Lets start with basics. What we call emotions are simple body reaction to certain chemicals into the brains. Emotions can be so easily manipulated, that even simple, primitive environment changes will affect brains output of these chemicals, meaning that emotions are unreliable. What do we gain from being emotional, besides satisfaction? Choosing emotional satisfaction over practical,productive actions are childish. Thats what kids do. They have to go to school next morning, they know that, but still they choose to stay up late just to get emotional satisfaction. Eating sweets and junk food over healthy food. Initiating in any type of entertainment (clubs, music, video games, movies etc) while that time could be spend on practical, productive things. It is choosing satisfaction over productiveness, like mentioned in various examples above. I understand that most of you can’t help the way you are. Wouldn’t it be better off without emotions? I mean, I still would help someone who would be in need of help, because even tho Im emotionless I understand that if noone will help those in need, then society will die out, which affects me directly. If everyone will help those in need, then society will continue living. You don’t need emotions to understand that, just basic logic. If we would live without emotions, it would be all about society. Life of single person would be secondary concern, while group/society would be primary concern, because society affects you individually. So are we better off without emotions or do they offer us something, which out-weights all the benefits we gain if we were to live without emotions?
It’s human to have emotions, I remmeber someone bringing up a case of where certain people who have suffered brain damage that effects theri emotions but not their ability to uses logic in fact have a harder time working within society, from something as simple as having motivation to do anything.
The problem with emotions and civilization comes up because our emotions were tuned to a primitive lifestyle which is extremely shifted in civilization, and many societal ills that come up are based on peoples inability to reconcile their “new” enviroment with their primal selves.
How would one assess ‘better off’ if one were without emotions? Let’s face it, we all rely massively on gut instinct and apply wordy rationales after having made a judgment. That is not to say you cannot ‘refine’ your instincts, you most certainly can, but they will remain instincts. Without that, even if it were hypothetically possible, the question means nothing.
I’m curious as to what you mean by emotionless. I presume you mean having gained control over your emotions? If so, and if this question is not too intrusive, I’d be interested in how you achieved that.
You can’t really declare what is “childish” until you grasp an idea of what is “mature”.
To be mature means to attend to your real needs rather than the more primitive urge to merely seek wants (the “childish”).
Maturity involves a higher brain function than the more primitive urges.
What we call being “emotional” is the state of responding without attention to the total picture of needs and thus is not mature.
So I think it is clear that being emotional is a typically childlike state, not that only children would be involved.
But it should never be thought that emotions are in themselves to be abandoned. Your mature state would recognize the need of the emotions, but merely balance them with each other and whatever reasoning can be appended. The objective is to harmonize all within toward the actual needs.
I agree with this.
The emotions need to be controlled, rather than totally overcome like, for example, a persons up-bringing (MOST peoples up-bringing).
Aren’t thoughts also this?
as opposed to what? Compared to what?
Motivation. Often cues about context, what is happening, sometimes faster than the conscious thinking mind, sometimes more clearly. We get insight into other humans and also other animals. Even the emotions that do not produce satisfaction - fear, anger often - can give us excellent ‘information’. People who work in dangerous situations need to be able to trust their own emotional reactions, for example, because these can often offer early warning that something is out of kilter long before the conscious verbal mind puts two and two together. But this also happens in all sorts of mundane interactions. In fact without emotions much of what we call reasoning is impossible or hampered. Damasion, a neuroscientist has written quite a bit about this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes%27_Error
This is often a false dichotomy. And human physiology reveals no elimination of emotions as children become adults, so emotions clearly function well for adults. Of course one can have problems with emotions just as one can have problems with thoughts.
Somethign adults do not do.
You are prioritizing productivity over satisfaction, which is fine for yourself, but you are presenting this 1 as a dichotomy and 2 as if your values are objective.
No, actually not. Damasio has shown that people who are physiologically cut off from their emotions, from brain injury for example, have trouble being rational and end up making all sorts of practical mistakes. Apart from other problems they get.
So you think emotions that lead to you getting what you want are OK, but emotions related to empathy are not OK.
So far the societies based on this idea or ones close to it have not worked very well. Why do you think that is?
There are many kinds of emotions, happiness, sadness and rage, just to name a few.
If you child dies and you are emotionless it would be wrong, if you sad for no reason then you may suffer from bipolar, etc.
It all depends.
If you’re asleep when it dies, or if it’s a kid in another country, it’s not wrong to be emotionless about it. Also, if there’s no reason to be sad, then how can bipolar be the reason? Does…not…compute…
LOL?
No. Really.
- when you wake up again you won’t be sad?
- ofcause you won’t be sad if another kid in a country dies if you have no relation to it, it happens all the time, one has to stay sane.
- you don’t know the reason of bipolarness, go study some psychology.
If I’m not aware of the kid’s death, then I can’t have a feeling about it.
I’m not asking you to ask me to study something I already know. I’m asking you to clarify the statement you made about how if x happens for no reason then the reason must be y. The statement itself is disjunctive. I’ll go read some psychology, you go and read some grammar dude.
Your points are hardly relevant to the nature of the topic, these specific cases are mere play with words.
I see. Thank you for your dismissal. I’ll take my “word games” and play someplace else.
Oddly I thought you had a relevent philosophical position.
I just wanted to understand how something that was defined as being without cause could have a cause stated in the same sentence in which it was defined. The shit blew my mind.
Its because society are emotional and subject is not. This is reason why working within society is harder. If everyone were emotionless, this would not be the case you sed. Motivation would be basic need of simpler life. You dont need emotions to be willing to live longer because of instincts of self preservation, meaning you will contribute to development of several categories, like medicine.
Emotionless means “without emotions”.
Why? As mentioned before, instincts are not = emotions. As long as instincts stay, motivation also stays because of instinct of self preservation. So answer, why exactly shouldnt we abandon our emotions? What do we gain from them?
Why? What do we really gain from them?
Well yes and no. If you are emotionless you wont be sad if your child dies, BUT… With logic you understand that if every single child would die, society would be extinct, meaning that simple statistical thinking comes in.
Even if one is emotionless, it’s still not childish which is the main point, and being emotionless is another topic, not relevant to my point.
I will argue that being emotional (in most cases) is childish, since emotions does not directly help you to solve problem. Besides my example with child not going to bed (which is what he needs) just so he could stay up late (to gain emotional satisfaction) I can give various of other examples. Sadness. When child looses something, lets say his favorite toy, instead of staying calm and looking for his toy, he simply sits and cry. Mature people try to solve the problem instead of simply sitting there and being emotional about it. Rage. Same outcome. Someone insults the child, and he starts to feel angry about it. His emotions does not help him on resolving situation. Like “James S Saint” pointed out
Emotions (most of them) do not help you to resolve your problems/accomplish your real needs, therefore it is childish to be emotional. I cant see how your example about child dieing and me feeling something about it proves or disproves statement that its childish to be emotional.