• Kinglord1090
    137

    With a gun built from intelligence, the bear can be killed easily.
    With a vaccine made from intelligence, soon covid is also going to be wiped.
    So, your points were incorrect.
    But, please, I ask you to stay on topic, for if not, I wouldnt reply to your messages.
  • Kinglord1090
    137

    You made a very point point till the part you said that humans in such a world would still develop emotions.
    I have said this before in a different reply, but for this hypothetical to work, we have to assume that emotions never existed, and never will.
    That they never will be created even if it is preferrable in some cases.

    Even if we assume that emotions can exist, my believe would be that 1 of 2 of these possibilities take place.
    1) They will try to think logically if having emotions would be a good idea, and as we have discussed before, it can also lead to under-development, which isnt ideal for them. So, they will not develop emotions, as they will deem it to be a risky move which provides little to no knowledge towards their goal.
    2) They will accept emotions, and start living as us humans in teh real-life do, however, since they were born without emotions, as soon as they see emotions causing under-development, they will stop using it.
    In both these cases, it is not preferrable for them to choose emotions, as even if they can gain knowledge from it faster, it also risks heavy under-development.

    The only reason humans with emotions find that emotions make the world a better place, is because we have emotions, as thinking about it logically tells us that it also makes the world a worse place.

    If we look at it from a co-operation point of view, like we have done before, we can see that every human in a world void of emotions will be friends, i.e. co-operative as they all share the same goals.
    This friendship doesnt mean they have to feel sad about each other's death, as they can understand that humans do in-fact die, and that it is unevitable.
    Even, in real-life many people dont cry at funerals, simply because they know to accept the truth and that crying isnt gonna bring the dead back, yes they do get sad, but thats simply because they dont have so much control over their emotions, so they cannot.

    Like, I said, no one in a world void of emotions can 'let someone down' or 'dissappoint' them, because for one, these are emotions, and for two, disappointment only comes if there was something to be expected.
    For ex:- A parent gets dissapointed at their kid's grade, as they were expecting more from them.

    I think you would probably want to argue that emotion as you see it is this juice or energy that comes over us and interferes with our ability to achieve understanding, but this psychologist’s view is that striving rationally to achieve gain of knowledge and prevent loss of understanding , and anticipation of situations that may pose a threat to such goals , is precisely what emotion is.Joshs
    Yes, I would argue that emotions as I see it is juice or energy.
    The reason for it is simple, thats how we have been told it is.
    99% of people who arent interested in philosophy would give this same answer if asked.
    Because thats what we have defined emotions to be.
    If we were to ignore this definition, and use the psychologist’s definition instead, then we would have never had this problem.
    As his definition clearly states that emotions are tools to eliminate things which stop development.
    That is to say, if emotions themselves posed a threat to these goals, by definition, we will have to use our emotions to destroy the emotions.
    Which can be seen as a contradiction and thus, the definition can be dis-approved.
  • Kinglord1090
    137

    I dont know where the part of science came in as, science know that the heart, in fact doesnt have consciousness or the ability to think.
    If we take heart as a metaphor for emotions, then science still doesnt agree that emotions are required to find truth.
    Please read the quote carefully.

    "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart"skyblack
    Pascal used the words very carefully by saying, 'We know the truth not only by reason, but by the heart.'
    It does not say that, in order to find truth, emotions are necessary, only that it has been useful in achieving it, so far.
    He doesnt state that emotions are required to find out the truth, only that it is a viable tool in doing so, an alternate way, if you will.

    Pascal once said, "The understanding and the feelings are moulded by intercourse; the understanding and feelings are corrupted by intercourse. Thus good or bad society improves or corrupts them. It is, then, all-important to know how to choose in order to improve and not to corrupt them; and we cannot make this choice, if they be not already improved and not corrupted. Thus a circle is formed, and those are fortunate who escape it."
    Meaning, if somehow everything doesn't go right, tht is if violence still continues to be a thing, it would from an unbreakable circle, and the only one fortunate enough to break out of it would make the choice to die rather than live in such a world.
  • MikeListeral
    119
    With a gun built from intelligence, the bear can be killed easily.
    With a vaccine made from intelligence, soon covid is also going to be wiped.
    Kinglord1090

    and so you see there is advantages and disadvantages to simplicity and complexity

    this is the real war in reality

    they will always go back and forth eternally like ying and yang

    nothing else exists
  • skyblack
    315
    I dont know where the part of science came in as, science know that the heart, in fact doesnt have consciousness or the ability to think.
    If we take heart as a metaphor for emotions, then science still doesnt agree that emotions are required to find truth.
    Please read the quote carefully.

    "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart"
    — skyblack
    Pascal used the words very carefully by saying, 'We know the truth not only by reason, but by the heart.'
    It does not say that, in order to find truth, emotions are necessary, only that it has been useful in achieving it, so far.
    He doesnt state that emotions are required to find out the truth, only that it is a viable tool in doing so, an alternate way, if you will.

    Pascal once said, "The understanding and the feelings are moulded by intercourse; the understanding and feelings are corrupted by intercourse. Thus good or bad society improves or corrupts them. It is, then, all-important to know how to choose in order to improve and not to corrupt them; and we cannot make this choice, if they be not already improved and not corrupted. Thus a circle is formed, and those are fortunate who escape it."
    Meaning, if somehow everything doesn't go right, tht is if violence still continues to be a thing, it would from an unbreakable circle, and the only one fortunate enough to break out of it would make the choice to die rather than live in such a world.
    Kinglord1090

    The part on science was intended for the worshipers of science, not at you. Unless you are such an worshiper, are you? Maybe this post of yours:

    Kinglord1090
    2
    Science begs to differ.
    If we go to the root of all emotions and desires, we are not that different from robots.

    I believe that emotions and desires don't define us, our intelligence does.
    A murderer has reasons to do crime, he did it because of his desire to kill or emotion.
    Whereas if he just used logic, he would have come to the conclusion of killing someone.
    Kinglord1090

    indicates you are one but I am not sure of it.

    Yes, I do not buy the authority of science in these matters, so I will let you blindly accept what science says or doesn’t. You are welcome to a be a faithful follower of an ever-changing god called science.

    That being said, common sense tells me the heart is just as much conscious and intelligent as the brain, if not more so. Common sense/common knowledge tells me, the heart’s intricate pathways and responses (to and fro) to electrical impulses/messages from the rest of the body is still being investigated. The consciousness of the brain, which you are pointing to in your very first statement, with the seeming authority of a faithful believer of science, is a petty expression of consciousness as whole. It is a superficial consciousness of thought/thinking, and you have said so (ability to think). However the consciousness of the heart goes much deeper than linguistic/thought. Truth be told it doesn’t give a rats ass to your linguistic/thought capacity. It’s consciousness is finely tuned to the core of life, and it’s function over a span of approx. 80 years is a testament to it’s intelligence and fine crafting, unparalleled by anything created by the god of science. If this “thought consciousness”/ you/ we weren’t this stupid then it could run for 100 years without ‘missing a beat’. You feel that? In fact your pinkie might have more consciousness and intelligence than your “thinking ability”. Because, we have ruined our thinking ability. I could go on but let me stop here and go to something else. TBC:
  • skyblack
    315
    TO continue from the previous post:

    If you are a faithful follower of science then you ought to know, biology has quite clearly established that emotions are the foundation for behavior. It's much quicker than your so called "thinking ability". In fact according to the science of biology you do NOT have any free will. You have NO choice to pick and chose, or to stop your emotions. It's silly to think you can control emotions. It doesn't even match our everyday reality.

    So before you give out advice such as "Please read the quote carefully", it might be best to understand that your comprehension is limited by your thought. I am not being mean here. Just stating a fact.
  • Kinglord1090
    137
    Actually not so much in this context; hypotheticals are used to illustrate a type of thing one might actually come across. By selecting one of such a massive scale there are plenty of directions that could be imagined, but ultimately it will be difficult to maintain a point of view with any justified confidence. It's the right idea just a very broad application in a semantically sensitive environment.Cheshire
    I have always looked at hypotheticals, as something where we can assume the wildest of things, yet with reason still find an answer.
    If you are saying that it is not the correct definition of a hypothetical, i would gladly back off.
    I am not experienced enough in English or Philosophy to be confident in saying that my definition is correct, so I appreciate you teaching me about it.
    However, it also means that there is a word that describes my definition, and as such, it was my lack of ability that caused me to regard it as a hypothetical and not as the question? query? (i dont know what to call it)'s fault.

    In actuality theology employs the same logical process but starts with some major assumptions. I don't think it's entirely accurate to portray religion as an activity of pure emotion. Drug addiction, perhaps.Cheshire
    I apologize if I sounded like I meant religion wasnt based on logic.
    I am one of the few atheists who dont mind religious people who are happy with what they do. (Given they dont do immoral things)
    I am only stating that the logic that its based on is often flawed or unnecessary.
    What i was showing by my statement there was that, any emotions that were related to religious beliefs have started to decline over time.
    And those emotions are simply vanishing away, with logic and reason taking their place instead.
  • skyblack
    315
    And to add, i suspect, everything i have said above about the consciousness of the heart and the fundamental nature of emotions can be corroborated by your gods of science.
  • Kinglord1090
    137

    It is our emotions that compel us to help humanity. Why would it be logical for us to help humanity as opposed to just our self in a post emotion world?Down The Rabbit Hole
    This topic has already been discussed in this post, and thus, i will just post the few necessary points here.
    Feel free to peruse the entire thing, if you want to.

    Helping humanity leads to faster development.
    The more people can work in development the better.
    In a world void of emotions, development becomes an important factor for life.
    As a result, anything that can block development will be removed and anything that can help development will be appreciated.

    Would we leave the disabled that cannot work to die, or give them financial assistance? If the latter, what logical reason is there for doing so?Down The Rabbit Hole
    Unfortunately, the cold harsh truth is that, they will have to die, if they cannot work.
    As this is the most logical choice.
    Before, you say that it is harsh and immoral, do not forget that the very reason humans are the apex species is because of this reality.
    The species that couldnt survive in a harsh world by evolving were simply lead to extinction, and those who survived by evolving flourished.
    The same logic and fate will follow such a world.
  • Kinglord1090
    137

    You are welcome to a be a faithful follower of an ever-changing god called science.skyblack
    I wouldnt mind if you dont believe in science or dont share the same opinions as me.
    However, saying science is ever-changing seems contradictory, as science believes there to be a single non-changing answer for everything.
    Apart from that, I guess we have reached an impasse, as I cant simply let all evidences collected by millions of years of research by scientists go to waste.
  • skyblack
    315
    I wouldnt mind if you dont believe in science or dont share the same opinions as me.
    However, saying science is ever-changing seems contradictory, as science believes there to be a single non-changing answer for everything.
    Apart from that, I guess we have reached an impasse, as I cant simply let all evidences collected by millions of years of research by scientists go to waste.
    Kinglord1090

    No one is asking you to. Go with what your gods of biology have proved so far. Stay with the evidence. Don't make up your own BS.
  • skyblack
    315
    And the evidence is, you have no choice over emotions. Emotions trump over "intelligence". This is straight from biology and related sciences.
  • Kinglord1090
    137

    biology has quite clearly established that emotions are the foundation for behavior. It'f much quicker than your "thinking ability". In fact according to the science of biology you do NOT have any free will. You have NO choice to pick and chose, or to stop your emotions. That's silly to think you can. It doesn't even match our everyday reality.skyblack
    I completely agree with all of your claims here.
    I never disagreed with any of them since the beginning.
    The only thing you are getting wrong is that you are assuming that i am telling humans to stop emotions.
    I am not doing that at all.
    This discussion is only about what would happen in such a case where it does happen.
    This is not a discussion about how we can make it happen.
    I have said this multiple times in this discussion already.
    If you think its useless to talk about a scenario which might never happen, feel free to leave and not post here anymore.

    So before you give out advice such as "Please read the quote carefully", it might be best to understand that your comprehension is limited by your thought. I am not being mean here. Just stating a fact.skyblack
    Bruh, if anything, I am on the side which isnt using emotions to form my thoughts.
    Meaning my comprehension are less limited as I am not letting emotions bias my thoughts.
    Of course, you arent being mean here, and even if you were, i am ok with a bit of criticism, but talking about a quote and then denying/ignoring the true meaning of it by saying my comprehension is limited, just looks like you are saying it because you yourself dont have comprehension of something and are trying to find a way to succeed in the debate without reason.
  • Kinglord1090
    137

    That is just straight up false.
    For it were true, science would be contradicting itself.
  • Kinglord1090
    137

    I am not making anything up.
    That is the difference.
    All my replies so far have been either based on logic and reason or been educated guesses.
    If biology says humans dont have free will, then i agree that humans dont have free-will, because there is research and proof for the case.
  • Kinglord1090
    137

    This is again just straight up false.
    Science doesnt say that we dont have control over our emotions.
  • Kinglord1090
    137
    If we look at evolution, we can easily see that emotions were never meant to be a part of organisms.
    It was a byproduct of evolution which was trying a way to teach organisms logic faster.
    Once evolution reached a state where logic could easily be understood by brain, the need for emotions stopped.
    It is a vestigial part of as, just like an appendix or wisdom teeth.
  • skyblack
    315
    All my replies so far have been either based on logic and reason or been educated guesses.Kinglord1090

    Yes, that's the point, You are guessing. While i am talking about your so called scientific facts.Not sure if there are any biologists in this forum, but if there are then perhaps they can educate you on the evidence that comes from biology. Actually you can start by watching some videos of Robert Sapolsky called the Stanford classes, if you wish.

    As to "succeeding" in debate...well, what can i say, other than to point to my posting history. This is about the longest i have engaged with anyone. That kind of thing (succeeding) may be important to you but has as much value as TP for me. I think i have had enough for now. Carry on my friend.
  • Kinglord1090
    137
    Hello everyone.
    This is something I have wanted to discuss with you all, which might or might not be related to the question, but i find to be very interesting.

    I have a bit of interest in artificial intelligence and how scientists and researchers programme it to be efficient and sometimes even surpass what a human could do. Some of these examples will be Alpha-Zero by DeepMind, Google, which is a chess engine whom not even the World Champion Magnus Carlsen can defeat. Chess has over 120+ million possible move configurations just after the 3rd move! That is such a high number that not even a computer can process and store all possible configurations, meaning the AI doesnt know which move is the absolute best move against any given situation. (Unless its mate in 1, or something like that).
    Now, the interesting part isnt here. DeepMind by Google also made an A.I. model named 'Deep Reinforcement Learning' during 2013-2015 which learned how to play games by watching YouTube! (The learning by watching YouTube part only came around 2018)
    Yep, you read it right, it learned how to play games by watching tutorials and speedruns done by humans and was even able to surpass them.
    The biggest problem faced by A.I.s so far was that they dont know if they are good at a game or not if they dont have any indication. (Scoreboard showing how well the player is doing)
    As humans have a very complex brain, we don't need such indications for adventure and action based games like, Assassin's Creed or GTA, as the entertainment value is more than enough for us.
    So, the way the scientists worked around it is by adding a piece of code which imitates curiosity.
    With this code in place, the A.I. no longer needed an indication to motivate it, the concept of being able to gain knowledge itself became its motivation.
    The first thing the A.I. did after being programmed like this, watching T.V., yep it just stopped playing the game and started watching T.V. (T.V. inside of the video game)
    It would refuse to even move from its spot as the T.V. was fulfilling it's curiosity.
    The scientists then had to re-programme it in a way, such that, it would still have curiosity but it would prioritize logic over curiosity.
    Note:- When the A.I. watched the video, the only input it gets it the video itself. It isn't supplied with info such as which button was pressed when to achieve something. It had to figure it out on its own.

    The reason why I am mentioning this is because, first of all, its very interesting, and second of all, it shows how even giving fake emotions can sometimes lead to unwanted things. If we consider the A.I.'s curiosity to be an emotion, we can also make the assumption that emotions are coded in the same way in humans like it has been done in A.I.'s.
    In both cases, emotions play a very important role and help facilitate logic faster, however it either needs some correction or we have to lose accuracy/efficiency.

    I guess soon enough the question will arise, 'Are emotion-based A.I. and humans same, if the only thing that makes human different from robots is the emotions that they have?'
    What a time to be alive!

    Source:-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjfDO2pWpys
  • Corvus
    963
    Emotions are private mental state, that is not directly accessible to the other beings. Emotions of others can only be construed by the behaviour or linguistic expressions. So whether it is AI robots, or human's, or even it were a piece of cheese, as long as their emotional responses are within the context of human emotional familiarity, it will be the same, I guess.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    263


    Would we leave the disabled that cannot work to die, or give them financial assistance? If the latter, what logical reason is there for doing so?
    — Down The Rabbit Hole

    Unfortunately, the cold harsh truth is that, they will have to die, if they cannot work.
    As this is the most logical choice.
    Before, you say that it is harsh and immoral, do not forget that the very reason humans are the apex species is because of this reality.
    The species that couldnt survive in a harsh world by evolving were simply lead to extinction, and those who survived by evolving flourished.
    The same logic and fate will follow such a world.
    Kinglord1090

    Well, I appreciate your honesty.

    Outside of your hypothetical post emotion world, if a referendum were held today, would you vote to stop all payments to the disabled that cannot work?

    If they resort to stealing, housing them in prison would be a waste of resources. Wouldn't execution be logical to preserve society's resources?

    It is our emotions that compel us to help humanity. Why would it be logical for us to help humanity as opposed to just our self in a post emotion world?
    — Down The Rabbit Hole

    This topic has already been discussed in this post, and thus, i will just post the few necessary points here.
    Feel free to peruse the entire thing, if you want to.

    Helping humanity leads to faster development.
    The more people can work in development the better.
    In a world void of emotions, development becomes an important factor for life.
    As a result, anything that can block development will be removed and anything that can help development will be appreciated.
    Kinglord1090

    We are only motivated to help ourselves and others by our emotions (given to us by evolution). There is no logical reason for us to do anything as an end in itself.
  • Book273
    511
    I would claim that emotions have always been over rated and have rarely been necessary. I will, however, grant that emotions do at times increase the enjoyment of things. As for necessary...not so much.
  • Book273
    511
    if a referendum were held today, would you vote to stop all payments to the disabled that cannot work?

    Yes.

    If they resort to stealing, housing them in prison would be a waste of resources. Wouldn't execution be logical to preserve society's resources?
    Down The Rabbit Hole

    If they are capable of stealing then they would also be capable of performing a level of work, therefore are not working by choice, ergo, execution would be an acceptable recourse.

    Death is a fairly strong motivator to engage in life. If one refuses to engage, knowing the result to be death, that, to me, is essentially suicide. Who am I to argue with that choice?
  • Bylaw
    89
    Science begs to differ.
    If we go to the root of all emotions and desires, we are not that different from robots.
    Kinglord1090
    Science doesn't beg to differ. Emotions play a huge role in what we do and how we experience. Determinism says nothing about emotions. If that's what you mean. Even if our emotions are determined, they still play a huge role in us.
  • Bylaw
    89
    If we look at evolution, we can easily see that emotions were never meant to be a part of organisms.Kinglord1090
    This is teleological. 'were never meant' attributes intention to evolution. It meant this, it didn't mean that are nonsensical talking about evolution.
  • Bylaw
    89
    However, saying science is ever-changing seems contradictory, as science believes there to be a single non-changing answer for everything.Kinglord1090
    Seriously, this is confused in a number of ways
    1) Science cannot believe. Scientists can.
    2) Please show that scientists believe there is a single non-changing answer for everything. IOW show us the relevvant research. In fact one the strengths of science is that it is open to revision. And has changed on specific issues and paradigmatically over time.
  • Down The Rabbit Hole
    263


    if a referendum were held today, would you vote to stop all payments to the disabled that cannot work?

    Yes.

    If they resort to stealing, housing them in prison would be a waste of resources. Wouldn't execution be logical to preserve society's resources?
    — Down The Rabbit Hole

    If they are capable of stealing then they would also be capable of performing a level of work, therefore are not working by choice, ergo, execution would be an acceptable recourse.

    Death is a fairly strong motivator to engage in life. If one refuses to engage, knowing the result to be death, that, to me, is essentially suicide. Who am I to argue with that choice?
    Book273

    Here in the UK the official rate of people claiming unemployment benefit is around 5%. The actual rate will be a lot higher as they are fiddling the figures.

    Unemployment benefit is for non-disabled people, as there is a separate benefit for those that have a limited capability for work, and those that are unable to work.

    How can the disabled people be expected to get a job if there are over 5% able-bodied that can't get work (not even counting those not claiming).

    You would be issuing those poor people a death sentence.
  • Joshs
    2k
    You made a very point point till the part you said that humans in such a world would still develop emotions.
    I have said this before in a different reply, but for this hypothetical to work, we have to assume that emotions never existed, and never will
    Kinglord1090

    I didn’t say that humans in such a world would still develop emotions. I said that according to this psychologist , to be motivated purely by logic, that is, by the need to understand the world, to predict events and avoid loss of understanding , is to behave in all the ways that you call emotion , even though the only
    motive is rationality. For instance, the characters Spock and Data on Star Trek are supposed to
    operate purely on the basis of logic, it notice how they actually behave. They strive for outcomes and are disappointed if they don’t achieve those outcomes. I would also a argue that they behave in ways that are similar to guilt, anger and anxiety. The only difference between the way they that approach the world and people with ‘emotion’ approach the world is that their attitudes and desires are displayed coolly , subtlety. You’ll never see an ‘outburst’ of rage or weeping from them, but you’ll see the same processes of thinking that lead to rage and weeping in people with emotion. Basically, they are typical people on tranquilizers. Or one could say they act the way that autistic people do , claiming they don’t understand emotional behavior. But what we know about autistics is that they have feelings. Their difficulty is that they cannot process complex social interactions In other words, their difficulties in processing rapidly changing complex social logic is the cause of their inability to understand ‘emotion’.

    This is why your dream world without emotion is merely a world of people on tranquilizers or a world of autistic people. It retains all of the changes in logical
    processing that we are used to calling ‘emotion’, the only difference being they would occur more slowly, subtly.

    Yes, I would argue that emotions as I see it is juice or energy.
    The reason for it is simple, thats how we have been told it is.99% of people who arent interested in philosophy would give this same answer if asked.
    Because thats what we have defined emotions to be.
    If we were to ignore this definition, and use the psychologist’s definition instead, then we would have never had this problem.
    Kinglord1090

    I think you’re wrong that we would never have had this problem. We would have just about all of the problems that we do have now, for the reasons I stated above.
    Let’s take guilt , for instance. You think it is a juice or energy?
    Let me ask you this. You and I agree that if the only thing that motivates a person is logic, they will still be motivated to form friendships and social bonds. They will still want and need people in their life because we learn from each other , and the world makes more sense when we share ideas with each other. In order to maintain. the closet possible bond with another person (I’m not talking about emotional ‘love’, but an intellectual bond based on rationality) , we need to know how they see us, what role we play in their lives, how they see us helping them to understand their world better. In other words, we need to know where we stand with them. If I know that they ‘like’ me , what I am knowing is that they find me intellectually valuable to them.
    So what happens when I meet someone new and discover that they are even more interesting than the person I had been bonding with previously? Will I feel an obligation toward that previous friendship? Or would I just continue to pursue my new bond and not concern my self with the previous one? You might think that if logic were my only motivation, I would simply not concern myself with the changed status of my previous relationship. But is this really true? What guarantees that I would understand fully why I found myself
    preferring the second bond over the first? What guarantees that I would not feel ambivalent and confused? I am not talking here of ambivalence and confusion as ‘emotions’ . I am talking about them as logical, rational assessments of my relationships. When one relies solely on logic and rationality, there are many situations that one encounters that don’t seem to fit the logic one tries to apply to them because they require learning , a modification of one’s scheme of understanding. Until one can successfully update one’s understanding, one wil experience confusion, ambivalence, ambiguity , uncertainty , chaos. Again, I’m not talking about ‘emotions’ but features of the limits of rational processing. So I could very well be rationally confused about my responsibilities toward my previous bond. One could say that I was rationally torn between the old and then new relationship. Should I tell my old friend about the new one? Would the old friend rationally understand or would their logic be insufficiently flexible to glimpse why I abandoned them for my new friend? How are all these thoughts different from the ‘fluid energy’ of guilt? Because logical confusion, ambivalence and ambiguity doesn’t involve a feeling of suffering? But doesn’t it involve an awareness of confusion and loss? Isn’t that a ‘logical’ suffering’?

    How does one deal rationally , logically with another person who hits me for no reason that I can see? It may be logical for me to assume or suspect that they knew better to attack me but they decided to do it anyway. Would it then be logical for me want to teach them a lesson, to make them mend their ways? What’s the difference between my desire to punish the other and the emotion of anger ? That anger is a fluid, an energy, and my ‘calm’ desire to punish the other is rational, logical ? But would a rationalperson act calmly if the other person is actively, immediately threatening them? Wouldnt it be logical to act aggressively, forcefully? Is this behavior still different from the emotion of anger? You would say yes, anger overcome sis and blinds us , but rational aggression and attack is logical.
    What if I find out later that the person who attacked me mistook me for some one else , or beloved that I was the one who has wrong ed them first, and they were simply trying to ‘rationally’ punish me?
    There could be an endless cycle of attack and counter attack, with each side believing that they were in the right. We could call this righteous anger , except that you would want to to eliminate the word ‘anger’ and substitute the term ‘logical indignation’, or ‘rational condemnation’.

    At any rate , it seem to me that just about all of the situations in this world that keep it from being peaceful consist of two parties both believing they are in the right , and desiring to punish the other party, to show them a lesson, to get themto mend their ways. And all this violence , it seems to me, stems from people attempting to think as rationally and logically as they can about why the other person or persons could possibly do what they did and think what they think. All of this without the need to bring ‘emotion’ into the picture.
    l
  • Bylaw
    89
    Would you rather -
    1) Live in a world with emotions, where people suffer and commit murder.
    2) Live in a world with eternal peace, but no way of being happy.
    My choice is clearly the second world.
    I dont want to see anyone suffer.
    Kinglord1090
    People will suffer pain in a world without emotions. Would you rather there is no one alive, which is the ony guarantee of no suffering, or one where people are alive?
    I find it odd that after millions of years of evolution which led to a brain with a variety of problem solving and motivational tools, or programs as you might call them, you think it is better if we have fewer, those based on emotion. This seems extremely irrational to me.

    Without the limbic system people have incredible trouble making decisions. IOW emotions are part of how we make decisions.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.