Why would anyone want someone else to share their point of view…I think my perspective is too crowded as is…id rather have someone describe their view to me and I the same and we somehow learn from one another…I really dont want to see the world from someone elses eyes…its sacry enough through my own.
~JL
I can only suggest seeing it from others eyes, for your reality is scary because you see it only through your own eyes. Life is too short to make all the mistakes yourself, you have to learn from others in order to save yourself from making the same mistakes they did, and you would, if you didn’t see things from their perspective. Furthermore, you are destined to be close minded, tyrannical, selfish, and stubborn if you don’t learn to see things from other people’s point of view. You will be horrible as a friend, husband, or social figure - since all you care about is yourself and what others can do for you, with no interest whatsoever for what any experience is like for anyone else. Much understanding comes from realizing that you don’t hold all the answers and that you are a social creature that learns much from others in such a way as being able to see from the other persons perspective what they mean on a topic while holding yours in the background till it is time for you to express your opinion.
What’s your take?
I completely agree…maybe i worded it wrong…I ment on that particular typing on nonesense something along the lines of “Id rather share somones view then live through that view.”
Maybe i should just shut up and go to bed now.
~JL
I see what you are saying, but I still want to ask about…
don’t you think that there is something to learn from another by seeing the world from their eyes (perspective)?
hmm lets try this again…its not easy for me to word it right…im new at this philosophy thing…all those years of video games have my grammer lacking.
What that quote means to me now that I reread it is…that the world can be burdensome when I look at it through my life…I wouldnt want to look at the world through someone elses life…but rather through their views and not my own…
that any better …or worse? lol
~JL
Magius,
That last passage you posted (and your analysis) was interesting indeed, but I think you must take care to distinguish between “thoughts” and “emotions”.
For me, thoughts are those conscious, internal dialogues that take place in our mind - the “rational” self I suppose we could call it. Analysis, conceptualisation and logic are common features of our “thoughts”, though they needn’t lie on such an intellectual plane. Thoughts may be deep and abstract in nature, though they may be (and generally are) as mundane as thinking “what would I like for dinner”? Nonetheless, regardless of the inherent complexity of what we call “thoughts” I think that the common feature which unites them is that they are made “consciously” (we are of wholly aware of them and have the power to guide the form and direction they take) and that they possess the deductive features I named earlier. I agree with you (and Descartes) that thoughts are used primarily to analyse past actions, or to plan for future ones, with their main “aim” (if we were to suppose that thoughts had any purpose at all) being to ensure that we commit to the best, most preferable action in a given circumstance.
Emotions on the other hand are entirely different. They are generated in one of the more primitive areas of the brain (my memory is awful, so I forget the name) and we have little conscious say in their origin or direction. It has to be remembered that emotional responses in all animals are instantaneous reactions to external stimuli. If a bear attacks us in the woods, we don’t have time to be “rational” and carefully analyse what the best course of action may be, so we need the internal stimulus of emotion to propel us into action. Not all emotions are born of the need for urgency though, yet the fact remains that emotions do constitute the primitive (pre-rational) response to any given situation that we face.
Even in a world where we are far more intellectually advanced than those from who we have descended (both historically and pre-historically) emotions still have a profound effect on the way we live our lives. In the example you give, with the boy, his friend and his girlfriend, he is caught up in an internal conflcit: his emotions compel him towards one action, his thoughts to another one altogether. His emotions are more immediate, more powerful, yet his thoughts are more deliberate, more focused on the future and towards the resultant consequences of whatever action he may decide to take. His emotions may compel him to walk over and punch his friend, yet his thoughts compel him to understand that while it may be satisfying to do so at this point in the present, in the future his circumstances will be different. He may be able to recognise that his jealousy is irrational, and through rational analysis of the situation deduce that his friend and/or girlfriend are acting improperly, or that his jealousy is born out of his own personal inadequecies (which he then recognises as facets of his “ego” that need to be adressed, and in doing so will bring about more positive consequences in his life in the future than if he were to just walk over and hit his friend) and in doing so he has identified the psychological root of his jealousy, and the course of action most likely to bring about “beneficial” future circumstances. But what then of the emotion he felt so strongly in the first place? Can it now just be dismissed, having served its purpose of stimulating action (through the mediation of thought)? Can emotions be ignored? Are they invalid because they may lead us to commit rash actions that may lead to future adversities?
Consider once more this boy, and what may have led to his feeling of jealousy in the first place. His jealousy is an undeniably emotional response to the situation he finds himself placed. He cannot choose to be jealous, it is merely his ego providing him with a blunt message that the scene unfolding before him may be to his eventual detriment. But where did this message come from and why did it appear in the first place? Consider the scene: his friend has approached his girlfriend and has become flirtatious with her. You may argue that his insecurity is merely derived from his own inadequecies (perhaps his inherited patriarchal views about exclusive relationships and the notion of “property” or “ownership”) or from a misrepresentation of the scene before him (perhaps his friend is merely trying to converse with his girlfriend on a more “Platonic” level) but if we are to presume that this is not the case (he does not have these views and his friend is hitting on his girlfriend) then why do we suppose he is jealous? The answer is quite simple: he has an emotional attachment to each of these people. If he were merely a behavioural scientist, analysing the flirting patterns of two people he didn’t know, then obviously the situation would illicit no such emotional response. His sense of jealousy is the emotional response stimulated by this situation, where the emotional bonds he has with each of these people have become strained, and are under threat.
So where is he left then? If he disregards his emotions as merely primitive sensations that can be rationalised away by understanding their uncontrollable cause, then, along with his feeling of jealousy, he has forfeited and over-intellectualised the emotiobal bonds he has with towards his friend and girlfriend. If you render emotions rationally invalid, suggest that they should be understood completely before they are of pragmatic value, or that they should never used to dictate a course of action (as they can often lead to rash, unpreferable modes of action) then you lose such emotional bonds. On the other hand, if you were to suggest that emotions are that which make life meaningful, and should be taken notice of more regularly than our more rational “thoughts” then you are sacrificing yourself to the present, and in doing so lose any possibility of learning from your past, or planning for the future. Emotions are entirely seperate from the logical thought processes that govern these things (identification of patterns in the past, and how they may be best applied towards our actions in the future). Thus, if the situation is as dichotemic as the one I’m painting, then we are consigned to a life in which we disassociate ourselves from everything that isn’t rational, or are flung into a world consisting of only immediate senses, and the emotions stimulated by them.
To deviate from my abstract musings and to return to the original point of the post then:
To “control” ones thoughts, given my previous definition, is a given. Thoughts are, by definition, those aspects of our mental state that we can create, govern, manipulate and guide. If a “thought” deviates from these premises, then it is either “emotional” in nature and so cannot be controlled or manipulated (other than by using thought to consciously highten or subdue its intensity) or “subconscious” in nature, which is slightly different, because we’re never really “aware” of these subconscious “thoughts” in the first place, so they deviate from my given definition of “thoughts” (as they cannot be consciously controlled).
Regardless, I think what you are trying to say in this quote, and in the preceding paragraph, is that we must look deeply at the causes behind why we “feel” or “think” like we do, and in doing so can live - if not necessarily a more “meaningful” life (whatever you might want to take that to mean) - then at least a life where we are in control of our own direction, and are not subservient to the “irrational” self that we have no control over. I do agree that actions, when possible, need to be weighed up and analysed before they are commited, and that introspection is one of the most noble activities a man can indulge in, yet I would stop short at saying that our lives and their directions can be lived in and controlled by this state of mind. For, at the end of the day, as much as we should like to think that we are intellectually able to usurp the primitive inclinations of many facets of the self, all actions are still governed by over-riding imperitives, that compel us, above all, to seek contentment, and it is this imperitive towards contentment that controls every pursuit we undertake.
The paths to contentment are entirely subjective, and equal in number to the amount of people who inhabit the Earth. What gives our lives purpose, or meaning, is this completely uncontrolable, irrational (in the sense that it cannot be controlled, manipulated, rationalized etc) urge to be “content” (I stop short using the word “happy” because that word has a mild connetation towards the concept of “euphoria”, the feeling of which is merely one path towards feeling content - people for instance, may compel themselves towards contentment through despair or numb vapidity, neither of which are any more invalid paths to contentment than the path to contentment through “happiness”). In this sense, every action we commit, every emotion we endure, every thought we make - rational or otherwise - is geared to attain and then sustain a state of contentment, congenital within every one of us. We can have no say in what this wholly irrational, uncontrolable end to which all are actions are means is, we can only - in some small way - dictate where this end may be found. Some may find contentment through philosophy, others may find it in fashion. The only difference in the validity of the two pursuits, perhaps, is how “permanent” the state of contentment is.
To return to the analogy of the boy and his friends, we can presuppose that he has chosen - consciously and rationally or otherwise - to find contentment by forging emotional bonds with other people. That is, he has elected to find contentment by emotionally interacting with his friend and with his girlfriend (though the nature and instensity of the bonds will obviously be slightly different). Here, when he encounters a situation where he realises that this emotional contentment is under threat from his friend’s leacherous advances, his response is emotional. When he has a high emotional stake in the situation - and it threatens to undermine his inherent need to be content (given his means of attaining contentment) as a result - then we cannot blame him for his reaction, nor can we expect him to so easily rationalise it away. That is not to say he has carte blanche to act as he wishes - because there is still an interpersonal, moral element that must govern his actions as well - but I don’t really have time to enter into it.
The point of this spiel was merely to re-enforce the concept that there is a deep-seated imperitive that governs every one of us, that supercedes all emotions and all thoughts, and indeed greatly effects the form that each of these take. One may be able to control ones thoughts, and subdue one’s emotions, but that in itself does not necessarily lead to a life of contentment. Introspective thought may allow me to feel content, but we cannot automatically assume that this is the same for all.
We’re rational beings, but we are still at the whim of something that isn’t. The best we can do is to immerse ourselves in the world in which we are placed, and to see where contentment may be found. It is in this search that our lives are given a meaning and a purpose, and - as I said before - it is what governs everything that we do. We can choose, perhaps, where we may find contentment, but we cannot choose whether we need to be content at all.
I realise I’ve been all over the place there, and it may not have a had a great deal to do with what Magius or Descartes wrote, but I enjoyed writing it nonetheless. 
Back to the original quote, one way to think about it is that as souls we are all equal in our capacity for reasoning. But in the world, we are not pure souls but are also intermingled with bodies, which serve as mediators between the world and our souls, and thus is born error. For example, mental retardation is not the result of a defective soul, but the result of a defective body that is mediating the world to the soul.
Trey
Treysuttle,
true we can look at it that way. Just as we can look at the movie Matrix and say that that is really reality. But we would be no further, if we want to entertain ideas of soul - we better come up with a definition that we can agree on, somehow I don’t think that is going to happen, but I have been mistaken before. Then we would still have the task of reasoning why and how each soul is identical to the next in its reasoning capacity, after which we would have to conceive why it would have a body in the first place, and finally, why if given a body should it be in err.
JP,
to answer your post you will have to give me some time to return to it. It is late here and I just don’t have the time to read, cut and paste, rationalize, elaborate, and explain my response. I do sincerely apologize, for I too hate it when I really have something to say and the length of my post prevents others from responding…atleast adequately. I wish to give your post all my attention. Please be patient.
Johnny,
I am slowely learning from a book I recently read, that criticism is not the best way to go. And so, in an effort to enlighten and attempt to adjust my strategy, instead of criticising your view I will give you my analyses of how I imagine myself with a future wife…
I imagine someone who isn’t necessarily like me at all, I do believe opposites attract, but people with much in common have a good record of happiness just the same. I would love to meet a woman that would accept me for who I am and whom I would accept for who she is. In doing these things we would wish to share each others world with the other, not just the good but the bad as well. In an effort to turn the bad into good. Let me explain, say cleaning the house always occurred on the weekends (as it does in my household - not that it isn’t cleaned during the weekdays, just that the house isn’t given as much attention in its general context) my wife and I would wake up, wash up and eat you know the usual, have a conversation, pass a joke, and put on some music. As the music is playing we would pick up our designated tools, whether it be a mop or a vacuum cleaner and begin to clean…together. As we clean we listen to music and believe it or not this atmosphere will create happiness. I believe in sharing the responsibilities, but not just sharing in them, but partaking in them together. I imagine both my wife and I working or neither of us working. If she was pregnant then ofcourse she wouldn’t go to work and I would, this is assumed. I imagine that we make each others amenities, after WE are done cooking, I can get the snacks ready while my wife gets the pillows for the couches while we settle down to watch a movie. Despite this, I do believe each person needs their time alone, don’t get the impression that when we aren’t working that we are attached at the hip, the context in which I have been speaking is in reference to things that are usually done alone because of societal acceptance, ie. It’s the womans job to clean the house. And in explaining, I just wish to show that I disagree with this and believe it can be turned into a fun thing when both people do it together. I also believe in doing extra once in a while as a surprise for ones significant other without thought of it being returned (so this means that it is done sincerely). Sincerity, consideration, honesty, and respect are at the top of my list for happiness within ANY kind of relationship, whether it be a friendship, acquintance, co-worker, or loved one. I don’t believe in things that can be shared but aren’t because the person says they just can’t do it, like one of my ex’s who just didn’t want to share anything with me, because it was her thing and she couldn’t have anyone watch or be around her when she was doing her hobbies, ie. Computers, books, etc. I believe in sharing not just the emotions, not just sex, not just the children, but the beauty of life by thinking of the other, sharing little things like a little quote you might have read in the paper, or something funny a co-worker told you, a feeling you got when you smelt the roses outside your front yard as you were getting into your car, etc.
I realize this may be exactly what you meant, but I can’t know cause the meaning in your words was vague to me, maybe I missed the meaning. Let me know…
What’s your take?
It was an idea. As far as coming to agreement and all that sort of stuff, I don’t care much for that.
Souls would be equal in their capacity to produce reason in that to say that two souls are different would imply there is some aspect of one that is different from an aspect of another, but because souls are not spatio-temporal they do not have parts…therefore there can not be a part of one that is different from a part of another. The differences in person does not come from the soul, but from actions, thoughts, and so forth that are the product of stimuli made conscious by the soul.
I do not equate the soul with the intellect or the mind. The soul is wholly transcendent. The soul is a void, a pure emptiness…from which results the capacity for reasoning, having thoughts, desires, and so forth.
Thats just my opinion.
Trey
Treysuttle,
Can you explain to me how the soul as a wholly transcendant thing, a void, pure emptiness = reason?
How does soul bring about reason?
How do you know you have a soul?
Where did you get your concept of soul from?
Just some thoughts to ponder…
I don’t think the soul = reason…but that it is because of the soul that we can reason.
As to your other questions, I have come to believe in my own soul and think through its nature (non-nature) as a result of studying various philosophies and my own mediation and reflections on myself.
Ultimately, I see reason and logic as limitations when it comes to contemplating the deeper manifolds. They are the boat to get you across…when you get to the other side, you they serve no more purpose. Here is a buddhist proverb for you.
Once there was a monk and he was standing on a bridge and looking down at the river flowing below. Some more advanced monks approached and began crossing the bridge. The younger monk asked the older monks ‘how deep is that river?’. In response to his question, the older monks threw him off into the river.
Trey
Trey,
Okay, how does soul create reason? Or more to the point, how is it that reason comes from soul? What is it about the soul that makes reason?
What’s your take?
I have thought about it pretty much like this. It is not that the soul directly produces reason, or any of the cognitive abilities. These are directly the result of the constitution of the body…the biological organization. The soul is more like a light…it just illuminates. This is why some animals have the capacity for certain reasoning abilities and others do not…all have the same souls, but the bodies that the souls are working through are constructed differently. But even with the biological organization, without the light there would be none of the consciousness necessary for activities like reasoning. So it is by hypothetical syllogism basically that one might say reasoning is a result of the soul.
Trey
Jp,
Distinguish thoughts from emotions…tough one, but I’ll give it a try.
I don’t know about whether we should call them dialogues, thoughts that is. For there is a distinct
difference between the way I think and the way a schizophrenic talks to themselves in their heads.
Yes thinking takes place in our mind/brain, but I don’t think it wise to generalize ‘thought’
with the label of ‘conscious’. Conscious thought is only one aspect of thought.
I’m not sure what you mean by…
Specifically I don’t know what you mean by them not needing to lie on such an intellectual plane.
Where else, do you suggest, that analysis, conceptualisation and logic can lie?
JP stated:
Would you really weigh a thought about 1+1=2 differently from thinking about an apple?
I think the deepness and abstraction you speak of are only distinguishing factors of
length of time and importance in reference to society. I may have a thought which
I believe to be deep and complex, that three angles joined by corners and enclosed will add
upto 180 degrees, but to others it will not seem like a deep thought at all. I don’t see a
great difference between my thinking about what I will have to eat tonight and me thinking
philosophical thoughts, other than time and the importance which I attribute to the thought,
but the thought itself is of the same nature, just different context.
JP stated:
Hmmm…tough to argue about thoughts that are made unconsciously and their correlation to
conscious thoughts, since I obviously can’t make a conscious argument for them. But I wonder
why you think the distinction is self-evident. Could you elaborate?
Jp stated:
I think there is an error in your logic of conscious thought. So far from what I have read
there is an implication that ALL conscious thought is controlled and guided by us. But this
is not the case in my experience. There are many times when things are in such a way that I
wish not to believe them but find I have no choice. Logic takes me on a road of its own.
For example, I don’t like the presuppositions of determinism, I don’t want to believe in it.
But when I think about it, it makes 200% more sense to me in reference to reality than any
argument I have ever heard for free-will. Till this day I am trying to find holes within
determinism to find a way out of it. Furthermore, people can be made to think things. You wanna
make your girlfriend jealous, well you simply start giving her vague stories about where you
have been during late nights. You keep telling her you are on the other line (phone), and when
she asks who it is, you simply say ‘a friend’, and so on and so forth. Emotions are much the same
as you stated in your quote above. But they are so similar that I find myself being able to
control my emotions. Ironically, in order to control my emotions I must think about something.
If I wanna be happy I think about nice things I have done for people or that people have done for
me, or I picture beautiful scenery, etc. I begin to feel happy. Furthermore, don’t we control
our emotions every day? You wake up and you feel groggy, some drink coffee (external factor I know)
others work out, some sing, some do breathing excercises, etc. Someone hurts your ego, what do you
do? Well, most people hurt their feelings back. Why? Well it makes them feel better. They changed
their feelings.
Jp stated:
Yes, I don’t deny that emotions can be instinctive, nor do I deny that thoughts can be instinctive.
Most males begin to think about what it would be like to sleep with a girl when they see
an attractive women. They do this instinctively, or so they say. But I will not draw
the conclusion that emotions are only instinctive and that thoughts are controlled. Each have an
aspect that is applicable to the other, and so they hold each others characteristics.
There is a further difficulty I find with distinguishing thoughts and emotions, and that is
their reciprocal relationship. When I write philosophy about anything, believe me when I say
that I am emotional, not in the sense that is usually taken. But I am enjoying writing philosophy.
To me, thoughts cause emotions or vice versa. If I think I am doomed on my next essay, I will FEEL
stress. If a girl makes me feel good, I will have nice thoughts about her. They appear to be
separate, yet they appear to be closely related if not two parts of the same thing. I am undecided.
You said that emotions are found to come from a different area of the brain than thought. But as far as
my knowledge of the brain goes, thoughts come from all around the brain. Different thoughts come
from different locations. I don’t know about emotions, maybe they are segregated to one distinct
area of the brain. This would be quite conclusive evidence that they are separate, but this would
not change the fact that emotions can be controlled and can be instinctive, same for thoughts.
You drew an analogy about the example I provided in my previous post, about how a boy can be stuck
because his thoughts going one way and his emotions going another. I would explain it a little differently.
To me thoughts and emotions come as a pair. So that would mean that the boy has two options for which each has
a thought and an emotion. The thought for one situation outweighs the emotion for that situation, and the
other situation has the emotion outweighing the thought, and this would be the distinction and the dilemma for
the boy.
You similarily noted later in your post:
YOur synopsis of my previous post was close, but not exactly right:
The first half of the paragraph is completely correct, but my impedus is not to control, but
to understand. I am not decided on whether there really is free will or not, but I know
that we can be unaware of things, and we can be aware of things. The feeling I get of being
aware of things is always better than not being aware of things. Regardless of whether what I
am aware of is a good or bad thing.
JP stated:
If I agree with this, it means that there is no such thing as altruism. But I do believe in
altruisn while at the same time I agree that there are primitive inclinations on-line at all
times. To what degree they have a hold on you is dependant on your education (awareness) of them.
Furthermore, I do plenty of things every day that I would not do if I had a choice. The assumption
being that I am coerced by the system (society, government, law, school, etc.)
Jp, you mysteriously say a similar thing later on…
You say that one may be able to subdue one’s emotions, but earlier you said that emotions were
completely instinctive. Again, I disagree about the imperative superceding all emotions and
all thoughts, but I do agree that they indeed greatly affect the form that each of us take.
What’s your take?
I don’t know why it does this, I end up double or even triple posting sometimes. A few times I did it because I got timed out and had to log in, not realizing that the post was sent and I would end up sending it again. But this time I’m sure I wasn’t timed out, didn’t send it twice, yet here we are…
On thoughts:
Haha, fair enough, point taken. “Internal Dialogues” was certainly the wrong way to describe thoughts. I’ll use the word monologue instead from now on. 
As for “Conscious thought is only one aspect of thought” what exactly do you mean? To be sure, there are subconscious elements to our “mental state” that are largely beyond our control, but for that reason I do not classify them as “thoughts”. To use Freudian terminology, thoughts could best be described as the mental processes occuring in the “ego” (conscious, controlled by the thinker etc) where as emotions reside in the “id” (the most primitive part of consciousness). Whether this stands as an accepted definition or not, for the sake of brevity and unambiguity I have chosen to define thoughts as any consciously directed mental process. I understand that different parts of the psyche are subliminally playing off against each other, and that no thought can be made in the ego without being effected in some way by one’s id and/or superego, but in defining thoughts, it is that “conscious control” that is most important. I do not believe that “sub-conscious” activity, nor emotions can be really defined as “thoughts” as they lack this aspect. To quote Freud:
“An instinct can never become an object of consciousness–only the idea that represents the instinct can.”
That is to say, we can consider our non-conscious selves and in making them subjects of inquiry in this sense we can consciously think about them, but that does not make these impulses acts of consciousness in and of themselves.
But, keeping within the context of this topic, this raises another issue about Descartes and his “Cogito ergo sum” principle. For me, this principle appears to indicate that in so far as one has the faculty of thought, one can say that one exists, but as you said (either in this topic or in a separate topic) all “Cogito ergo sum” really says is “I think, therefore, I think”. Now if my definitions of what constitutes “thought” are acceptable, then it would seem to question Cartesian egoism about the role of emotions and other sub-conscious impulses in the “I am”. That is to say, if thoughts are the epistemic foundation of all that we know (according to Descartes) and thoughts are merely those mental processes that are made “consciously” (according to my definition) then can mere awareness of these non-conscious impulses be enough to unequivically accept their existence? If, as Freud indicated in the sentence I quoted above, these instincts are created and destroyed outside of consciousness and can only be made objects of consciousness as “ideas” then are emotions any more verifiable than any other object of inquiry? If I am not being to blunt with my separation of thought and emotion, does Cartesianism call into question the very validity of any mental processes that are not conscious in nature?
Of course, when all is said and done, it all comes down to one’s definition of “think” (though a more precise translation of “cogito” may help here). I hope you see where I’m going with this… 
Yep sorry, just another clumsy phrase. 
Obviously “analysis, conceptualisation and logic” lie solely on the intellectual plane. My point was simply that these functions do not necessarily need to serve what we would - in every day parlance - describe as such “intellectual” functions. Deciding what we are going to have for dinner - in the strictest sense - would require analysis (of, say, a menu), conceptualisation (of the food described) and logic (to, perhaps, ensure that one’s needs are likely to be adequately filled by the food currently being “conceptualised”) yet I would that the act of “choosing dinner” constitutes a quite “mundane” utilization of these mental faculties. Regardless, my point was merely to say that regardless of how “intellectual” the purpose of our thoughts are, they are still bound by these faculties (i.e. it would be difficult to order dinner without going through the processes I described above - as contrived as I may make the entire process seem) and the fact that they are conscious. The point was, merely, what I elucidated before:
"Nonetheless, regardless of the inherent complexity of what we call “thoughts” I think that the common feature which unites them is that they are made “consciously”
I was simply trying to identify the unifying characteristics of thoughts, regardless of their complexity.
Aha, yes you’re right, and that was all that I was really trying to say: that thoughts, regardless of how complex we may suggest they are, are almost identical in nature, and essentially serve the same purpose.
Well it’s tautological. So long as we can agree on some common definition of “consciousness” (it needn’t be overly precise) then we can say that if a thought is “unconscious” then - by definition - we cannot be aware of it, nor exert any control over it. I think a distinction must be made between those thoughts which we create consciously (which would be my true definition of a “thought”) and those processes which can be demonstrated to impact on our mental state and - indeed - on our thought processes, yet which are of an “unconscious” origin - that is, that we have not consciously created.
For instance, consider chronic depression. Even though these individuals are lucidly aware of the emotional processes created by their condition (that is, they can consciously “comprehend” these emotions, and even identify their cause) they cannot exert any conscious influence over these processes whatsoever. These emotions may be made the object of inquiry by the individual suffering by them - thus making them a conscious subject of “thought” - and they will almost cetainly effect the thought patterns of the individual, yet the individual has no control over how or when these emotions are created, nor any control over their intensity or any other aspect or their nature. In this sense, we can see that the conscious and the unconscious are undeniably intertwined, yet still uniquely seperate.
(You may argue that chronic depression in a neurological disorder rather than a mental one, but it amounts to the same thing. I’m talking about mental processes here, not physical ones - er, at the risk of delving into the bifurcation of mind and body again.)
Yes, but only because of a tautological inference from my original definitions. Because I define thought as those mental processes that are consciously controlled, I have no choice but to agree that “ALL conscious thought is controlled and guided by us”. If you choose a different definition of the word “thought” then perhaps that sentence won’t make sense, but using my definition of “thought” we are left with this logic:
All thought is conscious.
All thought requires some degree of control and guidance.
Therefore, all conscious thought is controlled and guided by us.
Thus, while my understading of syllogistic logic is not great, you may argue with either of the premises, but so long as you accept the premises (as I have done) then the logic is sound.
I don’t necessarily want this discussion to get Freudian, but I think that this, once again, can be explained in Freudian terms (you don’t have to accept the literal legitimacy of Freudian psychoanalysis, just so long as you understand the symbolism).
I think what you’re trying to say here (correct me if I’m wrong) is that you have an emotional attachement to some of your thoughts and some of your beliefs, even though - by using logic - you know them to be inaccurate. Freud would describe the seeming “emotional” attachment you feel to your deep-seated beliefs/desires in terms of the subliminal conflict between the superego (which is responsible for the preservation of values inherited from your family and society - almost like a less rational version of what we would otherwise call the “conscience”) and the ego (which, as I said earlier, is our conscious selves, and us such would include all the facets of thought I have already outlined, plus their functions - analysis, conceptualisation, logic etc.). Thus, even though we may “think” something to be true despite evidence to the contrary, it’s not an indication that some thoughts take place on a sub-conscious level and are thus out of our control, it is merely an indication that the conscious self is constantly playing off against the subconcious or unconscious self within one’s over-all psyche (which I do not deny). That is, the impulses that may cause us to believe that “free will is true” despite evidence to the contrary are rooted in the “super-ego” and we have no conscious say - really - in the nature of this part of ourselves. We can have no conscious say in what we were dictated to as the notions of right and wrong by our parents, nor can we have any say in the fact that society - on the whole - pushes the notion that free-will exists. If you have sub-conscious qualms about rejecting the premise of free-will, then it is not evidence of lacking control over one’s thought so much as it is evidence that there is still a vast unconscious influence on our conscious life. Remember, I am defining thoughts as those “entities” which are conscious in origin, and as such, those that we have control over. By my definition, which you are not bound to agree with btw, there can be no such thing as a “non-conscious” thought, simply because - by tautological implication - all thoughts are conscious in nature.
But really, all I’m trying to identify here is that there are undeniably unconscious elements to our psyche, and whether you agree with Freudian psychology or not this was what I was trying to say.
Once again though, regardless of what you coerce her to believe, she is still essentially free to think what she wishes. She may choose to believe that you have been fraternising with other girls, but - despite the influence of the unconscious in this scenario - she is just as free to think the opposite. She is still in control of her thoughts, whether what she ends up thinking is correct or not.
Yep, no doubt the nature of our thoughts can influence our emotions, but that is not to say that we have any genuine control over them. It’s essentially the opposite of what I was saying before: yes, the unconscious can influence the conscious, though it cannot control it. Similarly, the conscious can influence the unconscious, and the conscious can consider aspects of the unconscious (insofar as one can be aware of them, making them subjects of conscious inquiry in the first place) but it is difficult to consciously dictate to the unconscious self to the extent that we may say we can “control” it. For instance, you can think of a pleasurable experience in your past, and that will make you happy, but the reason why this memory should make you so happy remains out of your control. That same memory could just as easily fill you with dread depending on the circumstances behind it. Besides, can you ever just say to yourself “be happy” and it happens? Can you tell your unconscious self the sort of emotion it should be - er - emoting at the time? No you can’t, which, to me, is indicitive of a lack of control and - as such - an indication of multicameral psyche, where the conscious self and the non-conscious self (which includes emotions) are seperate entities, though they do undeniably exert influence over one another. Nonetheless, I do not think that this influence is enough to suggest that thoughts and emotions have the same origins or that we can use either to consciously control the other.
That’s a good point actually.
However, whether drinking some coffee is the same as consciously “controlling” emotions is another point all together. Perhaps we can consciously choose to change the nature of our psyche by tinkering with our neurology, but I think that’s a different topic altogther. For now, all I am trying to say is that emotions and thoughts are seperate entities, regardless of how we can neurologically influence our emotions in such a way.
But I would argue that the instinctual part of this process does not constitute a “thought” as I have defined it. For instance, no man can help it if he finds a woman attractive and if he is stimulated by her looks. This instinct undeniably effects our conscious state, in the same way that a feeling of “happiness” or “sadness” can do, but it does not change the fact that this instinct is not conscious in origin. We do not think: “I believe I will be instinctively drawn to her sexual charms as it increases the likelihood of the propogation of my species” as the instinct will emerge and effect us whether we would like it to or not. However, imagining a woman naked or imagining having sex with her is a conscious process, and separate from the impulses that inspire it. We can subdue these thoughts even if we cannot subdue the impulse. Of course, in subduing such thoughts we may also subdue the impulse - as we are no longer making a conscious spectacle of it - but that is not to say that we can consciously think to ourselves “don’t find women attractive” and realistically expect it to happen.
Yep, I don’t deny that there is a reciprocal relationship, I’m merely saying that thoughts and emotions have different origins and natures. While a conscious thought can be influenced by an largely subconscious emotion originating in a seperate part of the psyche and vice-versa, that is not to say that thoughts and emotions are the “same thing”. They are two parts of the “same thing” insofar as this “same thing” is the psyche, but aside from that they originate in different parts of the brain and have fundamentally different natures. They, so far as I see it, are seperate things.
Yes, consciousness is the sum total of the amount of mental processes that we are aware of, though - as I understand it - both thoughts and emotions reside in seperate parts of the brain.
The part of the brain that deals with analysis, conceptualisation and logic - those attributes which I have given to thoughts - originate in the prefrontal cortex exclusively. The functions of the prefrontal cortex are outlined here if you’re interested:
brainplace.com/bp/brainsyste … llobes.asp
Emotions, however, are based in the more primitive “lymbic” system:
brainplace.com/bp/brainsystem/limbic.asp
To quote that site:
“From an evolutionary standpoint, this is an older part of the mammalian brain that enabled animals to experience and express emotions. It freed them from the stereotypical behavior and actions dictated by the brain stem, found in the older reptilian brain. The subsequent evolution of the surrounding cerebral cortex in higher animals, especially humans, gave the capacity for problem solving, planning, organization and rational thought. Yet, in order for these functions to occur one must have passion, emotion and desire to make it happen. The deep limbic system adds the emotional spice, if you will, in both positive and negative ways.”
So I don’t think there can be any conjecture as to the fact that the emotional and “pensive” areas of the psyche - though representing two parts of the same entity in this sense - are still two largely seperate “zones” of the brain.
However, it is undeniable - either from a psychoanalytical or neurological perspective - that these different parts of the brain, and thus are thoughts and emotions, are constantly influencing each other.
I don’t see any reason why thoughts - or other sub-conscious processes - cannot be understood consciously. However, to return to that quote of Freud’s again:
“An instinct can never become an object of consciousness–only the idea that represents the instinct can.”
We must be aware that simply “comprehending” something as an idea in our consciousness, does not make that thing a part of our consciousness in and of itself. To draw an analogy, we can make a “chair” the subject of our conscious inquiry, and understand it in these terms, but there is obviously a difference between this conscious conception and the assertion that - as we can consider the chair consciously - that the chair in and of itself must be a part of our consciousness. The same thing goes for emotions in my view.
To be sure, we can understand them in the way that you suggest, but I don’t think it is correct to equivicate emotions with thoughts merely because emotions can on occasion be made the subject of conscious enquiry. In this same sense I do not believe that emotions can be consciously controlled though, given what you’ve said there, it seems that you may agree with me on this point.
I don’t think that the quest for contentment is necessarily at odds with the desire to act morally. Moral actions must recognise this desire for every human being to be “content” and the satisfaction we get from acting in an altruistic manner is almost certainly, in some way, an indication that personal satisfaction is still a vital imperitive within every one of us.
To be sure, without some sense of “altruism” (that is, that not all actions are inspired by the desire for personal gain) there could be no moral actions whatsoever though. To quote myself:
" think there is an element of egoism to many actions we commit (we are, after all, each at the centre of our perceived universe) but that is not to say that our moral duties, or any acts of supererogation we voluntarily commit, are entirely motivated by egoistic impulses. We may give to charity because it makes us feel better, but there is an extra-personal, philanthropic understanding that underlines the action in the first place: there are people out there who require our help, and it is morally “good” to do so. It is our empathy that inspires this sense of moral duty to others, and if one possesses no such empathetic capabilities, then one will have no concept of moral obligations, and one cannot thus absolutely commit a moral action purely out of egoism: if one has no moral spectrum to begin with, what would one have to gain by giving to charity? Therefore, even if such supererogatory acts are somewhat undermined by egoistic impulses (makes us feel pleased, less guilty etc.) there still must be a philanthropic sentiment behind the action to give benefit us in any way from an egoistic stand-point."
However:
" don’t think one can act from a position of absolute altruism either, as it ends up being a position of self-effacement - in order to survive one must act, quite frequently, in self-interest. If every action is devoted to the “greater good” then what sense of the self are we left with? Can we altruistically eat, sleep, or defecate for instance?"
My point is that no moral action can be wholly inspired be egoism, nor can an action be wholly inspired by altruism. All moral gestures are some combination of the two.
To reclarify, one cannot consciously dictate what emotions one will be feeling at any given point in time (i.e. one cannot just think “I am happy” and expect to feel happy) yet the nature of our thoughts can determine the intensity of our emotion, or how we let it effect us. To use an analogy, we may get injured, and by casting our thoughts on something other than our injury we can consciously “subdue” the pain, yet no amount of conscious thought can rid us of the pain altogether or, perhaps, make the pain pleasurable rather than discomforting. In this sense, then, while we have no control over the pain we feel and what it’s nature is, we can still - to some extent - determine just how accutely aware we are of it, and how we choose to allow it to effect us.
Same goes for emotions.
I think that thoughts and emotions can “transcend” this imperitive - that is, we can commit actions or have thoughts/emotions that are not necessary in our quest for contentment - and this is where we differ from animals. In every action an animal commits, it is a slave to its instincts and is unable to consider anything else bar this existential imperitive. Human beings, while it is this imperitive that gives their lives an inherent meaning and direction, are not condemned to follow it. An individual can choose, if he so desires, to avoid contentment altogether.
So that’s it. I think we’ve gone a long way off topic here, but it’s all good!
Whoa JP! You wrote me a book…
Jp stated:
I believe, to a high degree, in Descartes ‘Perpetual Thought Hypothesis’ - meaning, we are thinking at all times. I believe that instincts, aren’t as Freud described, but instead are thoughts that are online. Just as a person doesn’t consciously think about breathing or blinking. But to me they are thoughts nevertheless, and this is why we CAN choose to think about breathing and blinking, and we can choose to put that thought to use and control our breathing and blinking (atleast for a certain period of time). Dreams too are thoughts to me, but they are not conscious. I think I have said enough in explicating why I believe consciousness to be only one aspect of thought. If not let me know and I will explicitly elucidate my point. Just as you said…
But see where the error was made, you first spoke of non-conscious and in the end you spoke of consciousness, but in the middle you merged conscious and thinking. What is instinct if it is not consciousness? Separate your merger and I think you will agree that instinct is still thinking.
Jp stated:
I never said that. What I said specifically is that scholars agree that Descartes wasn’t licensed (logical term referring to what one can logically conclude) to conclude “I think therefore I am”, but that his proof best exemplified “There is thought.” He only proved thought, but he didn’t PROVE (althought he tried) the “I”. Hence all he proved is that thought exists.
Jp stated:
Good eye Jp, I too think this is a problem with Descartes. But again, this drives home my point about thoughts being more than just a conscious phenomenon.
Jp stated:
With your example, I agree. But I put emphasis on your word usage of difficult, notice you didn’t say impossible. Which will lead me to my next comment about your next paragraph as well. See, there are cases of sleep walkers that have actually spent hours sleep walking and doing things. One stick in my mind as the first case I read about in highschool law class about a guy who drove over to his brother-in-laws house and murdered him, drove back home and went back to sleep. Moving about, talking, and even carrying on conversations while sleep walking is indicative of unconscious thought. So although it would be difficult to order dinner unconsciously, it IS still possible. Hence, I must disagree with your latter statement of the quote about all thoughts having a common feature of consciousness.
Jp stated:
This didn’t sound like what you were saying because you were putting much focus on the difference of complex and simple thoughts, but anyhow, I now understand what you meant. But I still disagree, but in disagreeing I must ask you, if you think you are correct and all thoughts are IDENTICAL in nature and essentially serve the SAME PURPOSE, would you mind explaining how people can sleep walk and do things or lie in bed sleeping while being able to speak (many people do this). Furthermore, what exactly is the ONE purpose that all thoughts are serving?
JP stated:
On the contrary, much research has been done, ironically by Freudians, that a person can become aware of their unconscious thoughts and even exert control over them after long psycho-analysis. Freud himself said so.
JP stated:
Hmmm… I wish to point out that I will exaggerate and say that 90% of everything we know is not consciously created, nor has it an unconscious origin. Unless you are a solipsist. Locke would argue that you cannot think of anything you have not already experienced. I too believe this, only that I would add an ability to the brain that can mix and match experiences to come up with NEW variations, ie. unicorn, goblin, etc.
JP stated:
I would disagree mostly vehemently against your first premise and ask you to clarify the second. Furthermore, you premises do not license your conclusion, for your premises may carry the assumption of human biengs (us), it is not said so, and hence the best your conclusion can do given the premises is “Therefore, all conscious though requires some degree of control and guidance.” Which could be taken to also mean that thought also requires some degree of no control and no guidance, otherwise what fills the rest of the some?
But let’s assume you are right with your logic, what do you say of that which we act by but don’t consciously think about?
Jp stated:
I’m not sure how that follows. If you agree that one cannot think of anything that they haven’t experienced before, then consciousness is based on the senses and the input coming into the brian via the doors of perception. We do not have control over the what goes into the doors of perception and the very faculties that bring the information to our brain bring it in a certain form, which we do not choose, and our brain interprets this information in a way defined by the matter of the brain, which we do not have choice over - so really, our thoughts are determined by external factors to our mind, and all we actually have control over is what we DO with our thoughts. Ie. move our body or to amend or merge one and/or another thought.
JP stated:
I think you misunderstood me, this isn’t about having a correct or false thought, this is about people being made to think things, believing they are choosing it, but really they are not. If I create a creature that must take in this thing called food in order to survive, and I give it an instinct for survival, than this creature will eat. It will believe it is choosing to eat, but really it has been determined to do so prior to its creation. Some peoples instinct for survival is stronger and for some its weaker, for those who have a weak sense of survival may actually starve to death by not eating, again thinking that they have chosen so, but it was determined by their genes and atomic make up.
JP stated:
Maybe you should rethink your definition of thought. It has been proven that the average male thinks about a women in a sexual manner every 50 or so seconds. That is a pretty heavy INFLUENCE as you would call it, on our everyday lives. Ironically, your latter sentence confirms my point about people being determined, you went so far as to say NO MAN CAN HELP (which I disagree with btw). A man would say he chooses to think about what it would be like to have sex with a women when he sees an attractive women. Just exactly where do you draw the line between DEFINITELY INSTINCT and DEFINITELY THOUGHT? This will help guide our debate a little more smoothly. Remember you said
So if the guy is aware of what he is doing, then he is conscious. And you also said that all thoughts are conscious. But the above you agreed is an example of instinct and not thought, which appears to contradict itself in my eyes. See, the above shows an example of a guy who is thinking about a women in a certain way, thinking he has chosen so, but really he is just reacting to his external stimulus in a way that he has been determined to do so, as you say
There appears to be an incongruety.
JP stated:
Have you never faced a moral dilemma? Have you never stopped to think that A will quench my thirst for contentment but it’s immoral, oh I don’t know what to do, etc?
What’s your take?
Just some general questions for people to quickly answer if they are interested. Maybe raise some interest in philosophy.
Descartes stated: “But having noted that the principles of these sciences must all be derived from philosophy, in which I did not yet find any that were certain,”
Do any of you believe there is no certainty in the sciences? Or maybe I should be asking: What certainties have you found in your own respective scientific areas of interest?
Descartes stated: “In this perhaps I shall not seem to you to be too vain, if you will consider that, there being but one truth with respect to each thing, whoever finds this truth knows as much about a thing as can be known ;”
One truth to all things? How many of you believe that?
If I may, I would like to predict that any physicist that reads this and responds to it, will agree that everything will one day be reducible to one thing that is the foundation of all things, matter/anti-matter, creation/destruction, etc.
Descartes stated: “For first of all, even what I have already taken for a rule, namely that the things we very clearly and very distinctly conceive are all true, is assured only for the reason that God is or exists, and the he is a perfect being, and that all that is in us comes form him.”
…yet a few paragraphs further he states…
“…for reason does not at all dictate to us that what we thus see or imagine is true. But it does dictate to us that all our ideas or notions must have some foundation of truth,”
The problem, to me, lies in his definition of clear and distinct ideas. Descartes fails to explain them to us properly, but they are the foundation for all his philosophy. He commits, what is now famously known as, the Cartesian Circle. In order to prove CLEAR AND DISTINCT IDEAS he needs God, but in order to prove God he needs CLEAR AND DISTINCT IDEAS. So both are left thrown up in the air hovering. The former argument in white color text is extremely weak and has almost no logical or reasonable backing to it whatsoever, alot of hogwash. The latter quote in white color text is a better try by Descartes at deciphering the truth of our reality, there must be some kind of truth to what we experience, whether there is an apple truly in front of me or not is unknown, but there is some truth to my experiencing it. There is something impinging on my sensation and making me experience life.
What’s your take?
In response to Magius
There seem to be laws that, if interpreted correctly, will commonly lead one to useful realizations which he can use to further his knowledge and build upon to discover (or invent depending on how you look at it) more useful realizations. Useful in the sense that any ‘knowledge’ ‘acquired’ will affect his interaction in and view of the world and perhaps be to his general advantage in the search for physical and mental comfort. ( cure diseases, send information instantly, fly faster and farther on land water or in air, radios, tvs, rockets, telescopes, hydrogen bombs , computers, vaccines, antibiotics, heart transplants, phones, weather forecasting etc…) Because science facilitates all these things, people may hold that it clearly gives us the truth about the world. But does it?. That’s why I put the word knowledge in “â€, because science may just be the human interpretation of the external world (if one exists 
) and not an actual explanation. Science may explain the properties of an apple , relative distance from me, how it got to be there, even how I am able to see it but, it can’t tell me if there actually is an apple before me.
Just because these laws allow us to successfully predict events (most of the time) doesn’t necessary make them true, nor does this prove the existence of an orderly world governed by laws. However they are still useful because if we act is if they exist, we can make accurate predictions.
Also, the reason I put acquired in Ҡis because some have argued that all our understanding comes from innate ideas… so when we know something we are actually remembering it therefore no new knowledge can be acquired, only brought to the conscious awareness of an individual. As a result, science becomes a search for triggers that will cause us to remember the inborn truths we already know. That’s another way of looking at it, I guess…
Personally I think that science does give us certainty to an extent. For example, science has proved that the force of friction works in a direction opposite to an applied force. To me this means that on earth, using specific substance (made of atoms and not some exotic material), in this reality that I am aware of and in whom I exist in this form, the force of friction will act in the opposite direction of the applied force. But just because in all pervious experiments that has been he case does not necessary mean that it will be next time. also it doesnt mean that this will occur under any other conditions (ie. on the other side of the solar system)
anyhoo… think I got a bit off track anyway.
… vibrating strings… 
cont’d
Which is assured to us by the existence of some good, benevolent god?.. I think Descartes took the easy way out. So did Berkeley come to think of it… not that I totally agree with Hume either btw…
also, i was just thinking ( 
) … I guess someone could also argue what the difference between scientific revelation and religious revelations is. Why should we relay more on one than the other?