My Tata Sky programme info guide describes 'Equilibrium' as-
"In a fascist future where all forms of feeling are prohibited, an official cleric rises against the system to overthrow the .......", you get the point.
Emotions are a very strange thing to define. While there are great positive emotions like love, friendship, sympathy, empathy etc., there are also a lot of hugely negative connotations of the same emotions- jealousy, hatred, apathy, wars, racism, casteism etc.
So, hypothetically, if you're given a choice, to either live in a world of emotions, i.e. the world as it is today, OR to live in a world where the only thought is rational thought, where there is no room for emotions-either positive or negative. What would you choose? (Do realize that, impulsively, anyone is bound to make a pro-emotions choice. But do think a little bit about this topic.)
Hoping for the views of a few readers.
On a side note, why do all dystopian movies with a 'good' ending, end on an anarchic note?
I mean, is anarchy really better than forced order?
4 comments:
It is pretty hard to imagine a world without emotions. The closest that I can think of someone devoid of emotions would be Howard Roark, but in a different perspective, wasn't he more emotional, more intense than all of us?
Living in a world without emotions... don't know.
Living in a world driven by rational thought... definitely.
btw, we don't blog on Xapped any longer.
I get back to the same point, can rational thought and emotions coexist?
Where do you blog now?
Yes, in my opinion they can, in fact they do co-exist. Though a pre-requisite is to not allow the emotions to dilute rational thought. Only a few can achieve that.
I blog at oveqfrlrfubg/ebg13.
Post a Comment