Emotions and Passions

[Husar]

The consequential reasoning is false.

Explanation:
Statement: They are not necessarily illogical. Concluding reason: So fear leads to a completely logical action.

Being and leading to are not the same.

I thought you'd say that, but what is logical then?
I can see how decisions are logical or illogical, but thinking about emotions being logical in themselves, err, how does that work? Doesn't the concept of logic require some outcome or result to judge whether something is logical or not?

I know I may have a completely wrong concept here, but in that case, maybe you can make sure I don't die as dumb as I am.

Or maybe just tell me what if emotions were logical? What would they be like?

[Yun Dog]

Emotions and passions are like a form of insanity. True?

show me one person that fits the definition of normal

look at us sitting here having our little rants on an internet forum, to some cultures this would be regarded as insane

observe someone picking up their animals deficcation

observe people living their lives to appease an imaginary deity

in reality we are all insane - it is the socially unacceptable forms of normal we lock away

[Rodion Romanovich]

Normal emotions that aren't subconciously/deliberately manipulated to get stronger/more extreme/insane aren't like insanity at all. On the contrary, they are intended to serve as a guideline for actions. All people, no matter how rational they claim to be, set up their high level strategic goals by emotions - only their low level goals are controlled by reasoning. As long as emotions are used this way, they are excellent and often more rational for long term decision making than the reasoning and thought capacity of most human beings.

Suppressing all emotions completely could be counted as insanity. So could manipulation of/strengthening of emotions be. Normal emotions are however not IMO insanity. One fun thing is that most people who have normal emotions seem to think they're suppressing their emotions, while in fact they're not affecting them much at all. More often, it's the people who think they have natural emotions that are strengthening their emotions. That's at least my experience.

[naut]

Bijo, I enjoy your scientific mind. I can imagine that you were very good at Science and Maths at school. I can also imagine that English would have been one of your weaker/weakest subjects. (Just a guess).

Emotion and passion is entirely human. Humans are not naturally rational, we are bred to be that way through institutions, which in the Modern world are school, university and the people we label our parents. As babies we over-react, we cry, we wail and we laugh; we all do. So as we develop we get a conceptualisation of a social norm, and we are told what is rational/irrational, logical/illogical and emotional/rational. We get taught that to be emotional is the binary opposite of all that is logical, that we progress as humankind (females and males, none of this sexist "mankind" dogma) through the logic of science. But, what is progression, tell me? How do you even define it, is it a set of steps to form a conclusion, or a grouping of feeling that eventuates and then ends in death. I know that you, Bijo would argue the former. Yet, I would digress to say that the first would hold no meaning if there was no society or grouping, in which emotion was regarded and expressed. For without humanity would there be our understanding of science?

Another thing to mention is that everyone has a different "reality", even though we live in the same world, one person will never view events and happenings exactly the same as someone else will. For example, take a crime scene, the police will interview witnesses. Say they interview 10 individuals and they all saw the same thing, they will have a different perspective, attitude and all will focus on something different. One may notice the eye colour of the felon, another will miss it entirely and mention the clothing etcetera. In that way insanity can also be subjective, as even though one's experience may be different and considered "insane" by another, it doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it their own and entirely subjective not objective.

So to identify insanity you need objective bounds, and to label emotion and passion as insane they need to entirely meet these bounds. However, emotion is so diverse and varied I doubt that all emotion would fall under these objective bounds.

My apologies, for I respectfully decline the quoted addition. Reason: the words in my book are used.

All living is opinion. The mind works on contrasts, so to evaluate something you contrast it and then come to your own conclusions. So whose to say that anything is correct or wrong. Nobody, because it is all subjective. Therefore I value opinion, because it allows me to contrast and evaluate, and therefore synthesis my own response. And nobody can speak for all humanity because everyone has a different view, perspective, value, experience and reception. So when making a claim it is only just to state it is your opinion, because it is just that, your opinion and nothing more and no-one else's.

[Bijo]

Explain how, please. From what I can see, it is perfectly relevant, and please observe my arguments below as per why "insanity" does not exist.

(1) false for insanity exists;
(2) irrelevant for it's not the question in question

[Bijo]

Do we have anything else?Opinions and opinions supported by several other opinions. Or are you claiming that you have the absulute truth on your grasp?

We have logic, reason, rationality, etc. I merely apply them and train myself herein.

[Bijo]

I thought you'd say that, but what is logical then?
I can see how decisions are logical or illogical, but thinking about emotions being logical in themselves, err, how does that work? Doesn't the concept of logic require some outcome or result to judge whether something is logical or not?

I know I may have a completely wrong concept here, but in that case, maybe you can make sure I don't die as dumb as I am.

Or maybe just tell me what if emotions were logical? What would they be like?

They don't work like that: emotions are illogical activities themselves.

[Bijo]

show me one person that fits the definition of normal

look at us sitting here having our little rants on an internet forum, to some cultures this would be regarded as insane

observe someone picking up their animals deficcation

observe people living their lives to appease an imaginary deity

in reality we are all insane - it is the socially unacceptable forms of normal we lock away

An enjoyable display truly. However, you have then pobably excluded the fact I mentioned long before that my statement is also to be taken poetically.

[Bijo]

Normal emotions that aren't subconciously/deliberately manipulated to get stronger/more extreme/insane aren't like insanity at all. On the contrary, they are intended to serve as a guideline for actions. All people, no matter how rational they claim to be, set up their high level strategic goals by emotions - only their low level goals are controlled by reasoning. As long as emotions are used this way, they are excellent and often more rational for long term decision making than the reasoning and thought capacity of most human beings.

The bolded part I question severely. Is it truly emotion? It is more desire and most likely desired emotions are results they seek.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The bolded part I question severely. Is it truly emotion? It is more desire and most likely desired emotions are results they seek.

Say something you did today you think wasn't done in order to achieve a goal set up by your emotions, and I'm pretty sure I can find an emotion to trace it back to.

[Bijo]

Bijo, I enjoy your scientific mind. I can imagine that you were very good at Science and Maths at school. I can also imagine that English would have been one of your weaker/weakest subjects. (Just a guess).

I rejoice reading one who enjoys my activity. It contribute it with satisfaction and I say this not only to you but to any other Org member interested.

If you wish to know: I excelled in math, music, art, languages, and other things (that were not necessarily taught subjects there (which is regrettable)).

Emotion and passion is entirely human. Humans are not naturally rational, we are bred to be that way through institutions, which in the Modern world are school, university and the people we label our parents. As babies we over-react, we cry, we wail and we laugh; we all do. So as we develop we get a conceptualisation of a social norm, and we are told what is rational/irrational, logical/illogical and emotional/rational. We get taught that to be emotional is the binary opposite of all that is logical, that we progress as humankind (females and males, none of this sexist "mankind" dogma) through the logic of science.

Emotions and passions are indeed human -- more largely taken, universalities (of nature).
Regarding institutions (besides parents): you are saying schools teach us to be irrational. True?

But, what is progression, tell me? How do you even define it, is it a set of steps to form a conclusion, or a grouping of feeling that eventuates and then ends in death. I know that you, Bijo would argue the former. Yet, I would digress to say that the first would hold no meaning if there was no society or grouping, in which emotion was regarded and expressed. For without humanity would there be our understanding of science?

I would not argue here; I would communicate the following: progression is the act of progressing and -- observing the topic's purpose -- this question is irrelevant. However I do enjoy it.

Regarding the second part: I have already stated that emotions, passions, add to one's understanding where reason is the thing that allows clarity on the higher level.

Another thing to mention is that everyone has a different "reality", even though we live in the same world, one person will never view events and happenings exactly the same as someone else will. For example, take a crime scene, the police will interview witnesses. Say they interview 10 individuals and they all saw the same thing, they will have a different perspective, attitude and all will focus on something different. One may notice the eye colour of the felon, another will miss it entirely and mention the clothing etcetera. In that way insanity can also be subjective, as even though one's experience may be different and considered "insane" by another, it doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it their own and entirely subjective not objective.

Their "different realities" are irrelevant. We should indeed be objective.

So to identify insanity you need objective bounds, and to label emotion and passion as insane they need to entirely meet these bounds. However, emotion is so diverse and varied I doubt that all emotion would fall under these objective bounds.

Possibly.

All living is opinion. The mind works on contrasts, so to evaluate something you contrast it and then come to your own conclusions. So whose to say that anything is correct or wrong. Nobody, because it is all subjective. Therefore I value opinion, because it allows me to contrast and evaluate, and therefore synthesis my own response. And nobody can speak for all humanity because everyone has a different view, perspective, value, experience and reception. So when making a claim it is only just to state it is your opinion, because it is just that, your opinion and nothing more and no-one else's.

Opinion will not bring truth. If a tree in a far-away forest falls it produces sound regardless whether we hear it or not, and its falling occurred whether we see it or not. Logic dictates, if it occurs, it occurs. In the case of the falling tree the only true subjectivity required is to be present to with our senses, etc., register the occurrence. However, I must mention that claiming this required "subjectivity" to register surroundings and including it here serves futility.

[naut]

If you wish to know: I excelled in math, music, art, languages, and other things

Ah, I was wrong. Your point of view is usually that of a purely science/math oriented person.

Regarding institutions (besides parents): you are saying schools teach us to be irrational. True?

I'm claiming the opposite, that they teach rational thought and subjects that teach creativity are viewed in distain and of less value.

Regarding the second part: I have already stated that emotions, passions, add to one's understanding where reason is the thing that allows clarity on the higher level.

From personal experience, and this is my own and no one else's, the most profound moments of my life have been brought about by emotional happenings or surroundings, such as in nature. I write poetry, and I could never write what I write in a scientific frame of mind or location of rationality. So I agree with you by saying that it brings understanding. And I partially agree with the second, as the rational procedure of language allows me to express my thoughts and emotions.

Back on Topic:

If insanity is being unreasonable and being detached from reality, this is not generally applicable to emotions. If we look at simple cause and effect in human relations, there will be a cause that will stimulate a natural emotional response. Responses of people vary depending on physical health (I'm not referencing the brain or mental just to clarify), social background, upbringing, culture, belief structure, and personality. If someone steals from me the natural response is to be angry, and attempt to get my possession back and/or attempt to punish the wrongdoer. Is that insanity? Not necessarily no. In stone-age culture emotions were used as a survival tool, a means to survive. A man's desire to live can drive him to all feats of strength and endurance that would be "scientifically" impossible/near impossible. Such as several woman who have held up their cars for several successive hours because their child has been trapped underneath the car. This should be scientifically impossible, but their emotions have driven them to these actions. The external cause/pressure stimulates a emotional response. On the flip-side issues regarding race/religion/nationality can bring about other more violent emotion. Yet, whatever the cause is there is a predicted emotional response, demonstrating a connection with the world around.

[Bijo]

Say something you did today you think wasn't done in order to achieve a goal set up by your emotions, and I'm pretty sure I can find an emotion to trace it back to.

Eat food.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Eat food.

Well, that was a very simple one: you eat because of hunger, i.e. an emotion

[Bijo]

I'm claiming the opposite, that they teach rational thought and subjects that teach creativity are viewed in distain and of less value.

It didn't appear you were stating that. Here comes the quote:

Humans are not naturally rational, we are bred to be that way through institutions, which in the Modern world are school, university and the people we label our parents.

But if you really mean the opposite ===> Still I recall having noticed many there -- in schools and such -- who were very irrational -- including teachers. Their natural "human sides" were dominant and controlling them as they allowed very little logical thought -- only typical reasoning with its human flaws.

If insanity is being unreasonable and being detached from reality, this is not generally applicable to emotions. If we look at simple cause and effect in human relations, there will be a cause that will stimulate a natural emotional response. Responses of people vary depending on physical health (I'm not referencing the brain or mental just to clarify), social background, upbringing, culture, belief structure, and personality. If someone steals from me the natural response is to be angry, and attempt to get my possession back and/or attempt to punish the wrongdoer. Is that insanity? Not necessarily no.
(...)

I will not accept this, neither will I dismiss it. For further discussion I ask you to include two other factors: (1) passion; (2) the fact that my original statement (or question) was also posed poetically.

[Bijo]

Well, that was a very simple one: you eat because of hunger, i.e. an emotion

Being hungry is no emotion, nor was my act of eating set up by emotion.

[Reverend Joe]

Bijo:

I will try to reclarify my point. Please reexamine the following:

What proof do we have that rational thoughts are not simply advanced forms of emotions?

Examine them both carefully: at first glance, they appear quite different; the the one is basal and instinctual; the other guides the higher levels of humanity.

But if we look at each fundamentally. there is no real difference. After all, are they both not some form of a motivation to act?

Philosophical thinking and metathought, of course, do not motivate us to act; but does not an emotional reaction to one's own emotion take much the same form, acting as an observer whilst the trigger emotion drives the action?

And if thoughts are entirely emotion, this would mean that our psyche is entirely emotion.

Now, if all thoughts can be assumed to be an advanced form of emotion, one that has been harnessed by language and metathought, we must ask: If emotions and passions are a form of insanity, would every person not be insane? How would this be possible? Why would evolution create permanent insanity?

On the other side of your question, we must now examine insanity. Here, I would like to posit the idea that insanity is impossible to determine, because it is dependent entirely upon pure uncertainties.

To understand this, let us look at the idea of perception. We all take for granted that our senses, and our perception, tell the absolute truth. This is entirely false. No matter that they are based entirely upon electric impulses which themselves are infallible; the mechanisms designed to comprehend them, and the central node which receives them (i.e. the mind), is entirely fallible. Observe optical illusions as a perfect example of this. If our senses never lied to us, we would not experience optical illusions. As another example, look at the average automobile accident. When there is an accident in the middle of the road, you may have 30 witnesses who will agree that there was an accident; but you will also have 30 different eyewitness accounts. Even if two accounts may be almost identical, I guarantee you that no two accounts will ever be the same. Perceptions are subjective; therefore they are fallible.

Now, here is the problem: if we can never reliably depend upon our perceptions for truth, what do we really have? Nothing. We have no proof whatsoever of what reality is. Therefore, if insanity is a divorce from reality, how can we say who or what exactly is insane? True, we may rely upon the majority opinion; but has the majority not been wrong before? There have been many circumstances in which the majority of people held a belief to be true, and a minority of (or none of) the people saw what the reality of the situation was. Therefore, we cannot know definitively what insanity is

Because of this, I will simply assume, for the sake of argument, that insanity is that which is detrimental to society as a whole, either by divorcing a person form normal operation within a society, or by causing that person to be a danger to the other members of society.

What I am trying to say here is, your question is at once vague and shallow. It does not address a number of problems which may quickly emerge in trying to answer it. Therefore, I will attempt to rephrase it in the spirit in which I think it was meant to be asked:

"Can emotions, as the more primitive activities of the brain, as opposed to rational thought, this being the more advanced activities of the brain, be clearly defined as a form of insanity, where insanity is that which is detrimental to society as a whole, either by divorcing a person form normal operation within a society, or by causing that person to be a danger to the other members of society?"

In this case, we must ask whether emotion is always detrimental to society as a whole; I would posit that it is not, as emotion is quite simply a part of the human psyche. True, insanity can be expressed via emotion; however, in all emotions were insanity, would there not be a lack of any society whatsoever? Yet this is not the case. You may argue that it is rational thought that keeps us in line; but then look at the animals, particularly mammals. There are many mammals with organized societies (for example, wolves and elephants have highly organized societies which they depend upon for survival) yet they are not capable of something as advanced as "rational thought." They are ruled by emotion and instinct, which is even lower on the neurological totem pole than emotion. If emotions were a form of insanity, none of these creatures would exist, at least not as we know them, nor would we have ever had a chance to form a human society.

Then there is also the problem of determining what is rational thought. I hate to do it, but here we MUST look at the Holocaust. The extermination of the dissident groups within German society may be seen as the highest form of insanity; and yet the people responsible practically held rational thought as a holy sacrament. Germany was the home of European science in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The people who motivated and organized the mass exterminations were not only convinced they were acting perfectly rationally; they were convinced that it wass for the good of society. What's more, the rest of the world, for the most part, gave silent assent, even going so far as to reject Jewish emigrants, therefore setting a precedent that what Germany was doing was right.

Rational thought cannot be depended upon as a means of stopping insanity, because it too is subjective and uncertain. I would therefore say that No, Bijo, emotion is not a form of insanity; emotion and rational thought both are parts of normal society. Insanity is simply the abnormal operation of either or both of these factors.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Being hungry is no emotion, nor was my act of eating set up by emotion.

In that case you're using a different definition of the word emotion. What exactly is your definition of the word "emotion"?

[Bijo]

In that case you're using a different definition of the word emotion. What exactly is your definition of the word "emotion"?

No: I have answered you so I would now rather ask what definition you are using and if this is your own or an objective one. And I would add that you are starting to look suspicious of fallacy in this argument. Asking me for a definition just there, tsk tsk ;)


---


Reverend, your post is too long for me to respond to now, so please take no offence as I will read you later.

[Rodion Romanovich]

What proof do we have that rational thoughts are not simply advanced forms of emotions?

I agree - modern science makes no major difference between them. Two types of signalling systems have been described: hormones, and nerves. Hormones are able to convey slow signals, nerves faster ones. Nerve nets range from reflexes (instant action without any chance to reflect), to emotions (slightly deeper and more complex nets), and rational thought, where existing patterns are used to arrive either at a visible action, or at a conclusion which is stored in memory and used later. Apparently both reflexes, emotions and rational thought are capable of learning, however to different extent. Indeed, I'd say the difference is small, and the border is far from sharp.

Then there is also the problem of determining what is rational thought. I hate to do it, but here we MUST look at the Holocaust. The extermination of the dissident groups within German society may be seen as the highest form of insanity; and yet the people responsible practically held rational thought as a holy sacrament. Germany was the home of European science in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The people who motivated and organized the mass exterminations were not only convinced they were acting perfectly rationally; they were convinced that it wass for the good of society. What's more, the rest of the world, for the most part, gave silent assent, even going so far as to reject Jewish emigrants, therefore setting a precedent that what Germany was doing was right.

The nazis, and others with similar reasoning patterns, weren't rational. If they at all saw rationality as a holy sacrament, they certainly didn't live up to it. Brutality seldom pays off, in Germany's case it led the allies to cooperate with the Stalinist USSR which would, if the nazis hadn't been brutal and using terror, been conceived a much bigger threat than Germany and could have led to a favorable German peace treaty and alliance against the USSR, rather than leading to Germany being bombed to pieces, followed by a lengthy cold war with the USSR, for example. Most cases of brutality among people who call themselves rational, are cases of people who fail to see the big picture and only see local, short term benefit in using brutality to achieve a subgoal set up not by rationality but by (obsessive) emotions or misconceptions. The nazis for instance, decided terror bombing London would be a good idea. They carry out a plan that with cold-hearted rationally maximizes the destruction of London. But was their setting up of the goal to bomb London rational? Did it help Germany at all in the longer term strategical perspective? Wasn't these bombings the main reason why bomber Harris decided to bomb civilian targets in Germany for years once the tide of the war had turn in favor of the allies? Wasn't these bombings what allowed the RAF to rebuild their airfields and start putting up a deadly resistance to the Luftwaffe again, effectively creating the turning point of the war?

So I would say the nazis were far from rational in their reasoning. They set up high-level goals with a random mix of irrationality, emotion, misconceptions, incorrect perceptions, logical reasoning with incorrect premises, and without any understanding at all for game theory equilibria and how the actions of opponents affect the outcome of an own action. In a short term, local perspective, bombing London was a rational idea, but in a long term, global perspective, bombing London was as irrational as it can be.

The question is: is it rationality to use rationality locally in time and scope, since the effects usually are actions that are irrational in a long term perspective and wider scope? With my definition of "rationality", the answer is no. Emotions, instincts and "gut feeling" can often beat attempts at reasoning when it comes to setting up high-level goals that are rational. Reasoning only truly excels over emotion when it comes to measuring feasibility of high-level goals, and finding plans to achieve them, however it fails miserably at finding rational high-level goals.

The other question is: is rationality a good thing? The answer is not yes, but not no either, in my opinion. Whether rationality is good or not, simply depends on whether the society form at the time, and political situation, are such that acting good will be more rational than acting evil. Nothing can be said in general here, other than that if a longer term perspective reasoning is applied, peacefulness and acting good often pays off far more often than acting evil. However, there are some game theory equilibria where acting evil is more rational - this is especially the case when the percentage of major players in politics/social life who act evil is high. However at times when the majority is trying to act good in a defensive pact manner (as opposed to offensive alliance), and cooperate in a way such that cooperation and peacefulness is advantageous over evil, it is most rational to be good. Moreover, if we get to choose between a scenario where most are evil, and a scenario where most are good, the peace scenario is preferable for all but a few (and it's impossible to tell exactly which those few are beforehand). Therefore, the most rational behavior in most situations, for most people, is to work to uphold peace and cooperation between those who want peace, and work to remain stronger than those who wish war. Perhaps, game theory will once show what real rationality is, and that real rationality is incredibly sane, and good.

[Rodion Romanovich]

No: I have answered you so I would now rather ask what definition you are using and if this is your own or an objective one.

With my definition, an emotion is either a feeling, or a subconscious psychological response, whose purpose and cause may not always be clear to the reasoning parts of the brain, but the reasoning part of the brain knows what state of mood the emotions wants the individual to be in. This is approximately the same as the most common definition.

And I would add that you are starting to look suspicious of fallacy in this argument. Asking me for a definition just there, tsk tsk ;)

I hope you're joking, because there's never a fallacy to ask the opponent in a philosophical discussion what word definitions they use. The opposite, however, is a good source of fallacies, equivocation for example.

What is your definition of "emotion" in this discussion?

[Ironside]

Being hungry is no emotion, nor was my act of eating set up by emotion.

Query: Desire is what?

Statement: Desire is never originally based on logic.
Reason: Desire always comes back to either to live or to live an acceptable life.
Question: What logic reason is there to be alive and live well?
Question: What makes life logically more important then death?

Query: Does Bijo's original statement say that illogical=insanity?

Query: Bijo consider freezing/fear (emotion) due to chilly weather/danger (logical reason) for what?

Question: Is a logical action based on information that is flawed, incomplete, etc. whatever the action would change or not depeding on the correct information, illogical?

Statement: The original question is irrelevant, as if correct, all life would then be insane (not being inside the species "comfort zone" will cause stress and chemical reactions inside the specimen to deal with the new conditions) and the word insane would no longer be useful to define anything but alive.

[Bijo]

I respectfully ask and urge contributors to shorten their additions and share the main points without any unnecessary side points or long texts if they address me and want me to read them. Making long responsive posts looks too much like a tactic of textual overuse discouraging the reader to even read it, if the point can be made with shorter texts.

---

To Reverend:

You use many IFs and ask many questions and very early make an assumption. But what is most important is the following which you more or less stated: emotions = basal, instinctive, irrational, illogical, etc.; rationality = higher levels of "humanity" => logical, reasonabe, etc.

I had the ability to be totally unemotional (no psychological feelings of joy, sadness, anger, etc.) and apply sound reasoning (high-level thoughts, logic, clearness of mind, etc.).

There is a difference and it is simple: emotion is psychological feelings or sensations of one or more of joy, sadness, anger, fear (and so on), while reason (and its rational relatives) is not. In short: emotion distorts; logic clarifies.

Then cometh the question of passion.


EDIT:
And I had already addressed your points regarding perception.

[Bijo]

With my definition, an emotion is either a feeling, or a subconscious psychological response, whose purpose and cause may not always be clear to the reasoning parts of the brain, but the reasoning part of the brain knows what state of mood the emotions wants the individual to be in. This is approximately the same as the most common definition.

But your definition is irrelevant and so is mine. In most cases I automatically skip such explanations or glance quickly when I notice any sign of opinion, belief, or anything that looks suspicious of subjectivity in discussions not requiring them.

I hope you're joking, because there's never a fallacy to ask the opponent in a philosophical discussion what word definitions they use. The opposite, however, is a good source of fallacies, equivocation for example.

What is your definition of "emotion" in this discussion?

No matter: you did appear suspicious of it. Quickly asking for or providing definitions during a discussion after having made a point that is just countered easily makes one think the asker or provider fallacious.

I have no own definition of emotion. It is universally dictated emotion is the following: psychological or subconcious (or whatever it is to be named) feelings of joy, sorrow, anger, fear (and the likes).

My act of eating was not set up by emotion. This was the overall point you attempted to make before.

[Bijo]

*snip*

As your being addressed the question quoted regarding "my act of eating not being set up by emotion" I communicate that which follows: it is a correct statement whose boolean truth value is true.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I have no own definition of emotion. It is universally dictated emotion is the following: psychological or subconcious (or whatever it is to be named) feelings of joy, sorrow, anger, fear (and the likes).

Well, hunger is an emotion, in most definitions I've heard. Your newly presented definition is somewhat different, which means the point you're trying to argue is different from what I thought at first. If hunger is excluded, then the definition is nothing but a list of things with a common denominator - same as in my definition of emotion - but excluding some other objects which fit into that common denominator description. Such a word definition is not very good IMO, but even so, the entire content of my first post still applies, so that is again my answer to the topic:

Normal emotions that aren't subconciously/deliberately manipulated to get stronger/more extreme/insane aren't like insanity at all. On the contrary, they are intended to serve as a guideline for actions. All people, no matter how rational they claim to be, set up their high level strategic goals by emotions - only their low level goals are controlled by reasoning. As long as emotions are used this way, they are excellent and often more rational for long term decision making than the reasoning and thought capacity of most human beings.

Suppressing all emotions completely could be counted as insanity. So could manipulation of/strengthening of emotions be. Normal emotions are however not IMO insanity. One fun thing is that most people who have normal emotions seem to think they're suppressing their emotions, while in fact they're not affecting them much at all. More often, it's the people who think they have natural emotions that are strengthening their emotions. That's at least my experience.

Basically emotions are a useful guide to acting, as long as the emotions aren't manipulated in a destructive way by the reasoning parts of the brain. Emotions can be easily tricked though, especially in modern society.

[Ironside]

As your being addressed the question quoted regarding "my act of eating not being set up by emotion" I communicate that which follows: it is a correct statement whose boolean truth value is true.

How pleasant of you. I'll keep asking for your answers on:

Question: What logic reason is there to be alive and live well?
Question: What makes life logically more important then death?

I'll still wait for the answers. And are you going to argue that suvival instinct isn't an emotion? Like you do with hunger?

Then the question is, what are they then?

[Reverend Joe]

I respectfully ask and urge contributors to shorten their additions and share the main points without any unnecessary side points or long texts if they address me and want me to read them. Making long responsive posts looks too much like a tactic of textual overuse discouraging the reader to even read it, if the point can be made with shorter texts.

---

To Reverend:

You use many IFs and ask many questions and very early make an assumption. But what is most important is the following which you more or less stated: emotions = basal, instinctive, irrational, illogical, etc.; rationality = higher levels of "humanity" => logical, reasonabe, etc.

I had the ability to be totally unemotional (no psychological feelings of joy, sadness, anger, etc.) and apply sound reasoning (high-level thoughts, logic, clearness of mind, etc.).

There is a difference and it is simple: emotion is psychological feelings or sensations of one or more of joy, sadness, anger, fear (and so on), while reason (and its rational relatives) is not. In short: emotion distorts; logic clarifies.

Then cometh the question of passion.


EDIT:
And I had already addressed your points regarding perception.

You can't... I just... that's not...

Never mind.

I cannot explain myself any more clearly. If you wish to ignore my reasoning, fine. But what I am explaining to you are some of the basic assumptions in Philosophy. For example, how can we possibly have an objective viewpoint when no one has any idea what the hell that is?! Do we say, "oh, this looks about right, we will go with this?!" That's not only ridiculously asinine, it's also blockheaded! And for the record, "asking questions" is how Plato performed his philosophy. If you wish, you can damn well change them into sentences telling you what is, but reading questions is a little bit friendlier and a little less gasbaggy than telling you that "This is, this is not." It's the idea of "do you see where I am going with this?"

Okay, I will try one more time: Emotion and Thought are one and the same; you cannot seperate the two because the latter sprang from the former. Hell, you can barely seperate emotion and instinct for the same reason. Besides which, both pure thought and pure emotion lead to insanity. After all, all humans are meant to have emotion; it is what allows us to live. Without emotion, WE ARE INSANE. We lack the ability to drive ourselves forward because drive itself springs from emotion. And anyway, reason itself is very much fallible. Many madmen think that they are thinking very clearly and logically when they may be spouting insane babble.

Damn Taoists.

[Bijo]

Hunger: a "physiological" experience when you have a true physical need for food. Hunger is not based on emotion -- a "psychological" thing -- and that's the end of this story right there. (I even have it verified by a lady friend who's a psychologist. I have.... "checked" with her and she told me that hunger is not based on emotion.)


---


To Reverend:

I did not ignore your reasoning at all -- I have actually read it.

The thing is when you started with that story before you already proposed WHAT-IFs and such assumptions. And when people start to use WHAT-IFs I must quickly conclude your argumentation to be unsound. You have stated what you wrote was to be a re-examination of the previous; the previous was filled with a situation of WHAT-IF ----> logically they should be the same, and the WHAT-IF situation would have to remain intact, forcing me to do what I described some phrases before from here.

[Andres]

Emotions and passions are like a form of insanity. True?

Since you asked so gently, I'll keep my view on your initial statement short:

- It depends on the intensity of the emotion(s)/passion(s) and your ability to control/guide them.
- defining insanity is problematic (and don't you dare to quote your dictionnary again )

Your initial statement cannot be equal to a simple "true" or "not true".

On the other hand, the statement: "Having no emotions and passions at all is a form of insanity" is true.