The Spleen and Philosophy

BC

The limbic system and Philosophy

It seems to me that mood (emotion) has a lot more sway over our minds than we would like to admit. Further, we don’t get to choose what sort of mood stability we will have, or how lost we will get in aberrant delusional thinking.

The limbic system is the seat of our moods. Thinking isn’t an issue at the opposite intensities of mood—slightly ‘off’ up at one end, extremely agitated at the other end. Our rational minds, located up here behind our foreheads, can navigate with light breezes of nervousness, blues, minor obsessions, and so forth. The hurricanes of mania, psychosis, schizoid states, and catatonic depression are not a problem either, because nobody is expected to think well—or think at all—while in such states.

Mood becomes a problem in-between the extremes, when sturdier turmoils, fears, anxieties, elations, and so on are a bit more than a light breeze, when they are strong enough to blow our rational ship slightly off our the course we thought we intended.

There are ideas that make rational sense but are too emotionally upsetting to be entertained. Or, there are ideas that are incompatible with the long term effect of our emotions on our habits of minds. For instance, the person who is a risk taker (experiences much more excitement than fear when facing a risk) will think differently about sexual adventures (and their ethical implications) than the person who is a risk avoider (experiences only fear when at risk). Persons who are easily incited to wrath are likely to be more punitively moralistic than those who become heated only slowly and slightly.

Whether the future looks bright and interesting or bleak and dull—and what we should then do about it—is determined by emotions over which we do not have much control. For instance, the inextinguishably cheerful, happy person will probably not settle on anti-natalism as their philosophical stance. They may see the point of the antinatalist, but life seems to them too good to deny.

As Freud said, “we are not masters of our own houses” and that includes what we think.

wuliheron

Recent studies of the brain have shown that, contrary to long held belief, the immune system is central to the functioning of the brain and appears to largely determine how social we might become. Its a rather odd revelation, but makes sense when considering just how at the mercy our bodies are to infections and, when it comes to animals, the idea that their conscious minds might know what's best for them in this regard is laughable.

Wosret

Yeah, my brains always yapping. I prefer music.

Cavacava

↪Bitter Crank

I don't think of limbic system when I think of the spleen. Shakespeare's Brutus comes to mind

You shall digest the venom of your spleen,
Though it do split you.

or Baudelaire 's flower 'Spleen the Ideal'.

We are full of contradictions, body & soul, the deeper the ugliness of humanity the greater the heights of beauty it can ascend. There are no saints, no devils, just men searching for their mothers.

BC

↪Cavacava

I would have come up with something better than the spleen, except at the time my mind was being buffeted by unhelpful breezes and subversive currents.

_db

↪Bitter Crank

I agree, emotion (or passion) is a crucial aspect of inquiry. We wouldn't inquire if we weren't at least curious, after all.

Furthermore, many philosophical positions are directly related to emotions. Something tells me existentialism wouldn't have taken off if we didn't have some need for ego-validation, or if we didn't feel fear or pain or even pleasure. It just wouldn't matter. In fact I doubt any inquiry of any kind would have taken off had we not needed something. Science in particular seems to manifest as practical knowledge, philosophy therapeutic. But both stem from some degree of curiosity. And of course we can't have this strict demarcation either.

There are ideas that make rational sense but are too emotionally upsetting to be entertained. — Bitter Crank

"But one thing is the thought, another thing is the deed, and another thing is the idea of the deed. The wheel of causality does not roll between them" - Nietzsche.

Whether the future looks bright and interesting or bleak and dull—and what we should then do about it—is determined by emotions over which we do not have much control. For instance, the inextinguishably cheerful, happy person will probably not settle on anti-natalism as their philosophical stance. They may see the point of the antinatalist, but life seems to them too good to deny.

As Freud said, “we are not masters of our own houses” and that includes what we think. — Bitter Crank

Honestly this is why I think trying to convince other people of certain positions can be an exercise in futility. Like attempting to convince a creationist of evolutionary theory. It just ain't gonna happen. People quite literally see the world in different incompatible ways (again, Nietzsche).

Agustino

↪Bitter Crank

This seems to be true for most - but it is indeed possible for reason to rise above these otherwise personal limitations. I've been quite a risk taker generally I'd say - but today at least, I wouldn't even think of having a sexual adventure. But on the other hand, I did think, and I am in fact now working for myself - leaving your job and going out on your own is quite a significant risk. So it's not certainly true that one who feels excitement out of taking risks will think sexual adventures are moral. It's one thing to take risks, and another to undermine yourself. Sexual adventures are forms of undermining yourself - not taking risks. There has to be a potential reward which outweighs the costs for there to be a question of risks.

So it is very possible for someone to be a risk taker - even a big risk taker, and at the same time for example be very sexually conservative. This is just because what makes the judgement between what is a risk and what isn't a risk aren't the emotions, but reason. I judge that there is no reward in promiscuous sex, while I judge that there is a potential reward if you succeed in independent work. And I might add that this has nothing to do with feeling fear or not. I could feel a lot of fear about something and still do it - so long as I rationally perceive this to be warranted.

But I agree with you that most people function on auto-pilot. If they feel fear, they will not do it. If they feel positive emotions, they will do it. But that's not the only level possible. But it is precisely because they, the masses, behave in such a manner that the whip and the carrot are the instruments of successful government.

The Spleen and Philosophy

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions