Emotional Desertion

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Emotional Desertion

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 11:10 pm
If you could would you give up your emotions?

If your emotions hinder you would, should, could you quit them?

Would the world be better if less emotional and more logical?

Is logic the dissemination of emotion?
Is logic the opposite of emotion?
Is logic emotional?

Is Humanity based upon the emotions or the logics?
Is the soul an emotional or logical thing?

Is life for the emotions and death for the logicals?
Are we dead with out the emotions?
Alive without logic?

Is experience logical or emotional?
Is emotion needed to learn?
Is logic needed to teach?

Can we survive or thrive without the emotions?
Do the emotions get in the way of success?
Or just the 'wrong' success?
Is there a successful emotion?

Are animals based more on emotions or logic?
Which is more animality emotion or logic?
Has it been our added emotional or logical relevance over that of the animal kingdom and 'nature' that which has made us the 'rulers' of the planet called Home?
Are humans just lucky?
Or unlucky?

Is there already a human who has been successful in shedding their emotions?
Is success based more on a controllable emotional success?
How can one be successful with or without emotions?
How can one control their emotions?

Was, Is, Will God emotional?
Is God a bad example of emotion?
Is God the best example of emotion?
Is God the ultimate control and capture of emotion?

Can we be emotionless and still need God?

Thanks for you time.
Is time emotional or logical? Both, more or less?

*answer one some or all, better still ask one of your own*
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 11:18 pm
@sometime sun,
I think you need a balance of emotion and logic. If you have too much of one and not enough of the other, you make unnecessary mistakes and or you weight a point of view too much accordingly.

A good example of this is right after some kind of accident happens. People enveloped in their emotional distraught, pressure law makers to make changes. These changes often neglect the logical counter parts so what happens is some imbalanced law that causes more problems than it solves. Purely because the people involved were using too much emotion and not enough logic.

The other side of this is where logic loses it's sympathetic approach to problem solving. Some times the purely logical course of action, is not the most reasonable as far as empathy goes. A good example of this is someone who would make some kind of blanket statement about a particular group of people and the solution would be to resolve this group as the solution. But that doesn't actually resolve the issue in a empathetic way, it just solves the problem from their logical point of view.

I think a majority of religious people toss logic to the side when it comes to their theistic beliefs. However they wont purely move over to the emotional side either because they tend to abandon empathy as well. Like a person who is willing to murder others to uphold their religious dogma. They have abandoned their empathy for others simply on the basis that their religious views are held to a higher regard. This is neither logical nor emotional, it is just pure ignorance.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 11:39 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;168413 wrote:

Like a person who is willing to murder others to uphold their religious dogma. They have abandoned their empathy for others simply on the basis that their religious views are held to a higher regard. This is neither logical nor emotional, it is just pure ignorance.

We totally agree on this, I think. Any "religion" that is used as an excuse for murder and cruelty is not in my book as anything decent. I honestly don't think we humans know any better. We fall in love with abstractions that put us on top. And then we can let the dogs loose, with a righteous smile on our faces. It may be the Spanish Inquisition or the Nazi Death Camps or the KKK or the Taliban. It's abstractions as an excuse cruelty, as a reason to turn off sympathy.

Are abstractions logic? Some might say that logic is the structure of thought, and not the thoughts, but that's a secondary issue. Smile

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 12:42 AM ----------

sometime sun;168408 wrote:
If you could would you give up your emotions?

If your emotions hinder you would, should, could you quit them?

Would the world be better if less emotional and more logical?


I think we ultimately live for emotions, for good emotions. E-motive. Our motive, our engines, the push that makes it happen.

I think we just need to train and develop our better emotions. I think we should dodge hatred, envy, fear, vanity, etc. as much as possible. But we should be as conscious as possible of these. We should know these as present in us, as universally present, and forgive their presence. Like Blake said "without contraries is no progression."

I would say that abstractions (which are perhaps what you are saying in my lingo with the word "logic") are experienced emotionally. I would say that humans cannot dodge emotion. We can pursue the cold pleasure of status or the warmer pleasure of love. Etc.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 01:36 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;168413 wrote:
I think you need a balance of emotion and logic. If you have too much of one and not enough of the other, you make unnecessary mistakes and or you weight a point of view too much accordingly.

A good example of this is right after some kind of accident happens. People enveloped in their emotional distraught, pressure law makers to make changes. These changes often neglect the logical counter parts so what happens is some imbalanced law that causes more problems than it solves. Purely because the people involved were using too much emotion and not enough logic.

The other side of this is where logic loses it's sympathetic approach to problem solving. Some times the purely logical course of action, is not the most reasonable as far as empathy goes. A good example of this is someone who would make some kind of blanket statement about a particular group of people and the solution would be to resolve this group as the solution. But that doesn't actually resolve the issue in a empathetic way, it just solves the problem from their logical point of view.

I think a majority of religious people toss logic to the side when it comes to their theistic beliefs. However they wont purely move over to the emotional side either because they tend to abandon empathy as well. Like a person who is willing to murder others to uphold their religious dogma. They have abandoned their empathy for others simply on the basis that their religious views are held to a higher regard. This is neither logical nor emotional, it is just pure ignorance.

Is there such a thing as mythic logic?
Meaning, is not, cannot religion although a possible fiction still be a logical lie?
If the delusion is more compressionable than the 'reality' is not the delusional life better because it is more controllable than a 'reality' that is never controllable?
If a lie leads to balance, is not the lie not the most trustworthy because if gets results?
You said it that empathy needs logic and emotion and that logically and emotionally balance equals healthy empathy, so why not a good piece of fiction which addresses both the emotions desires, logical restraints and empathetic outcome control?
Religion may be emotionally and logically delusional but is not this delusional balanced?
Is not the design of the delusion that which shows the emotions even bring forth new ones but confines them logically by giving them a vehicle and 'path' so they can be more expressive the more they are controlled?
Design of a delusion, logic of an emotion.
You can express and have more emotions the further you understand and control and expose them all done by a following of the fictions plot.
A story is often the best way to achieve this.
It give a plot which is logical if not for the fact it is a plot design and then gives you emotions to have while you are following the line of the design.
It is when the reader of the fiction thinks the story is about just emotion and not enough design and exposition that one will delude the delusion.

People don't know anymore what religion is, it is both a faith and a school, somewhere along the road people think their emotions are what graduates them.

---------- Post added 05-25-2010 at 08:46 PM ----------

Religion does not just tell and teach you what or how to feel but tells and teaches you what and how to think
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 02:02 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;168649 wrote:
Is there such a thing as mythic logic?
Meaning, is not, cannot religion although a possible fiction still be a logical lie?


Well I would already conclude that it is a logical lie. The reason being, it's lie actually motivates behavior in the occasional "prosperous" direction. But it is not a constant. There are times that it motivates equally in a non-productive way as well. Such as trying to undermine scientific research simply because it conflicts with theological beliefs.

sometime sun;168649 wrote:

If the delusion is more compressionable than the 'reality' is not the delusional life better because it is more controllable than a 'reality' that is never controllable?


No because you set up a situation of fraud. It would be like telling your young child who refuses to go to sleep, that if they do not go to sleep a monster will come out of their closet and eat them. But if they go to sleep the monster won't be able to find them and then they will be okay. This might be a horrible analogy but it sets the child up for fraud. What happens is that when the truth is discovered a backlash follows. So lying for positive motivation, although it might be successful, it always ends in tragedy.

sometime sun;168649 wrote:

If a lie leads to balance, is not the lie not the most trustworthy because if gets results?


It is a gamble. If it succeeds for balance it is never certain that this balance will be maintained. All that has to happen is to have some sort of truth reveal itself and then you completely crumble the entire basis.

sometime sun;168649 wrote:

You said it that empathy needs logic and emotion and that logically and emotionally balance equals healthy empathy, so why not a good piece of fiction which addresses both the emotions desires, logical restraints and empathetic outcome control?


Because the motivation is not in line with the desired result. Since it is not in line with the desired result, any offset knowledge will ultimately lead to bad conclusions in the future.

sometime sun;168649 wrote:

Religion may be emotionally and logically delusional but is not this delusional balanced?


In some ways it is balanced but in other ways it is neglectful.

What I see in a majority of theists, is that they have very few problem solving skills. The reason is, they are dictated to but never taught how to problem solve. The reason this happens is because if they were to be taught problem solving skills, they might actually come to the conclusion that their theology is actually the root of all their problems. So they are actually taught the opposite, and not to use problem solving skills. This leads to a lot of poor choices which ultimately leads to unnecessary suffering. Not only for themselves but for everyone around them.

sometime sun;168649 wrote:

Is not the design of the delusion that which shows the emotions even bring forth new ones but confines them logically by giving them a vehicle and 'path' so they can be more expressive the more they are controlled?
Design of a delusion, logic of an emotion.


"Rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness... give me truth." Henry David Thoreau

sometime sun;168649 wrote:

You can express and have more emotions the further you understand and control and expose them all done by a following of the fictions plot.
A story is often the best way to achieve this.


This is true however there is a specific reason to why such a case occurs in a story plot. Usually it is to give the impression of an unknown factor. If the plot were as clear then the fiction is actually not present in the plot. Most people hate it when they can predict a plot outcome. So many attempts are made to hide the plot's course or even manipulate it so that it is unpredictable. I would not say it is the best way to teach someone though.

On a side note this is my major problem with Christianity in fact. The very thing that there are so many religions the only true method that god would have would be to reveal itself whole and completely and not in any sort of convoluted way. Since damnation resides on this very thing, then by all means the price is very high for making a mistake. Since the price is high and the problem is vast, it is almost ridiculous to hold a being accountable for such a mistake.

To put it another way. Lets say you have a friend holding a thousand sticks in their hand. Only one of the sticks is short, all the rest are the same length. Your friend then asks you to pick one of the sticks. If you can not pick the short stick your friend is going to shoot you in the head killing you. Your chances of picking the correct stick is 1 in 1000. However; if you follow my parallel here, there are more than a thousand religions in the world, so actually choosing the correct one is even less odds.

You can not honestly and fairly place such a decision onto a person or a being. Not if it has such a huge price to be paid if you chose wrong. The funny thing is, every branch and every religion claims absolute correctness while all others are false. Since there is this confusion, god to be fair would have to then reveal itself otherwise to condemn a person for making the mistake would be unjust.

For all those who claim that the christian god has revealed itself, is nothing more than a lie. The revealing that I am referring to is something that can not be refuted. Just like if I were to be standing next to you, and punched you in the face, there is something substantial that you could say about it. One, the pain you feel because of my fist contacting your face. Two the mark it might have left behind. Three a potential person or persons as witnesses that they too saw the innocent occur at the exact same time that you felt it happen. Four the evidence left behind on my fist, perhaps some flesh or blood or small particles of dna. These are trace evidences that would be required for such a revealing to take place. So far no such revealing has ever happened. Thus it can be said that if the christian god does exist it is an unjust god.

sometime sun;168649 wrote:

It give a plot which is logical if not for the fact it is a plot design and then gives you emotions to have while you are following the line of the design.
It is when the reader of the fiction thinks the story is about just emotion and not enough design and exposition that one will delude the delusion.


It depends on the person though. A person of more logic would see an emotional story from the perspective of logic and not from the emotional aspect. The same is true for just the opposite. A logical story read by an emotional person would only relate to the story in an emotional way, perhaps one of confusion since the logical story would probably be missing the emotional aspect. Or perhaps the emotional reader would invent the emotion into the story which there never was any intention for it to be there. This is why poetry either sucks or it is good but no one can really determine which is which.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Wed 26 May, 2010 08:52 pm
@Krumple,
So sorry Krumple I thought I would have time, I must reply tomorrow.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 03:46 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;168408 wrote:
If you could would you give up your emotions?

If your emotions hinder you would, should, could you quit them?

Would the world be better if less emotional and more logical?

Is logic the dissemination of emotion?
Is logic the opposite of emotion?
Is logic emotional?

Is Humanity based upon the emotions or the logics?
Is the soul an emotional or logical thing?

Is life for the emotions and death for the logicals?
Are we dead with out the emotions?
Alive without logic?

Is experience logical or emotional?
Is emotion needed to learn?
Is logic needed to teach?

Can we survive or thrive without the emotions?
Do the emotions get in the way of success?
Or just the 'wrong' success?
Is there a successful emotion?

Are animals based more on emotions or logic?
Which is more animality emotion or logic?
Has it been our added emotional or logical relevance over that of the animal kingdom and 'nature' that which has made us the 'rulers' of the planet called Home?
Are humans just lucky?
Or unlucky?

Is there already a human who has been successful in shedding their emotions?
Is success based more on a controllable emotional success?
How can one be successful with or without emotions?
How can one control their emotions?

Was, Is, Will God emotional?
Is God a bad example of emotion?
Is God the best example of emotion?
Is God the ultimate control and capture of emotion?

Can we be emotionless and still need God?

Thanks for you time.
Is time emotional or logical? Both, more or less?

*answer one some or all, better still ask one of your own*


Hi Sun,

Emotions are best left to the emotional mindset.

Shine on.

Mark...
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 06:39 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;168419 wrote:

I think we ultimately live for emotions, for good emotions. E-motive. Our motive, our engines, the push that makes it happen.

I think we just need to train and develop our better emotions. I think we should dodge hatred, envy, fear, vanity, etc. as much as possible. But we should be as conscious as possible of these. We should know these as present in us, as universally present, and forgive their presence. Like Blake said "without contraries is no progression."

I would say that abstractions (which are perhaps what you are saying in my lingo with the word "logic") are experienced emotionally. I would say that humans cannot dodge emotion. We can pursue the cold pleasure of status or the warmer pleasure of love. Etc.

I was going to say, we should never dodge these bad emotions we should face them and weed whack them out as often as possible.
It makes me wonder to the degree we must experience bad emotions in our life and if they are always there and an issue or they only come about through the journey and that if someone were never to meet them would they be less human than someone who has faced all the bad and this makes them 'more' human because they have faced more of what it 'means' to be human?. What would be the point lesson in making a bad emotion known to someone who need never experience it?
In other words can you be 'more' happy by knowing sadness and treating it or would not the very fact there had never been a sadness mean they were the ones who were actually 'more' happy? Would their happiness be a shallow one? Is not happiness the same emotion for all of us and the same weight for all? So if in fact knowing sadness leads to greater happiness is not then the negative emotion of benefit because it ultimately gives us a deeper experience? Or as asked is not the emotion of happiness the same depth of emnotion as all? (I just mis spelled that but I left it in because I like the thought of 'emnotion', emotional notion, the feeling of a thought or felt idea, I like my 'emnotion', the emotional logic same as your ideal idea of 'abstraction' its mine I copy write it:))
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 07:08 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;171076 wrote:
In other words can you be 'more' happy by knowing sadness and treating it or would not the very fact there had never been a sadness mean they were the ones who were actually 'more' happy? Would their happiness be a shallow one? Is not happiness the same emotion for all of us and the same weight for all? So if in fact knowing sadness leads to greater happiness is not then the negative emotion of benefit because it ultimately gives us a deeper experience? Or as asked is not the emotion of happiness the same depth of emnotion as all? (I just mis spelled that but I left it in because I like the thought of 'emnotion', emotional notion, the feeling of a thought or felt idea, I like my 'emnotion', the emotional logic same as your ideal idea of 'abstraction' its mine I copy write it:))


Personally I feel this is one of those slippery slope arguments. What would end up happening is people justifying negative emotions as a ploy for why they caused them. "Oh I really wasn't trying to make this person feel bad, I was only giving this other person an opportunity to do some good."

That is incredibly dangerous road to go down. Imagine if Hitler said, I was only going to exterminate the jews so that someone would come to their rescue. All he really wanted was to make heroes not cause vast murder.

It's a similar mentality that a local serial killer had. He was a very religious person and he murdered prostitutes because he believed they were not worthy human beings so he felt like he was not doing anything wrong. In fact he even stated during his trial that he was doing gods work by punishing them since they were prostitutes. He actually believes he was doing good, that he was some kind of hero.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 08:00 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;168670 wrote:
Well I would already conclude that it is a logical lie. The reason being, it's lie actually motivates behavior in the occasional "prosperous" direction. But it is not a constant. There are times that it motivates equally in a non-productive way as well. Such as trying to undermine scientific research simply because it conflicts with theological beliefs.
I agree religion should not get in the way of positive evolution but would also ask is not some scientific researching not only stupidly dangerous but also that science can and has been a very real devil and ethical nightmare, just because science is more proof-able does not make it correct, just because something is there does not make it 'right' to dig it up.
I love science, unless I was an idiot I would not appreciate it and trust it, in fact I love science so much I think it will eventually be that which proves God, but I do wonder if this might be because it will eventually show us science is not above or better than that of theology and right and wrong, good and bad, chaos and order.
If you wanted to be specific a 'wrong' a 'evil' science is more provable and definitive than a 'wrong' 'evil' faith. wink. IF you wanted to be specific.
And now a-days being a theoretical something or other myself you could easily say there are as many theoretical sciences as there are theoretical faiths.
Sorry but not, I think I will die thinking my faith is a scientific experiment and 'experience' and even a scientific exploration.
You must remember science is not only the conclusion, science is the story the journey as well if not more so because it all takes preparation, balance and equalisation.
Science is not confined to just big bangs it is how to set the bang up in the first and last place.
Science is lighting the Magnesium fuse.
I love science it is the only thing that can and will always prove me not wrong.
Krumple;168670 wrote:

No because you set up a situation of fraud. It would be like telling your young child who refuses to go to sleep, that if they do not go to sleep a monster will come out of their closet and eat them. But if they go to sleep the monster won't be able to find them and then they will be okay. This might be a horrible analogy but it sets the child up for fraud. What happens is that when the truth is discovered a backlash follows. So lying for positive motivation, although it might be successful, it always ends in tragedy.

This was basically a treatise on the fact that just because it is truth does not make it not volatile, unpredictable, dangerous and ultimately just because it is truth does not make it safe or a reliable good.
And the only reliable fact is that the truth is the only thing that can and will destroy all there was is and can ever be.
Trust me Krumple hart the truth will crush you quicker or more slowly but more savagely than any delusion might ever be able to.
At least even if a delusion it can still be trustworthy because for all its deceptions it has less hurt in its wake and conception than any truth will leave utter ruin.
Yes it is an ULTIMATE tragedy the delusion will always be proven false but also the utter annihilation of any reason and consequence and justice.
You must know by know justice is a fiction unless we contend it be 'natural' justice which just like the nature it comes from has absolutely no distinction over what is right, wrong, best, worse, good, bad. There is absolutely no 'or' about it.
It has absolutely NO CARE or consideration what so ever.
REAL Truth is so devoid of right or wrong is cannot be contemplated controlled or condensed. It is faction-less it has no construction because it is the ultimate ending and beginning without any regard for what has will or can be.
So I say frick this truth, it is going to ultimately frick us ALL any which way but lose anyway, why not pretend we can be right, wrong, happy, sad controlled, mad, mighty and weak? WHY NOT?
Justified and damned, why not pretend for one single lifetime we are worth more than what is going to destroy EVERYTHING any ways?
Why not try to be better than an inevitable destruction and unjustifiable unreasonable existence? Un reckoned ending are just the pits.
Why not with the meagre insect life we have be able to justify my presence and heart? Be able to justify reason bloody, bodily, mentally terrible abysmal abominable pain and hate and abject misery and what feels like loss but cant possibly be a loss because there was never anything there before or will ever before or after?
Why not let someone pretend after so very long a pain and misery and emptiness and hate to be able to resolve and understand and hope and trust it can and will go away and it can and will wont be all for NOTHING and NO ONE NO THING. Why not believe in conclusion?
I pray sometimes; it never happened, none of it ever happened, but that is the cruel trick Truth plays, IT did happen but has absolutely no meaning what so ever.
Life is worthless, meaningless, empty and hopeless.
Why not let the invention of freedom be something people can delude is real enough to stop killing each other for?
Why not Krumple? Why bloody not?

Krumple;168670 wrote:

It is a gamble. If it succeeds for balance it is never certain that this balance will be maintained. All that has to happen is to have some sort of truth reveal itself and then you completely crumble the entire basis.

Again what makes you think the truth will not be what we turn running screaming from when the time comes to face it?

Krumple;168670 wrote:

Because the motivation is not in line with the desired result. Since it is not in line with the desired result, any offset knowledge will ultimately lead to bad conclusions in the future.

I don't fully realise this, please could you expand on motivation, it may be me, I may have lost it slightly in fact I will post what I have done already and come back to the rest tomorrow.
So just wait off on this one until I have come back fresh to it tomorrow.

But as always Krumple it has been a trip,
sorry to have to put you off again.
I have not finished, but feel free to reply to what I have done so far, I will be back soon to finish.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 08:07 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;171088 wrote:
Personally I feel this is one of those slippery slope arguments. What would end up happening is people justifying negative emotions as a ploy for why they caused them. "Oh I really wasn't trying to make this person feel bad, I was only giving this other person an opportunity to do some good."

That is incredibly dangerous road to go down. Imagine if Hitler said, I was only going to exterminate the jews so that someone would come to their rescue. All he really wanted was to make heroes not cause vast murder.

It's a similar mentality that a local serial killer had. He was a very religious person and he murdered prostitutes because he believed they were not worthy human beings so he felt like he was not doing anything wrong. In fact he even stated during his trial that he was doing gods work by punishing them since they were prostitutes. He actually believes he was doing good, that he was some kind of hero.


I think that I see both of your point of views. Maybe I am wrong but I think what sometime sun may be saying is that without the bad how would we experience the good, without sorrow how could we have sympathy. I doubt very seriously that sometime would be one to think that he should cause negatives to have more positives.Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 01:17 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;168408 wrote:
If you could would you give up your emotions?

If your emotions hinder you would, should, could you quit them?

Would the world be better if less emotional and more logical?

Is logic the dissemination of emotion?
Is logic the opposite of emotion?
Is logic emotional?

Is Humanity based upon the emotions or the logics?
Is the soul an emotional or logical thing?

Is life for the emotions and death for the logicals?
Are we dead with out the emotions?
Alive without logic?

Is experience logical or emotional?
Is emotion needed to learn?
Is logic needed to teach?

Can we survive or thrive without the emotions?
Do the emotions get in the way of success?
Or just the 'wrong' success?
Is there a successful emotion?

Are animals based more on emotions or logic?
Which is more animality emotion or logic?
Has it been our added emotional or logical relevance over that of the animal kingdom and 'nature' that which has made us the 'rulers' of the planet called Home?
Are humans just lucky?
Or unlucky?

Is there already a human who has been successful in shedding their emotions?
Is success based more on a controllable emotional success?
How can one be successful with or without emotions?
How can one control their emotions?

Was, Is, Will God emotional?
Is God a bad example of emotion?
Is God the best example of emotion?
Is God the ultimate control and capture of emotion?

Can we be emotionless and still need God?

Thanks for you time.
Is time emotional or logical? Both, more or less?

*answer one some or all, better still ask one of your own*


The two final parts of Spinoza's great, Ethics are titled, Of Human Bondage and, Of Human Freedom. In Of Human Bondage, Spinoza writes:

Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage: for, when a man is a prey to his emotions, he is not his own master, but lies at the mercy of fortune: so much so, that he is often compelled, while seeing that which is better for him, to follow that which is worse.

Human freedom, of course, consists in the control of the emotions so that one is not a slave to them, but instead, uses them to one's own advantage.

W. Somerset Maugham wrote a fine novel called, "Of Human Bondage" which is largely about a man who finds himself a slave to his emotions over a woman, which ruins his life.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 01:03 pm
@Krumple,
Originally Posted by sometime sun
You said it that empathy needs logic and emotion and that logically and emotionally balance equals healthy empathy, so why not a good piece of fiction which addresses both the emotions desires, logical restraints and empathetic outcome control?

Krumple;168670 wrote:

Because the motivation is not in line with the desired result. Since it is not in line with the desired result, any offset knowledge will ultimately lead to bad conclusions in the future.

Is here the desired result the balanced empathy?
Motivation is also a balancing act between logic and emotions.
So you are saying if the logic and emotion of the desire and the logic and the emotion of the knowledge gained are not in balance what one then knows is ultimately going to be to logical meaning it cannot connect with the mind or it is overly emotion which means it only appeals to the heart?
I hope I have come close to understanding?
If not please try for me again.
Is there such a thing as emotional knowledge?
Is there such a thing as logical empathy or even logical understanding?


Originally Posted by sometime sun
Religion may be emotionally and logically delusional but is not this delusional balanced?

Krumple;168670 wrote:

In some ways it is balanced but in other ways it is neglectful.

What I see in a majority of theists, is that they have very few problem solving skills. The reason is, they are dictated to but never taught how to problem solve. The reason this happens is because if they were to be taught problem solving skills, they might actually come to the conclusion that their theology is actually the root of all their problems. So they are actually taught the opposite, and not to use problem solving skills. This leads to a lot of poor choices which ultimately leads to unnecessary suffering. Not only for themselves but for everyone around them.

They have their own set of problems.
I see what you mean and agree they have little 'scientific' understanding so would be poor at solving 'scientific' problems.
And you reply does make me think, does religion cause the problem in order to solve it?
Still a decent set of human problems to be solved.
Yes I think peripherally I must agree with most of this.


Originally Posted by sometime sun
Is not the design of the delusion that which shows the emotions even bring forth new ones but confines them logically by giving them a vehicle and 'path' so they can be more expressive the more they are controlled?
Design of a delusion, logic of an emotion.


Krumple;168670 wrote:

"Rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness... give me truth." Henry David Thoreau



Rather than blatant cold natural truth give me a kind warm God truth.
There are natural truths and there are un-natural ones.

Originally Posted by sometime sun
You can express and have more emotions the further you understand and control and expose them all done by a following of the fictions plot.
A story is often the best way to achieve this.


Krumple;168670 wrote:

This is true however there is a specific reason to why such a case occurs in a story plot. Usually it is to give the impression of an unknown factor. If the plot were as clear then the fiction is actually not present in the plot. Most people hate it when they can predict a plot outcome. So many attempts are made to hide the plot's course or even manipulate it so that it is unpredictable. I would not say it is the best way to teach someone though.

I agree with this, Revelations bugs me, but then again telling the future is not all that easy a task, how do you write the end of creation story? we know there is going to be one, what is more likely and hopeful of an ending? What is more likely to clam the masses than send them into a frenzy?.

Krumple;168670 wrote:

On a side note this is my major problem with Christianity in fact. The very thing that there are so many religions the only true method that god would have would be to reveal itself whole and completely and not in any sort of convoluted way. Since damnation resides on this very thing, then by all means the price is very high for making a mistake. Since the price is high and the problem is vast, it is almost ridiculous to hold a being accountable for such a mistake.

God only knows.
If we knew logically God was there do you really think things would be better?
All religions know God IS there, it is up to us to find IT.
Without seeking God where would the time go?
What would be the advantage of the journey.

"Care, mad to see a man sae happy, E'en drouned himself among the nappy" Pilgrim's Progress.

Heaven to find is a trial of the heart and freeing the mind. Me
Krumple;168670 wrote:

To put it another way. Lets say you have a friend holding a thousand sticks in their hand. Only one of the sticks is short, all the rest are the same length. Your friend then asks you to pick one of the sticks. If you can not pick the short stick your friend is going to shoot you in the head killing you. Your chances of picking the correct stick is 1 in 1000. However; if you follow my parallel here, there are more than a thousand religions in the world, so actually choosing the correct one is even less odds.


Pick one, God does not care what religion you are just that thee there be religious.
Krumple;168670 wrote:

You can not honestly and fairly place such a decision onto a person or a being. Not if it has such a huge price to be paid if you chose wrong. The funny thing is, every branch and every religion claims absolute correctness while all others are false. Since there is this confusion, god to be fair would have to then reveal itself otherwise to condemn a person for making the mistake would be unjust.

That is just it, it is a choice, it is a preference. You cant go wrong as long as you are truly honestly faithful.
Correctness for those that which choose it.
That is man not the religion branding people of other faith as faithless.
Man still today needs to feel superior and that they are 'better' than the rest. Man's to blame not God.
God is going to have trouble with a lot of people of religions who have used it in such a way as a weapon. Big issues.
That would be true blasphemy.
Krumple;168670 wrote:

For all those who claim that the christian god has revealed itself, is nothing more than a lie. The revealing that I am referring to is something that can not be refuted. Just like if I were to be standing next to you, and punched you in the face, there is something substantial that you could say about it. One, the pain you feel because of my fist contacting your face. Two the mark it might have left behind. Three a potential person or persons as witnesses that they too saw the innocent occur at the exact same time that you felt it happen. Four the evidence left behind on my fist, perhaps some flesh or blood or small particles of dna. These are trace evidences that would be required for such a revealing to take place. So far no such revealing has ever happened. Thus it can be said that if the christian god does exist it is an unjust god.

Yes all there was was Jesus Christ, God does not play a game of one day revealing the next hiding. You may well be correct God wont ever show Its self until the very end.
However Miracles are another thing.
God is Justice. So unless Justice is unjust? you don't need to worry.

Originally Posted by sometime sun
It give a plot which is logical if not for the fact it is a plot design and then gives you emotions to have while you are following the line of the design.
It is when the reader of the fiction thinks the story is about just emotion and not enough design and exposition that one will delude the delusion.


Krumple;168670 wrote:

It depends on the person though. A person of more logic would see an emotional story from the perspective of logic and not from the emotional aspect. The same is true for just the opposite. A logical story read by an emotional person would only relate to the story in an emotional way, perhaps one of confusion since the logical story would probably be missing the emotional aspect. Or perhaps the emotional reader would invent the emotion into the story which there never was any intention for it to be there. This is why poetry either sucks or it is good but no one can really determine which is which.

No we have emotion we are in danger if we do not express them and know how to do so.
Yes poetry is a balance between logic and emotion, the best anyway.
Confine and content, logic and emotion.
Logic is only meant to heel the emotion and bring it forth just as emotion is meant for the creation and reason of logic.
Game and rules.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 02:26 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;171364 wrote:

Is here the desired result the balanced empathy?
Motivation is also a balancing act between logic and emotions. So you are saying if the logic and emotion of the desire and the logic and the emotion of the knowledge gained are not in balance what one then knows is ultimately going to be to logical meaning it cannot connect with the mind or it is overly emotion which means it only appeals to the heart?
I hope I have come close to understanding?
If not please try for me again.
Is there such a thing as emotional knowledge?
Is there such a thing as logical empathy or even logical understanding?


In a way yes. Having too much logical sense will ultimately neglect the emotional aspect. Same is true for someone being overly emotional, they will neglect the logical side of the argument.

sometime sun;171364 wrote:
And you reply does make me think, does religion cause the problem in order to solve it?


Religion tries to solve the "problems" of humanity but the method is rarely a good method. In some cases the "problems of humanity" are not actually problems at all. They just view them as problems. So trying to solve them they inevitably create new ones, and often times worse problems.

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

Rather than blatant cold natural truth give me a kind warm God truth.
There are natural truths and there are un-natural ones.


Well what you might call warm god truth, I might see as delusional wishful thinking. I always find it funny that the only science that a majority of theists protest against is the science that directly conflicts with their theology. They never protest any other science and are gladly accepting and using all that other science in their daily lives without an ounce of skepticism. I find this telling. That if you really have a problem with science why are you not protesting all of it? Why only the science that conflicts with your theology? That seems rather hypocritical to object to it only because it conflicts with your beliefs but turn around and rely on it in all other aspects of your life.

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

I agree with this, Revelations bugs me, but then again telling the future is not all that easy a task, how do you write the end of creation story? we know there is going to be one, what is more likely and hopeful of an ending? What is more likely to clam the masses than send them into a frenzy?.


Well if a god was all knowing, shouldn't it know how the events would end?

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

God only knows.
If we knew logically God was there do you really think things would be better?


Well theists must believe that they would otherwise they wouldn't constantly preach about finding Jesus or finding god. What other motivation would there be?

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

All religions know God IS there, it is up to us to find IT.


That is not true. There is no god in Buddhism, not to mention there are other religions that have multiple gods or that you actually become a god yourself. So what exactly are you finding?

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

Without seeking God where would the time go?


Towards living.

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

What would be the advantage of the journey.


To not be oppressed by made up stories. To not destroy the psychology of people through bigotry and hatred for not following a made up doctrine. To quit putting people on the other side and having wars with them or killing them because they won't accept your theology. To allow humanity to find contentment amongst itself rather than through an imaginary entity.

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

Pick one, God does not care what religion you are just that thee there be religious.


That statement contradicts the bible then. So which is it? Either god hates it that you follow other religions, or god wants you to follow which ever religion? It can't be both and I know for certain that not all Christians would agree with your statement. So which is it?

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

That is just it, it is a choice, it is a preference. You cant go wrong as long as you are truly honestly faithful.
Correctness for those that which choose it.
That is man not the religion branding people of other faith as faithless.
Man still today needs to feel superior and that they are 'better' than the rest. Man's to blame not God.


But god is the catalyst for it. If you created the universe you don't have to do anything to make your presence known or even give your creation any inclination that you would exist. You could be completely anonymous and not expect them to discover you. But as soon as you start to meddle in your creation you will ultimately start to pin people against each other. So what would be the point? If I can figure this out, surely if there was a god, that god would know that this would happen. So why do it then, unless your motivation is to actually cause the conflict in the first place?

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

God is going to have trouble with a lot of people of religions who have used it in such a way as a weapon. Big issues.
That would be true blasphemy.


Getting involved in the first place leads to that. Choosing a favored people will ultimately create hatred. Killing people because they are not doing what you want them to do, will ultimately cause conflicts.

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

Yes all there was was Jesus Christ, God does not play a game of one day revealing the next hiding. You may well be correct God wont ever show Its self until the very end.


The very end is very much too late and useless since you wouldn't have time to make any corrections. It is absurd reasoning to say that to reveal itself at the end solves all the problems. No it can't solve any problems, it just makes the mistake even worse.

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

However Miracles are another thing.


I have never seen a single miracle.

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

God is Justice. So unless Justice is unjust? you don't need to worry.


You might see it that way, but there is absolutely nothing that substantiates your claim.

sometime sun;171364 wrote:

No we have emotion we are in danger if we do not express them and know how to do so.


That is not true. Emotions are the byproduct of a point of view. If you do not hold certain points of view, emotions do not occur. Emotions don't happen for no reason, there is always a reason for an emotional arising. If you can uproot the seeds for the emotions or their causes, then you will never have them. You might think it can't happen, but it can, because I have seen it and experienced it. When you understand they way in which they arise, you can alter the mind so that you do not create their seed.
 
prothero
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 02:40 pm
@sometime sun,
A purely objective and scientific view of the world is "emotional desertion".
It is an observation that leaves out the observer.
 
fast
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 02:49 pm
@sometime sun,
edited out
..................
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 03:16 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;171172 wrote:
The two final parts of Spinoza's great, Ethics are titled, Of Human Bondage and, Of Human Freedom. In Of Human Bondage, Spinoza writes:

Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage: for, when a man is a prey to his emotions, he is not his own master, but lies at the mercy of fortune: so much so, that he is often compelled, while seeing that which is better for him, to follow that which is worse.

Human freedom, of course, consists in the control of the emotions so that one is not a slave to them, but instead, uses them to one's own advantage.

W. Somerset Maugham wrote a fine novel called, "Of Human Bondage" which is largely about a man who finds himself a slave to his emotions over a woman, which ruins his life.

'To be free one must give up a little part of them selves'. Isaiah Berlin I think
But this could also be to be free one must give a little bit more to themselves.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 10:19 PM ----------

prothero;171392 wrote:
A purely objective and scientific view of the world is "emotional desertion".
It is an observation that leaves out the observer.

Please could you elaborate.
 
prothero
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 03:32 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;171172 wrote:
Human freedom, of course, consists in the control of the emotions so that one is not a slave to them, but instead, uses them to one's own advantage.
W. Somerset Maugham wrote a fine novel called, "Of Human Bondage" which is largely about a man who finds himself a slave to his emotions over a woman, which ruins his life.
And there was Hume with "reason is the slave of passion". For Hume could find no where to ground ethics except in "passion" emotion.Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 05:44 pm
@prothero,
prothero;171392 wrote:
A purely objective and scientific view of the world is "emotional desertion".
It is an observation that leaves out the observer.


But that is just the point. You make it sound like some kind of defect.
 
prothero
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 05:50 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;171434 wrote:
But that is just the point. You make it sound like some kind of defect.
Leaving experience and passion out of ones view of the world? I think it is a defect.Smile
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Emotional Desertion
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/12/2022 at 10:04:11