I've said this before - and I mean it strongly - an abstract concept or a moral issue has to be connected to feeling. If we don't believe it somehow viscerally, we don't really take it in.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It's through the small things that we develop our moral imagination, so that we can understand the sufferings of others.
When our minds as people normally starts to wrap around things, we start to attach all these ideas to it that really aren't that necessary to the core of it, if you just experience it and kind of go through it.
Do you not see, first, that - as a mental abstract - physical force is directly opposed to morality; and secondly, that it practically drives out of existence the moral forces?
I believe our emotional tension can manifest itself physically.
I tend to think in images and feelings rather than non-abstract concepts.
The only way for something human to feel human is to convince others that it is.
I think that feeling that if one believed absolutely in any cause, then one must have the confidence, the self-certainty, to go through with that particular course of action.
It's one thing to think about something, but it's another thing to actually feel it.
More-radical scholars insist that an inherent clash exists between science and our long-held conceptions about consciousness and moral agency: if you accept that our brains are a myriad of smaller components, you must reject such notions as character, praise, blame, and free will.
What really raises one's indignation against suffering is not suffering intrinsically, but the senselessness of suffering.
No opposing quotes found.