Are you including reason in your emotionalism? Or, where does reason come in?

I'm interested if anyone else arrived at this conclusion or whether it makes sense. — Wallows

Without emotions, there can only be behavior, not ethics. Technically of course one could generate some 'logical' set of behaviors, but it would either be random, or it would be grounded on emotions and what we would like things to be like. And what we would not like things to be like.

Doesn’t make sense to me because I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Are you including reason in your emotionalism? Or, where does reason come in? — tim wood

Well, yes. Reason under Hume's dictum is secondary to the emotions. It only serves as an instrumental faculty of our desires or wishes or passions.

Doesn’t make sense to me because I don’t understand what you’re saying. — I like sushi

Let me know what you're grappling with and I'll try and clarify.

Thanks.

Wallows — Wallows

I fully support your thoughts. Emotions are the neglected children of rationality. As an evolutionary, I believe that all that we are -- reason, emotion, desires, hates and dislikes, and / or the lack thereof, -- are all borne out of survival advantages.

As such, we must pay attention to all that we are, in order to find the human in ourselves.

Most historically very famous philosophers -- with the exception of a very few -- were suffering from autism. They were highly functional, but still, the basic driving force of a philosopher is the inability to see the world as a normal person, and therefore possessing a wish to make sense of it. Normal people don't care about philosophy because they lack the need to know, and that is so because they have a well-rounded world view with their own role in the general scheme of the cosmos well defined and smoothly, seamlessly integrated.

And as autists, most philosophers discount the value of emotions. To them (to us) that's where problems begin. If it can't be reasoned, then what's the use of something? Emotions-driven thought and actions are like smudged-out areas on a painting of reality for an autism sufferer: an area which he can't gain insight into even if he kills himself, and which he tries for the rest of his life to explain with reason, while at the same time rejecting its importance as it is not "reason".

Hume was the first and last of the great thinkers who saw this happening, and he responded in kind, and very aptly and smartly.

Well, it's strange that you phrase things this way, as if autism is the supreme reason what drives a philosopher. But, then again, I'm pretty sure Wittgenstein was a high functioning autist or had Aspergers along with an extraordinarily high IQ, which could be seen as some aid in his philosophical endeavors, which most philosophers are enjoying to this day.

Wallows
8.3k
Are you including reason in your emotionalism? Or, where does reason come in?
— tim wood

Well, yes. Reason under Hume's dictum is secondary to the emotions. It only serves as an instrumental faculty of our desires or wishes or passions. — Wallows

Some thinkers now believe that reason is yet another driving force, in and by itself. Reason is a need in humans, much like the feelings of love, hate, -- crap, I can' t name any other emotions. Some emotions manifest as needs, some others, as responses. (Examples: Needs: be loved. Responses: anger.) Reason and rationality also can present as both need and response.

Some thinkers now believe that reason is yet another driving force, in and by itself. — god must be atheist

Which ones? Are you thinking of Kant here or some other philosopher? It's my understanding that most philosophers nowadays are some cognitivists or neo-empiricists.

Well, it's strange that you phrase things this way, as if autism is the supreme reason what drives a philosopher. — Wallows

As an autist, I'm in two minds about this. :wink: No I'm not. I can see no direct contribution that autism makes to philosophy. We have some traits that could help, just as they could help in many other areas. But assigning autism to most philosophers does seem strange ... and wrong.

As an autist, I'm in two minds about this. :wink: No I'm not. I can see no direct contribution that autism makes to philosophy. We have some traits that could help, just as they could help in many other areas. But assigning autism to most philosophers does seem strange ... and wrong. — Pattern-chaser

I think, going along down this line of reasoning, that autism can be useful in some way to promoting the required fixation or focus that a philosopher needs to penetrate a deep issue that requires insight and intelligence. Though, that's about you can take this idea towards, the rest just sounds funny.

From the first word to the last. I cannot make head nor tail of what your point is, if there is a point, or why I should care?

I cannot even find something to guess at tbh. Maybe the problem is mine as others have responded, either way I may be able to add something if you rewrite the OP in a shorter and more succinct fashion (perhaps with a question or two posed?)

To be clear, you mention Hume and such but you assume I know what you’re referring to and that I agree (“I” the reader).

From the first word to the last. I cannot make head nor tail of what your point is, if there is a point, or why I should care?

I cannot even find something to guess at tbh. Maybe the problem is mine as others have responded, either way I may be able to add something if you rewrite the OP in a shorter and more succinct fashion (perhaps with a question or two posed?) — I like sushi

Ok, I'll make it easy for you. I've long been bothered, as a wanna-be Stoic by this quote by Hume:

Reason is the slave of the passions in the sense that practical reason alone cannot give rise to moral motivation; it is altogether dependent on pre-existing desires that furnish motivational force. — Hume, On Reason

The whole OP is just a *footnote to that quote. Do you agree with it, why or why not?

To I love sushi:

Think of it this way. We love love. We love food. We hate despotism. We love much money in the bank.

We desire, we hate, we repulse from, etc etc These are all needs that our emotions dictate to us, and there is no way we can avoid these emotion-driven needs.

But needs can't be fulfilled just by wishing and by wanting. You need action to fulfil those needs. If you are hungry, you must secure food. So you need your reason to help you figure out how to do that. If you want love, you must secure it; just wanting it will get you nowehre, you need your reason to create a path, a plan of action, that will get people to love you. etc.

Does this make more sense to you now?

It's a commonsensical approach in my view, to throw away the prejudice of ancient philosophers towards the emotions, along with many of the rationalists, and instead embrace one's emotions towards the ethical. — Wallows

I agree, with the caveat that one also embrace one's reason toward the ethical.

Morality is modelled by the human mind through the operation of ethical learning, ethical categorisation, ethical knowledge, ethical evaluation, conscience, introspection, and self-judgment. As such, it is an inherent part of a typical human being's nature and maturation, and has many subjective (personal) and intersubjective (cultural) manifestations.

Empathy is identification with, and the vicarious experience of, the thoughts and/or affect(n) of another person, which:

1) Describes moral events as those which satisfy fundamental human needs, and immoral events as those which do not satisfy fundamental human needs.

2) Is an ethical perception faculty (i.e., the sense of morality) which is inherent to human nature (except in the case of certain mental disorders) and entails ethical evaluation.

3) Has affective and/or cognitive components.
Rogers, Kimberley; Dziobek, Isabel; Hassenstab, Jason; Wolf, Oliver T.; Convit, Antonio. 2007. "Who Cares? Revisiting Empathy in Asperger Syndrome". J Autism Dev Discord 37 (4): 709–15. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0197-8. PMID 16906462.

I haven’t read much of Hume other than a few passing passages here and there and some comments on his work I’ve read in other philosophers work.

Taken at face value, what he says is quite obvious. Agree? Agree with what? What is there to agree or disagree with and why?

I can at least now guess you are looking at this as a black and white statement of reality rather than viewing the remark as being fully aware fo the nuances between (the grey areas). I think they call that ‘splitting hairs’?

Maybe I don’t see a huge issue here because I appreciate that all human action is emotive. We ‘feel’ something about every item of experience and if we didn’t we wouldn’t ‘experience’ at all.

I seem to recall that you point-blank refused to address my hypothetical line of moral questioning? If you didn’t understand the point of that, and still don’t, I can only suggest you readdress it. The kill a million and/or Trolley problem. If I remember correctly you were one of those that turned their back on those questions? - pretty sure I did a follow up explanation so maybe you did read my analysis of the hypothetical and its use (I’ll check later).

For the sake of clarity I do distinguish between ‘ethic’ and ‘moral’ in that morality is my way and ethical is that which humans understand as commonality - and here again there is an obvious no-man’s land where the skeptics dwell as bombs fall on their heads.

If you didn’t understand the point of that, and still don’t, I can only suggest you readdress it. The kill a million and/or Trolley problem. If I remember correctly you were one of those that turned their back on those questions? - pretty sure I did a follow up explanation so maybe you did read my analysis of the hypothetical and its use (I’ll check later). — I like sushi

My position towards the Trolley dilemma you proposed a couple of months ago (start one again as the turnover rate is pretty high here) was that no sane person would be able to decide such a problem. I actually responded to this question of a thread of my own. Have a look at it again if you wish to.

You appear to be saying obvious, and some dubious, things. What I am/(was?) missing is the question embedded in the OP.

Needs and wants cannot be known unless felt. The rational problem is one of measuring multiple values and prediction - the tempering of desires of the immediate and the retention of some will in case they fall short (language - spoken/written - has enabled us to intricate our temporal space).

Stoicism has so many different little sections I don’t quite know what to address regarding the OP as it sounds, more or less, like the original theme of hedonism (not what many people vie was “hedonism” in everyday speech!) - I’d call it the beginning of Stoicism; perhaps a ‘practical’ version?

I believe everything I have to say on this topic, in repsonse to this OP at least, is here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5768/ethics-morality-the-use-of-the-hypothetical

↪Wallows Doesn’t make sense to me because I don’t understand what you’re saying. — I like sushi

↪Wallows From the first word to the last. I cannot make head nor tail of what your point is, if there is a point, or why I should care? — I like sushi

You appear to be saying obvious, and some dubious, things. What I am/(was?) missing is the question embedded in the OP. — I like sushi

I am sorry, "I love sushi" but you trapped me. You said two different things in the three posts you made. In the first two instances you denied understanding anything the OP said. In the third instance, you specifically denied these two posts by your own self.

I can't abide with traps like that. I won't. One more such utterance or the like of it, and I'm putting you on Iggi.

You trapped me into explaining where I thought you needed help. Then you outright decried my help.

This is not nice. This, in fact, is intolerable.

I believe everything I have to say on this topic, in repsonse to this OP at least, is here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5768/ethics-morality-the-use-of-the-hypothetical — I like sushi

Hah! And you accuse me of black and white thinking. Good one. I'm not sure how to respond to that thread, as some impasse was reached in it.

Boo-fucking-hoo! If you imagine a trap so be it. If you get that self-righteous bear trap off your foot I imagine you’d think you’re an enable walker being equally crippled by both legs!

Why is it idiots forever imagine demons at their door?

Ok, I re-read that awesome thread again, and it seems to me that at the same time you're drawing out a distinction between the "moral" and "ethical", whilst also equating the two. Why is that so?

You seem to want to take everything said that you don’t agree with as a personal slight. I never ‘accused’ you.

Note: I was still asking if I understood the OP hence the “was?” ... the above poster missed this too. I also said “appears” ... it is quite likely I still have no idea what the OP is getting at and if it is waht I;ve mentioned I guess the ball is in your court.

Because we’re they both refer to ways to live life in an emotional context alongside necessities (I guess what we’d be calling here more evolutionary functions - sex, food, water etc.,.)

it is quite likely I still have no idea what the OP is getting at and if it is waht I;ve mentioned I guess the ball is in your court. — I like sushi

See my previous comment. I believe we can explore the issue further by the (normative?) distinction you are drawing between the "ethical" and "moral". I'm not quite sure where the scope between the two begins and ends in your line of thought.

Well, quoting from that thread you explicitly say:

Note: I very much prefer to differentiate between “ethic” and “moral” in this way. ‘Morality’ being much more skewed toward the individual’s attitude and the ‘ethical’ being much more skewed toward the societal attitude (both of which we’re only ever partially aware at any given time - stretched out in a ‘tension’ of ‘convictions’ that make emotional experience navigable. — I like sushi

It's my understanding that the difference between the two is not due to innate differences, given that we all experience emotions to some same degree, perhaps barring sociopaths or psychopaths; but, due to epistemic concerns. Again, I addressed this point in the thread referenced above. Or to put this another way, what is moral is governed by what is ethical and vice versa, in a loop so to speak.

I meant this in societal terms regarding what is deemed as ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ behavior. If you eat with your left hand in some countries they’d be shocked and maybe even shun you - it is ethical to shun you not moral. This is more clearly seen in law and order.

The ‘line’ is not really there. I make the distinction of poles on a spectrum. The ‘individual’ is only ever an ‘individual’ in a ‘community’ - necessarily the counter term must be understood in order for the other to come into nascent being.

Anyway, before I attempt to go further, I am interested in what you are saying. Am I in the ballpark or not? Is it correct that I take your “ethical” to mean my “moral” (regarding the OP)? If so then what kind of stoicism are you referring to? Is it something akin to the original idea of hedonism?

Anyway, before I attempt to go further, I am interested in what you are saying. Am I in the ballpark or not? — I like sushi

I think so. Before I posted this topic I was waffling over the idea as to whether to name the topic "Minimalism in Ethics" or the current title.

Is it correct that I take your “ethical” to mean my “moral” (regarding the OP)? — I like sushi

Well, I've always held the notion that the two are interrelated, even if I grew up in Japan and some other bloke grew up in Holland or the US.

If so then what kind of stoicism are you referring to? Is it something akin to the original idea of hedonism? — I like sushi

Well, I didn't mean to introduce any stipulative terms and meant Stoicism in the ordinary sense. I also see how one can conclude that this is akin to hedonism, yet, I don't think it is the right conclusion to be derived here. I don't think people are naturally inclined to be hedonists.

Ah, okay! So the problem is then knowing where and when to ‘turn the other cheek’ and simply remain inactive? I don’t buy that “inaction is action” argument when it comes to morality - that is precisely, in my denial of morality itself! See what I mean?