. Keeping emotion at bay may be particularly difficult when the document is particularly personal. We feel this when a letter is written to us, because it is personal, but it is also felt when it may attack one of our belief systems, or raise the spectre of one of the ghosts of the past, some dark secret of history; maybe not even personal history, it may be cultural history.

Let's take the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, there are those who would tell you that reading his works is tantamount to reading the work of the Nazis, due to the concepts which they took from his work and then turned and twisted to suit to their purposes. Something anyone who has actually read Nietzsche's work can tell you. Further anyone who has delved into his life can tell you it was his sister not Nietzsche himself who invited the Nazis in and gave them access to his papers. Nietzsche was not in any state to be receiving guests by that stage, his health would not allow it, as anyone who read his biography could tell you. 

Nietzsche's work bears the mere taint of Nazism and there are people who will not read it because of this, because it sets them afire, sets their emotions in a frenzy. How can they call themselves led by their intellects if this is the case? There are works which bear the marks of history which have much greater reason to cause such response, but in the individual who is reading academically, reading letting their intellect guide them rather than their emotion it should not. How about Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler? If this is not the heart of what real Nazis feel what else could be? If a person was to read this it could tell us what the Nazis believed, what philosophies brought them to power, what ideals that similar movements even follow today, because they are still reading it. Aside from that, if a person wants to understand Adolf Hitler it is the best source, because he wrote it. For the historian, it is a primary source, just like a birth certificate, or a school newsletter, nothing more. This is the way that such documents should be approached, with the emotional content removed.

Another document which sparks controversy was published more than 500 years ago, yet its mention, in certain parts of the community sparks debate and emotional response. The book I speak of is the Malleus Maleficarum by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, published in Latin, and is also known as the "Hammer of Witches". This book has been the subject of much debate since it was published. In some circles it is considered an "evil" book because it supposedly drove the witch trials in the 16th- and 17th-centuries, and it certainly has some part to play here. Ironically, 

"The top theologians of the Inquisition at the Faculty of Cologne condemned the book as recommending unethical and illegal procedures, as well as being inconsistent with Catholic doctrines of demonology." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum)

In any case, it is another text, which just at its mention will strike people an emotional response. The book itself is a view into the perspectives of the subject, at least from one point of view, from the period. For the historian, especially one investigating such practices, of either side, from that period, it is a primary source. It needs to be read academically, intellectually, without any emotion attached to the reading to gain the greatest benefit. Without such reading, the information will be interpreted, bent by a person's emotional response to the content, and a warped sense of the contents will be gained.

The intellect is used to read a thing. The individual then allows their mind to interpret what they have read. If, the emotion is allowed to override the intellect in the interpretation process, then the interpretation becomes warped, or may even be blocked. The emotion will allow an interpretation based on only what it feels, the intellect requires evidence to reinforce the interpretation, some proof of the interpretation. For the academic, and the academic reading, the intellect must win out. This is how we gain information, this is how we gain facts. Not truth, truth is a matter for philosophy, but facts.

The emotional content should be acknowledged. You should accept how the document makes you feel, but you need to get past this to read the document properly. You should even record how the document makes you feel when reading it, as this is important information, put it as a side-note. But, the emotional content should not dominate the discussion of the document, at least for an academic discussion of the document. How the document makes the person feel, or how the document may make others feel is irrelevant to the document's academic relevance or use. There would not be many documents left if all the documents with "emotional content" were destroyed, indeed it is vital that these documents are preserved so we remember where we went wrong, so we can improve ourselves.

Arguments. It is said that there are three sides to an argument; one side, the other side, and the truth. A person who wants to get anywhere near the elusive "truth". Needs to read documents from both sides of a discussion or argument, only then will you begin to understand the entire picture. Most of the time we know "our" side very well, but the other side is very hazy. They may not even be an enemy per se, we just don't know "them" particularly well, so we don't communicate well. When the miscommunication occurs because we don't know "them" and they don't know "us" this is when they become "the enemy". Could they have stopped becoming "the enemy" by knowing them better? Likely.

Miyamoto Musashi says, “It is difficult to know yourself if you do not know others.” By reading what is written by the other side of an argument, or by an opposing intellectual discussion, or an opposing political thought, we not only begin to know them but also know our own strengths and weaknesses. Sun Tzu, the ancient military strategist talks about knowing enemy and knowing yourself. To do this in an intellectual sense requires us to read what they have read and understand the documents which form their foundation. This cannot be done if a person is choked with emotion every time the read something by the person, or about their political view, or concerning their way of life. 

Remove the emotion from your reading and read intellectually, let your logic what its designed to do, read from an academic perspective, and you will discover all sorts of different things about the world.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.