Conspiracy of the “Intellectuals”

the greatest killers in history all rationalized killing and use theory to cut off natural emotional reations: say, for example, the reaction one has to someone who is suffering. It takes an idea that the Jew is not really human to cut off those feelings.

What is it that startles about the Holocaust? It’s coldness. It’s attempts to be efficient, right on down to the IBM punch cards to track prisoners.

Once ideas and idealism can act as cut offs from emotion, you can get widespread killing and systematic killing and rape.

A purely emotional hate will lead perhaps to the crimes of passion.

Serial killers are also often cut off from their emotions.

Those who kill without feeling have done the most damage. Emotions do not cause error as a rule any more than thoughts do. And where an emotion is in error you will find a pernicious idea guiding it along. Emotions create bonds and empathy as well as the more aggressive reactions. And even aggressive reactions have their place. The little rational, verbal part of the brain is not well made to react to complex or rapid situations. Emotions can guide us through these being able to react globally and intutively. Of course they can be off. But a look at the 20th century will show the way certain ideas killed 100s of millions.

You have think your way and the ways of others into being mass murderers.

amazing that these women in charge of religion have made these religions so hateful of women. Seems silly of them to have come up with patriarchal religions.

And men are hardly more rational then women. Look at the way they eat and what they want to do in their free time.

Mastirani

'tis irrelevant.

The rest of your post is you repeating what you have already said, without realizing that you aren’t even addressing what I have said - A result of the naive way you conceive of the human having the characteristic/possibility of it’s emotions being separable from or wholly independent of reason and rationality in it’s agency.

M: Emotion is destructive
S: No,that is indicative of a naive way of of conceiving emotion as independent from reason in human agency, as if could act without it.
M: Yeah but emotion lacks facts.

Do you see the problem straw man?

It is a conspiracy of phony intellectuals. They’ve pursued tenure over Truth, citing names and writing psychobabble rather than facts and reason. Durable philosophical intellectuals (Einstein, Mark Twain, Franklin) are rarely recognized as such because they spoke much too plainly and didn’t take themselves to seriously.

I don’t see how anyone can say, given today’s politics, religion, gaping ignorance in certain areas and low level of reasoning ability, that we’ve subverted the emotions to reason. They’re being strummed just like they’ve always been.

Einsteins said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” I take that to the next step. Faith without reason is blind, reason without faith is dead. To use another analogy, reason (objective logic) is the driver/controls, while faith (positive, subjective emotions such as courage, loyalty and love) is the engine. The first guides, the second motivates.

Mastirani

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained’ bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.

Odd. I can’t see coberst’s post at 4:02 a.m. unless I hit the reply button and look at the topic review.

Still irrelevant.

I am, however, trying to figure out what you’re trying to imply here, as you’ve implied it twice now. Is the implication that human agency cannot involve emotion and rationality at the same time because different parts of the brain deal with each? I must have missed that a priori truth.

I wonder how Dante would take that a priori truth, you know, the example par excellence of hatred and revenge. Surely he didn’t use exacting reason to further his emotional goals, thus combining the two in human agency. I mean they are after all not associated with the same pathways and chemicals. :unamused: