• Vera Mont
    2.9k
    A couple of things with these two related acts: 1) they are more than expression of emotion.Bylaw

    Contempt may be a compound emotion, but it is an emotion. Mockery and derision are expressions of that emotion. Only the most simple, primitive emotions can be expressed entirely by grimaces and gestures. The complex ones coupled with ideation, and humans tend to express those emotions in verbal language, as well as body language. When I say expression, I mean all available forms. If you feel contempt for somebody, you might only look down your nose at them, wave your hand dismissively, or roll your eyes at what they say - and yes, those gestures do communicate your feeling, and may very well hurt their feelings. But we usually also add words.
    None of this means the feeling itself isn't genuine, or negate the social injunction to keep your overt expressions of it in check - or suppress them altogether, when expressing them (to a cop, or your boss, or your kid's principal) may put something you value in jeopardy.
    Feelings, simple or complex, don't become less genuine when we have learned the self-disciple to express them appropriately.

    That holds true for all negative emotions. Toddlers are prone to tantrums, but by age four, we expect children to have learned not to express their frustration in that way. At least in public. By age 18, we really ought to have stopped throwing them at all. That's an opinion, not a rule.

    I think we have had these judgments so long it just seems true that these things must be suppressed.Bylaw

    Not "must". It's a social convention to regulate our communication of both thoughts and feeling. We used to call that good manners. They were invented to facilitate co-operative social behaviour.
  • Darkneos
    689
    this has nothing to do with the subject
  • Darkneos
    689
    Again I’m referring to the link about the social nature of emotions and how it’s talking about the being intrinsically social.
  • Vera Mont
    2.9k
    Social animals didn't stop being real [genuine; authentic; natural] animals when they became social.
  • boagie
    385


    Thanks, the style some have difficulty with, but one doesn't think in point form it rather flows; one can pick out the points of contention/discussion.
  • boagie
    385

    That which experiences is, in fact, anonymous simply the essence of life and what is that, life itself. The essence of life has no identity until it starts reacting to its environmental context. What is experienced is objects while what is, is energy. If you think what experiences is your identity you are mistaken. Structure and form determine experience, but essence is the same across the board, experiences differ across species/structure and form, essence is common to all life forms.
  • Alkis Piskas
    2.1k

    OK.
    So, based on your basic statement, "Our senses and understanding are fallible", I undestand that you believe that (sometimes) what we feel is not what we actually feel. That is, e.g., if I feel angry, it may be that what I feel is not actually anger but something else. It doesn't matter what that would be or how could it be called, but it is simply something else.
    Well, this is too theoretical for me and I can't see how this works in practice, i.e. I can't find any example. Maybe you do.
  • boagie
    385


    I am simply stating that the apparent reality that you perceive, your everyday reality, is energy and not a world of objects. All objects are in fact energy forms, they are only objects to biological consciousness which is only another energy form. Others in your world are energy forms as well, and their expressed emotions are energy expressions of negative or positive emotions. If these are directed at you, you sense them as life-supporting or life-negating, the same as you experience all other energy forms that you sense as objects in this way. Apparent reality is truer to your experience than it is to actual energetic reality.
  • Alkis Piskas
    2.1k
    OK. So, you don't have an example of a case that a feeling (emotion) is not genuine.
    Because this is what this topic is all about.
  • boagie
    385


    We believe we feel things but things are not the source energies are. Any emotion is genuine to the consciousness experiencing it, judgment, the understanding is fallible. Experience/emotions are true to the biology experiencing those emotions, even where they have no foundation, a phobia might be an excellent example; defined as irrational but just might be ill-understood, but the emotions are true to its biology.

    Just an added thought, all organisms are reactive organisms, emotions are reactions.
  • Alkis Piskas
    2.1k

    I asked for "an example of a case that a feeling (emotion) is not genuine".
    Anyway, it's OK.
  • boagie
    385


    You missed the point, there is no such creature. Emotions like any experience are true to the biology having them.
  • Alkis Piskas
    2.1k

    You simply don't make any sense, at least not to me.
    Anyway, this doesn't lead anywhere. I totally lost my interest. Sorry.
  • boagie
    385


    LOL!!! Live long and prosper!! What is it you looking for, someone lying to you about how they feel? Try this on, you feel things through the alterations things make to the constitution of your body, and this is feeling/sensing/experience/knowledge and meaning. There are but three basic emotions, pain, pleasure, and desire, all other emotions are compounds thereof.
  • Darkneos
    689
    I am simply stating that the apparent reality that you perceive, your everyday reality, is energy and not a world of objects. All objects are in fact energy forms, they are only objects to biological consciousness which is only another energy form. Others in your world are energy forms as well, and their expressed emotions are energy expressions of negative or positive emotions. If these are directed at you, you sense them as life-supporting or life-negating, the same as you experience all other energy forms that you sense as objects in this way. Apparent reality is truer to your experience than it is to actual energetic reality.boagie

    False, 100%. Reality is not energy and has been proven so.

    Also not relevant in the slightest.
  • boagie
    385


    Do tell me what matter is made of then.
  • boagie
    385


    You need to do a little catch-up on your science.
  • Darkneos
    689
    I think you're the one who needs to if you think it's all energy.

    That's so wrong I don't even know where to start. Let me guess, you got to the level of "Fields" and just assumed energy. Classic mistake.
  • boagie
    385


    E=M times the speed of light squared.
  • Darkneos
    689
    Shows me you don't understand that equation.
  • boagie
    385


    That is what these philosophy sites are about, enlighten me.
  • Darkneos
    689
    This is math and science not philosophy. It talks about the energy of a given object of mass, only an idiot would take that to mean everything is energy.
12345Next
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.