Emotions, values, science & nihilism.

Andrew4Handel

It seems to me that the scientific methodology only allows for certain statements to be true such as precise statements about what may actually be happening now or cautious predictions based on induction.

I can't see any other method for justifying any other claims other than relying on brute experience and intuition. Also science does not seem to favour teleological statements such as proposing goals for perceived behaviours .This to me leaves a lot of things we do unjustified and unexplained which I think is nihilistic.

For example say I want to know whether I should spend the day studying at the library or volunteering for a homelessness charity there is no right answer. I might have a subjective preference. Charity may be seen as morally preferable but more claims seem based on sentiment and seem to require teleology (i.e.ought's) to be compelling. I think emotions are probably the key motivator but I can't see a relationship between emotion and the truth.

For instance the speed of light can't be decided based on emotional response to the perceived answer so why would emotion be an accurate source for other judgements? Also some emotions seem appropriate like being sad when your dog Bouncer dies. But what makes this response appropriate? Intuitively it seems appropriate but what kind of relationship is that? People cry when a pet dies but don't cry when they know every day animals are being eaten alive and people are starving.

I am not saying there is no other source of truth than science but it is hard to set up an appropriate schema or set of relationships that could justify ought style claims. And with no teleological or ought claims everyday we are just acting arbitrarily or on faith.

P.S. I think most societal structures are unjustified fictions that seem to work but are also damaging and need challenging.

Andrew4Handel

I did not really want to make such a long post so I will summarise the basic point here.

How can we go beyond observations of what is the case to derive claims about what ought to be the case?

And I am interested in the validity of motivations other than the truth.

Terrapin Station

How can we go beyond observations of what is the case to derive claims about what ought to be the case? — Andrew4Handel

You can't. There are no facts about what ought to be the case. That is, there are no facts about that beyond how people feel about it, what various individuals feel ought to be the case.

The more important question to ask yourself is this: why would you be uncomfortable with the fact that there are no facts about what ought to be the case? It suggests an uncomfortableness with one's own feelings/emotions, with making decisions for oneself, with not simply being told what to do, and/or it suggests a need to always be right in the sense of factually correct, so that one never just has an opinion, but that one is always correct in that view.

Ergo sum

I think emotions are probably the key motivator but I can't see a relationship between emotion and the truth. — Andrew4Handel

Emotion is a state of feeling produced by a sensation. And sensation is the truth itself, because when we sense, we are able to feel the reality around us with the senses (our gifts) - smell a flower to know its truth. "Here" is literally the truth, and to inspect it just requires one to see, hear, smell...
Science is guided by rational thought, and reason denies the senses through logics, see Descartes's metaphysics which are at the core of the scientific principle. Science does not consider mind as a "sense" and our mind becomes thus our judger. But mind is a sense, and when science studies our reason, it is actually studying our mind, since reason is a tool used by it. They've been studying our ability to reason for a long time until they've realized it: they were not studying reality but our own consciousness.

Our physical life is filled with experiences that produce sensations - the death of a dog may be very painful. But pain is an emotion, it's not "there", only "reality" is there, and a dead dog is just what it is. Seeing the dog dead is the sensation, feeling pain is an emotion triggered by this experience. If one has never seen something bad, he may cry; if he's been seeing bad things every day, it may not strike him so much, because this is the purpose of experiences - to teach. That's why we exist to learn. Knowing this makes us aware that pain is our head and we're able to choose to feel it or not - each exprience is a gift.

Andrew4Handel

↪Terrapin Station

I don't see on what basis there is to act. Including a basis to know whether an action is right or wrong. I don't see valid grounds for creating societies.

It makes things meaningless, pointless and arbitrary.

Also I think societies are based on false objectivity or rather on principles that are taken for-granted without warrant.

However I think that sciences inability to deal with certain phenomena is a problem in terms of the type of knowledge we think we can have. Obviously there are a lot of things happening other than can be described by or reduced physics but there seems no arbiter or arbitrator like method of resolving disputes. So it is not just the case that there seem to be no "ought's" but that there seems to be no way of discerning certain truths that may exist.

Terrapin Station

I don't see on what basis there is to act. — Andrew4Handel

That's symptomatic of the psychological issues I brought up:

It suggests an uncomfortableness with one's own feelings/emotions, with making decisions for oneself, with not simply being told what to do, — Terrapin Station

Your basis for action is your feelings, your preferences, your desires/goals, etc.

Whether an action is right or wrong (or neutral for that matter) is about how you feel about that action. Does it feel like something you should do? Does it feel to you like something people should do in general--something they should do to you, too? Do you like the consequences of it? Would you like the consequences of it if we were to allow or encourage everyone to do it? Etc.

Andrew4Handel

↪Terrapin Station

I don't believe feelings are a source of truth nor my desires and preferences.

Imagine I enjoyed being selfish and causing pain or I was a nihilist (I am a bit). Or Imagine I desired to be immortal. I can't see why these feelings would be a valid guide of action unless I didn't mind being cruel and pursuing irrational goals.

If emotions or feelings are to guide us then I believe they should be appropriate and not arbitrary or an arbitrary relationship to external reality. But "external"£ facts don't seem to offer a grounds for appropriate feelings.

I think rationality or more specifically logic is a good source of guidance for appropriate actions in that you can challenge yours or someone else's beliefs on the grounds they are incoherent. In a way, that seems to be way philosophy doesn't seem to go anywhere because it can provide sophisticated deconstruction of arguments but not offer ought's or solutions to issues like morality and mind.

Evolutionary psychology comes closest to claiming "objectively" what motivations we should expect to have but they are deflationary accounts of motives. I have no idea what motivates other people. To me life advertises itself as undesirable and optimism is less based on facts than pessimism.

In away I see scientific discoveries like telling someone there is a fire in the building but no knowing where the escape exits are.

Andrew4Handel

↪Ergo sum

I agree that science is studying our minds/cognitions and senses. I think there is a false sense of objectivity that is damaging where we separate ourselves from the world and exploit it as opposed to integrating ourselves into reality, so we end up feeling alienated.

But unfortunately it seems that viewing reality as objects seems to be more effective than a psychological analysis. I suppose the arts are the way we explore our mind in relation to the world. However it seems that there are truths "out there" that we find through induction and that we should therefore seek the truth if it is available whilst not neglecting the realities produced by the arts.

I find life frightening because it seems irrational. I feel that to be more rational is to see other peoples behaviours as produced more by emotion than reason. I don't know if societies are fundamentally dysfunctional or whether I should be more resilient.

I see the arts as exploring reality in a free and it seems quite healthy way but I see life as being lived on false beliefs not the product of either logic and rationality or an appropriate utilisation of emotions.

Terrapin Station

I don't believe feelings are a source of truth nor my desires and preferences. — Andrew4Handel

Right. As I noted above, this is an issue where truth value is a moot point. That's a category error for moral issues.

Imagine I enjoyed being selfish and causing pain or I was a nihilist (I am a bit). Or Imagine I desired to be immortal. I can't see why these feelings would be a valid guide of action unless I didn't mind being cruel and pursuing irrational goals. — Andrew4Handel

"Desire being immortal" isn't an ethical issue, but we could broaden the discussion.

If you desire to be selfish and cause severe pain and you feel that's permissible, then that would obviously be a motivator for actions, tempered only by an assessment of any risks you might be taking relative to both legislation and social censure. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

On the other hand, if you desire to be selfish and cause severe pain, but you do not feel that it's permissible, then that would tell you how to act, right? Again, this is pretty obvious.

You're using your feelings, desires, preferences, etc. to guide action. There's no truth or falsehood involved, because that's a category error for this realm.

If emotions or feelings are to guide us then I believe they should be appropriate and not arbitrary or an arbitrary relationship to external reality. But "external"£ facts don't seem to offer a grounds for appropriate feelings. — Andrew4Handel

Right, because there are no external moral or normative facts. There are no external facts about what's appropriate beyond what some population considers appropriate. That doesn't mean that any of this is arbitrary (unless by "arbitrary" you're not hinting at the "random" connotation but you're just saying that tautologously, we're talking about something where there are no external facts).

Again, what you need to explore, that you seem to be avoiding, is why you feel a need for there to be external facts about this stuff.

I think rationality or more specifically logic is a good source of guidance for appropriate actions in that you can challenge yours or someone else's beliefs on the grounds they are incoherent. — Andrew4Handel

Rationality and logic can help once someone has uttered core moral stances they hold and they're building other plans for action etc. upon those core moral stances, but they can't help for the core moral stances, and again, let's look at why you need to approach the issue that way, why you're not simply comfortable with people having the preferences and feelings that they do.

Evolutionary psychology comes closest to claiming "objectively" what motivations we should expect to have — Andrew4Handel

It doesn't come any closer than any other set of objective facts--namely, it doesn't even get started.

Ergo sum

I agree that science is studying our minds/cognitions and senses. I think there is a false sense of objectivity that is damaging where we separate ourselves from the world and exploit it as opposed to integrating ourselves into reality, so we end up feeling alienated. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, I see there's this possibility, because Cartesianism separates body/mind.

However it seems that there are truths "out there" that we find through induction and that we should therefore seek the truth if it is available whilst not neglecting the realities produced by the arts. — Andrew4Handel

Science helps us to find the truth, but, to find it in fact, we need to allow ourselves and go further science itself: because science is the map, but not the way. Science studies our mind through "reasoning" (Cartesianism). But this is one sensation being explored. There are other senses we need to access, but we can't access them through reason and - since reason is our source of knowledge - we feel this is not something "true". We're living in a very specific circumstance (state) provided by our senses, mostly by the mind by reasoning, and we see our reality through this optics without realizing it. All this I said is illustrated by Plato's Myth of the Cave.

Cavacava

↪Andrew4Handel

For example say I want to know whether I should spend the day studying at the library or volunteering for a homelessness charity there is no right answer. I might have a subjective preference. Charity may be seen as morally preferable but more claims seem based on sentiment and seem to require teleology (i.e.ought's) to be compelling. I think emotions are probably the key motivator but I can't see a relationship between emotion and the truth.

I think there are different aspects to 'truth', where scientific 'truth' is one aspect, another is logical, another moral. It may be pragmatically right to study in the library, especially if you want to achieve excellent grades; at the same time it may good to be charitable. What can be described as the pragmatic right course of action may not necessarily be the morally good course of action.

While science rules out teleology, it is comprised of its own normative rules which are pragmatically useful if we wish to achieve certain results. I think somewhat of the same ground holds for human behavior. We act based on normative accepted rules, which we can either accept or deny. The laws (written & unwritten) of the society where one lives provide the basis for most normative judgments about what is right or wrong. These laws, similar to scientific laws, are neither good nor bad, but in either case there are undeniable consequences for denying either type of law. Reason and desire are inexorably enmeshed in all our actions and while desire may rule reason to find pragmatic courses of action to achieve its object, the decision as to which action is the most pragmatic is a rational decision.

I think moral laws involve what constitutes a good action not just for an individual but for an individual as part of the human race, i.e., as if it were a necessary action everyone ought to do given the same set of circumstances.

BC

For example say I want to know whether I should spend the day studying at the library or volunteering for a homelessness charity there is no right answer. — Andrew4Handel

It is not necessarily the case that "there is no right answer". In fact, you have most likely confronted such choices a number of times and have decided, each time, what is the right answer for you to do.

So what should you do?

You will take several factors into account: Can you afford to skip studying a whole day? If you don't study and get a low grade on the final exam, what will the consequences be? Volunteering at the homeless shelter is good and important, but it will need volunteers in two weeks (after finals are over) as much as it needs volunteers today. And there are other factors that you might examine.

What is the most important thing for you to do? You are a student, it's costing a lot of money for you to be in school, shouldn't you do your best to succeed? You are a good person, the homeless are suffering, and shouldn't you help them?

Let's say you decided to study in the library. That would be a good thing to do. It will help you fulfill the expectations of your parents who are paying for your education. You sign up to volunteer at the homeless shelter later.

Conversely you might decide to spend the day at the shelter. That would be a good thing to do. It will hep you fulfill the expectations of your parents who want you to be a good person.

The two choices seem to be finely balanced. Both are good, but with consequences that are not entirely clear. This may be as close to the truth as you are going to get. What you will do depends on what your personal priorities are.

If you are sensible, you will make your decision to conform to your highest priorities.

Noble Dust

There are no facts about what ought to be the case.

The more important question to ask yourself is this: — Terrapin Station

Why is it important if there are no facts about oughts?

Terrapin Station

Why is it important if there are no facts about oughts? — Noble Dust

Well, for one if you want to have an accurate ontology. But the more important question was what followed that colon.

Noble Dust

↪Terrapin Station

What I'm saying is that something being important seems to suggest an "ought".

Terrapin Station

↪Noble Dust

An objective ought I'm taking it you mean. But even with subjective oughts, I don't know why it would suggest that to you. You'd have to explain that.

Noble Dust

↪Terrapin Station

If you tell me something is important, is that subjective or objective?

Terrapin Station

↪Noble Dust

It's subjective that it's important (obviously)

Andrew4Handel

↪Bitter Crank

If I had to weigh up the implications of every action I would not have time to act. The problem of action is Like that of Buridan's ass there are lot's of equally valid options and if not equal an array of questions to be posed about each actions.

But what I am saying is that there is no way of knowing if what I am doing is right or appropriate.I think one's own desires are irrelevant. We can easily tell our self that what we are doing is appropriate without anyone to counter our internal narrative.

I think there is a very serious problem that is not as trivial as people are trying to frame it. We are not talking about me deciding what I want to have for Breakfast. We are talking about big decisions and widespread life altering philosophies.

It is one thing for me to make emotion driven small actions to amble through life and another thing to have no justification for the structures of society. And for example I want to be able to say that the murder of millions of people in The Holocaust was absolutely wrong and that we should never do such a thing again.

I am an antinatalist and not only do I think societal structures and common beliefs are highly dubious I think the least justified action is having children. I also think facts have ramifications. Whilst I don't believe external facts can lead to ought's I think they do cast doubts on widespread beliefs.

So for example say people did not believe the Titanic was sinking but the factual evidence was that it was sinking then their false beliefs could be altered by facts. That does not mean knowing the Titanic sinking means that you "ought" to try and save your life. So their are facts that make peoples beliefs false and hence they are motivated by false beliefs. I think it is one thing to not have clear ought's and to be pragmatic and another to act on false dogmas.

Andrew4Handel

↪Terrapin Station

I am not concerned with morality here. Morality happens to be the realm where people most desire ought's. In fact I am sure you will find that most people believe that there are clear rights and wrongs. I am very confident in making moral judgements without needing dogmas and am close to being a moral nihilist.

I am concerned here with going from any fact to any ought's not just moral ought's but including any claim such as "This is how best to run a school" or "Children should have an education"

I don't like your attempts to psychologize me. It seems like ad hominem.
The problem I have is that societies are not built on facts. I would have little problem if every society was sceptical and pragmatic and cautious. The problem is being a values skeptic in a relentless world which has little fundamental reflection.
Now I don't think there is anything wrong or inappropriate with anyone being depressed about life and demotivated. You haven't justified your apparent implication that I should be happy with (a pointless) existence

I don't support evolutionary psychology however it offers a reasonable paradigm to explain peoples behaviour in combination with Freud. Peoples evolved biases can work as defence mechanisms in service of continued reproduction. So people would benefit from not examining the truth to closely and maintaining positivity leading to breeding . Hence depressive realism. I see optimism bias and Just world fallacy all over the place. However what I don't understand is why I have not ever succumbed to these things. I have always felt somewhat alienated from other peoples beliefs and values. I think E.P. is to deterministic.

Andrew4Handel

I cannot imagine a morality that was not based on emotion. That is to say I can't imagine someone either being unaffected by someone being tortured or someone having a positive response when someone is tortured and reaching a valid moral opinion.

Most of my moral evaluations are accompanied by negative emotions.

But if it is simply emotions guiding my actions there seems little room for truth.

BC

If I had to weigh up the implications of every action I would not have time to act. The problem of action is Like that of Buridan's ass there are lot's of equally valid options and if not equal an array of questions to be posed about each actions. — Andrew4Handel

Of course, if you had to work out all the implications on paper before you did anything, you wouldn't have time. You would, like Buridan's ass, starve to death trying to decide which bale of hay to eat first.

Fortunately, we don't have to work everything out on paper. Our reasoning can work through a decision, talking into account responsibilities, recent and more distant experiences, and other factors, in just a few seconds. That doesn't mean you will always do what is best, but you will make a decision and you won't starve to death between two bales of hay,

Let's say it is cold, windy and sleeting, and I am walking in the storm. A car pulls up by the sidewalk and somebody says "get in". I might get in, and I will try to weigh the risk before I do. It doesn't take long to analyze the situation, at least to make a gestalt assessment--just a few seconds. On the other hand, if it was a nice afternoon and a car pulled up and somebody said "get in" I almost certainly would not. Why? Nice people don't offer rides in nice weather.

Wayfarer

It seems to me that the scientific methodology only allows for certain statements to be true such as precise statements about what may actually be happening now or cautious predictions based on induction. — Andrew4Handel

Specifically, problems that are amenable to quantitative analysis.

Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.

Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. It includes both in a particular way. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations. Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical. Hans Reichenbach summarizes the connection: “Observation informs us about the past and the present, reason foretells the future.” — E R Doherty

The problem I have is that societies are not built on facts — Andrew4Handel

Indeed not. The attempt to reduce everything to quantifiable questions is broadly speaking what 'positivism' means.

I think most societal structures are unjustified fictions that seem to work but are also damaging and need challenging. — Andrew4Handel

Nearly all of them are actively being dissolved by the 'creative destruction' of capitalism and globalisation, by neo-liberalism and scientific materialism.

I think what is needed is a moral code - something which is easy to say, but hard to specify.

Noble Dust

I think what is needed is a moral code — Wayfarer

Ah, the moral code! So evanescent, in our experience. The problem with this whole philosophy distraction is the lack of a pragmatic ethics. O philosoph's, what should I do when my neighbor is in need? Pray, tell, what I should do when my neighbor is a murderer? What's the best course of action when my neighbor desires to take her own life? What's the wisest philosophical decision to make when my neighbor deems it his own subjective right to take the life of his own neighbor?

Wayfarer

↪Noble Dust

what should I do when my neighbor is in need? [Help out] Pray, tell, what I should do when my neighbor is a murderer? [Call the police] What's the best course of action when my neighbor desires to take her own life? [Try and reason with her and contact counselling services.] What's the wisest philosophical decision to make when my neighbor deems it his own subjective right to take the life of his own neighbour? [Call the police]

Terrapin Station

I am concerned here with going from any fact to any ought's not just moral — Andrew4Handel

Okay, but there's no way to oversome the is-ought problem. Objective facts simply do not imply any (foundational) oughts.

I'm not even sure at this point, though, just what you're trying to do in this thread. Just what are you asking, or proposing, or wondering about?

Andrew4Handel

↪Bitter Crank

Fortunately, we don't have to work everything out on paper. Our reasoning can work through a decision, talking into account responsibilities, recent and more distant experiences, and other factors, in just a few seconds

I think your scenarios are too benign and based on limited scenarios. You seem to be making assumptions about your imagined person that aren't warranted. As if their motives are common place. I think common place actions or decisions don't require great thought. Something like choosing a career or planning to marry someone would have more life changing consequences, but there are numerous decisions to make and values to form some of which you have weeks to think about. But I don't think any calculation can validate an action. You will simply be acting on subjective preference.

Sam Harris tried to found "ought's" in statements like If You have a headache you ought to take a pain killer". However it is rather the case that if you want to end a headache you ought to take a painkiller. There are best ways to achieve things if you have a preference to do X.

How ever this leads to absurdities such as "If you want to kill lots of people you ought to buy a rifle" You can't assume that the person making a decision has the same worldview and desires as you.

Personally I am highly demotivated so I am making decisions from a place of nihilism. If I was highly motivated then my preexisting preferences would probably be sufficient to arbitrate in decisions. I actually think that the more you honestly question things the less justification you find. For instance a religious fanatic can find decision making easy because of absolutist beliefs but the more skeptical you are the less justification for action you see.

Andrew4Handel

↪Terrapin Station

I am concerned about justification for action and values. I am highly demotivated and also I need to have a good reason to act. On one hand life seems futile which makes action pointless. (I think existentialist philosophers reached this point and contemplated suicide or incorporated into their worldview.) And on the other hand there seems to be no way to justify an action based on there being no right way to act partly because there is supposed to be no teleology (the evolutionary claim) and partly because there is no arbiter or methodology of validating actions.

The brute problem is what should I do next? And what is my reason or justification?

Richard Dawkins described us as "Giant lumbering Robots" governed by our genes. On that Evolutionary ideology what ever justification we give an action essentially we are just promoting the survival of our genes. So for example you might try and make a better world but that won't benefit you but just similar genes to yours. What ever you do that is deemed "positive" is likely to be positive only for the mindless survival of genes similar to yours.

If this theory was true I think it is a negative discovery that undermines our motivations. If we are not simply here to help similar genes to ours survive then what else are we here for?

If there is some other metaphysical reason for our existence (which I don't rule out) no one has found it. Hence we can either be brute determinist reductionist or stuck in a nihilistic position of not having adequate knowledge about our plight.

Wayfarer

If we are not simply here to help similar genes to ours survive then what else are we here for? — Andrew4Handel

Something that evolutionary biology has no conception of?

TimeLine

For instance the speed of light can't be decided based on emotional response to the perceived answer so why would emotion be an accurate source for other judgements? Also some emotions seem appropriate like being sad when your dog Bouncer dies. But what makes this response appropriate? Intuitively it seems appropriate but what kind of relationship is that? People cry when a pet dies but don't cry when they know every day animals are being eaten alive and people are starving.

I am not saying there is no other source of truth than science but it is hard to set up an appropriate schema or set of relationships that could justify ought style claims. And with no teleological or ought claims everyday we are just acting arbitrarily or on faith.

P.S. I think most societal structures are unjustified fictions that seem to work but are also damaging and need challenging. — Andrew4Handel

I am not sure about unjustified fictions, but if we take Anderson' view of imagined communities, it is clear that our idea of society or concepts like 'nationalism' and our relationships with others in a communal environment can quite easily be imagined; that is, society is merely a created construct held together by the imagined idea that they are united. While such relations are unauthentic, it does not necessarily make it unreal since what people believe can quite clearly be applied in the physical or material world; Foucault' concept of power is an example of how these imagined relations can be result in a highly productive environment, vital for capitalism for instance. There appears to be a counter-dependency between imagination and emotion, and I believe we can quite clearly assume that an imagined community is derived by our emotions. There may actually can be a science behind the emotions, perhaps the very fibre of our identity is held together by our emotions. But what would we be without it? Emotions can also compel us to feel bad or guilt, feel sad when we see hurt and thus propagate the seeds for moral understanding.

I think the concept of the Golden Mean exemplifies the right balance between imagination and emotion vis-a-vis reason and perception, the scientific being too cold and calculable without the right balance of emotions; this balance is the way towards the rational and authentic.

Terrapin Station

I am concerned about justification for action and values. I am highly demotivated and also I need to have a good reason to act. On one hand life seems futile which makes action pointless. (I think existentialist philosophers reached this point and contemplated suicide or incorporated into their worldview.) And on the other hand there seems to be no way to justify an action based on there being no right way to act partly because there is supposed to be no teleology (the evolutionary claim) and partly because there is no arbiter or methodology of validating actions.

The brute problem is what should I do next? And what is my reason or justification? — Andrew4Handel

Do you not feel like doing anything? Do you have no interests, desires, etc.?

Emotions, values, science & nihilism.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions