Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7430
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Greta » April 8th, 2018, 12:11 am

We need both to function. In truth, without the micro-emotions that come with hunger, thirst and restlessness we could not even get out of bed. The larger waves of emotions carry with them countless ripples that we take for granted, but are needed to function at even a basic level. On the other hand, emotions without intellect is blind desire - the "mind" (and ethics) of an amoeba.

It is intelligence that gives form and subtlety to emotions. Such intelligence need not necessarily imply learning, but it helps; cultural transmission is ultimately what separates us from other species.

Sure, we are constantly convincing ourselves of a reality that is not the case. We run through our working lives like horses wearing blinkers, and for the same reason - efficiency. Understanding is not considered to be necessary in industry, outside of senior management, if efficiency can be achieved without it.

User avatar
Omniverse
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: September 25th, 2017, 3:40 pm

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Omniverse » April 8th, 2018, 12:38 am

Greta wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 12:11 am
We need both to function. In truth, without the micro-emotions that come with hunger, thirst and restlessness we could not even get out of bed. The larger waves of emotions carry with them countless ripples that we take for granted, but are needed to function at even a basic level. On the other hand, emotions without intellect is blind desire - the "mind" (and ethics) of an amoeba.

It is intelligence that gives form and subtlety to emotions. Such intelligence need not necessarily imply learning, but it helps; cultural transmission is ultimately what separates us from other species.

Sure, we are constantly convincing ourselves of a reality that is not the case. We run through our working lives like horses wearing blinkers, and for the same reason - efficiency. Understanding is not considered to be necessary in industry, outside of senior management, if efficiency can be achieved without it.
Sure, I do make use of my intellect in making certain choices that would benefit me and others. I do not blindly act out on my emotions. But intellect alone has never given my life any real value though. That is the thing. My positive emotions have always been the one and only source of good and beautiful value in my life. In a way, my positive emotions would be like god's holy light within my conscious being. Without his holy light within me, then I can only become and empty vessel and my life would become empty. That, or I would become a being of darkness through my negative emotions.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7430
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Greta » April 8th, 2018, 2:03 am

Omniverse wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 12:38 am
Greta wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 12:11 am
We need both to function. In truth, without the micro-emotions that come with hunger, thirst and restlessness we could not even get out of bed. The larger waves of emotions carry with them countless ripples that we take for granted, but are needed to function at even a basic level. On the other hand, emotions without intellect is blind desire - the "mind" (and ethics) of an amoeba.

It is intelligence that gives form and subtlety to emotions. Such intelligence need not necessarily imply learning, but it helps; cultural transmission is ultimately what separates us from other species.

Sure, we are constantly convincing ourselves of a reality that is not the case. We run through our working lives like horses wearing blinkers, and for the same reason - efficiency. Understanding is not considered to be necessary in industry, outside of senior management, if efficiency can be achieved without it.
Sure, I do make use of my intellect in making certain choices that would benefit me and others. I do not blindly act out on my emotions. But intellect alone has never given my life any real value though. That is the thing. My positive emotions have always been the one and only source of good and beautiful value in my life. In a way, my positive emotions would be like god's holy light within my conscious being. Without his holy light within me, then I can only become and empty vessel and my life would become empty. That, or I would become a being of darkness through my negative emotions.
Without intellect you would enjoy tremendous positive emotions while eating another creature alive. God's holy light? Who knows? Maybe so :)

Negative emotions are useful, their purpose being to bring the isolation needed for one to regenerate until again ready to re-enter the hurly burly of life. Best to acknowledge them and listen to what your body and brain are telling you IMO rather than resist, unless it becomes weird / pathological.

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Judaka » April 8th, 2018, 8:26 am

It appears some people are conflating psychological needs/desires with emotions, I don't need to be emotional to desire things and I don't need to be pursuing an emotional state. This doesn't really need to be explained, it's self-evident but that's not really important for this point.

Forgetting the unreliability of emotions and focusing on the interpretative problem alone, emotions by themselves don't say anything. Let's say your parents are wiped out in a tragic accident and now you are sad, what are you sad about? Are you sad that you won't be able to talk to them again? Are you sad for them? Are you sad because you feel what happened was unfair? You can't prove what it is you are sad about, you can present an answer but it's probably a mixture of many things and you can't create an accurate pie chart showing that.

Secondly is the performance of emotions, for example lots of people play tennis at a club level and naturally enough all of them want to win. I wouldn't say those who throw tantrums when they lose care more than those who accept defeat with grace, they're just being childish. So what does it mean for you to show certain emotions? If you cry hysterically about your baby crying a lot, are you having a breakdown from stress or do you really care about your peace and quiet? What if another individual who also couldn't handle their baby crying so much, started taking out their anger on others. Or what if someone just kept their difficulties to themselves and marched on? Displaying emotion isn't always because you care, it's often because you're undisciplined, narcissistic or simply predisposed that way.

I mean it does go on and on but to talk about emotions as a way of communication. For instance a parent may get angry with a child in order to try to have them listen. Or an individual who will rile himself up in order to get their way because others don't want an argument, one gets used to that.

As for positive emotions, there's more to life than just being happy all the time. In fact I think if all you try to do is be happy, you will fail to meet your psychological needs and that happiness won't sustain itself. Personally I feed off negative emotions all the time to get a high, as usual it comes down to your interpretations and how they manifest themselves.

User avatar
Omniverse
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: September 25th, 2017, 3:40 pm

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Omniverse » April 8th, 2018, 10:19 am

Judaka wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 8:26 am
It appears some people are conflating psychological needs/desires with emotions, I don't need to be emotional to desire things and I don't need to be pursuing an emotional state. This doesn't really need to be explained, it's self-evident but that's not really important for this point.

Forgetting the unreliability of emotions and focusing on the interpretative problem alone, emotions by themselves don't say anything. Let's say your parents are wiped out in a tragic accident and now you are sad, what are you sad about? Are you sad that you won't be able to talk to them again? Are you sad for them? Are you sad because you feel what happened was unfair? You can't prove what it is you are sad about, you can present an answer but it's probably a mixture of many things and you can't create an accurate pie chart showing that.

Secondly is the performance of emotions, for example lots of people play tennis at a club level and naturally enough all of them want to win. I wouldn't say those who throw tantrums when they lose care more than those who accept defeat with grace, they're just being childish. So what does it mean for you to show certain emotions? If you cry hysterically about your baby crying a lot, are you having a breakdown from stress or do you really care about your peace and quiet? What if another individual who also couldn't handle their baby crying so much, started taking out their anger on others. Or what if someone just kept their difficulties to themselves and marched on? Displaying emotion isn't always because you care, it's often because you're undisciplined, narcissistic or simply predisposed that way.

I mean it does go on and on but to talk about emotions as a way of communication. For instance a parent may get angry with a child in order to try to have them listen. Or an individual who will rile himself up in order to get their way because others don't want an argument, one gets used to that.

As for positive emotions, there's more to life than just being happy all the time. In fact I think if all you try to do is be happy, you will fail to meet your psychological needs and that happiness won't sustain itself. Personally I feed off negative emotions all the time to get a high, as usual it comes down to your interpretations and how they manifest themselves.
But emotions are a form of drive/motivation. An example would be sex drive. Now, drive/motivation is a synonym for desire and something mattering to you. For example, if you are driven to do something, then you have the desire to do something and that thing matters to you. From there, something mattering to you is a synonym for value because the only way something can have value is if it matters. It makes no sense to me to say that something can have value if it doesn't matter. Since emotions make things matter to us, then they are what make things of value to us in our lives. As for negative emotions being a positive high for an individual, they can't.

Only if you felt a positive emotion from having negative emotions would you be having a positive high from having negative emotions. Positive emotions can only give us a positive high and good value in our lives while negative emotions can only give us a negative experience/high and bad value in our lives. To say that positive emotions can be a negative experience/state of mind or that negative emotions can be a positive experience/state of mind would be no different than saying that a positive charge can be a negative charge or that a negative charge can be a positive charge. It just makes no sense. In other words, positive and negative emotions are intrinsically positive, negative, good, and bad.

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Judaka » April 8th, 2018, 12:53 pm

But emotions are a form of drive/motivation. An example would be sex drive. Now, drive/motivation is a synonym for desire and something mattering to you. For example, if you are driven to do something, then you have the desire to do something and that thing matters to you. From there, something mattering to you is a synonym for value because the only way something can have value is if it matters. It makes no sense to me to say that something can have value if it doesn't matter. Since emotions make things matter to us, then they are what make things of value to us in our lives. As for negative emotions being a positive high for an individual, they can't.
Sex drive is a bad example, since this is not an emotion but a psychological desire... If you want to turn every form of desire into an emotion then it's a circular argument. I also care about things due to pride, image, integrity, compassion, attraction, ideals and many other things, on top of psychological needs and desires. There's very little I care about due to emotions, perhaps I'll eat tasty food to make myself happy or do things I enjoy and I do value such things, clearly emotions do have a role in what we value and when we are emotional we are in a sense displaying some degree of passion for something. I think the ego, interpretations and psychological needs are the big players in deciding what we value and I don't think it's hard to see that this is the case. Emotions are unreliable, illogical, inconsistent and transient... my emotional reaction to stubbing my toe ranges from angry to frustrated to annoyed to apathetic or dismissive, just depends on my mood and the only exceptions are huge events (which are also heavily subjected to interpretation).
Only if you felt a positive emotion from having negative emotions would you be having a positive high from having negative emotions. Positive emotions can only give us a positive high and good value in our lives while negative emotions can only give us a negative experience/high and bad value in our lives.
I agree. This is the power of interpretation, one can view a tragedy as a comedy and laugh. Positive emotion experienced from negative emotions just show that our emotional reaction to things is based on interpretation before it's based on values. You need to determine what you're seeing before you can have an opinion about it, that's only logical. So an emotional reaction to an event is based on an interpretation, so the person experiencing road rage does so because their car is precious to them and they get mad when people get close to damaging it. Then we interpret that, "well sure you're concerned about your car but aren't you actually angry because you feel others should respect your car and you feel by driving recklessly that they're not?" or whatever else we want to say about this anger about close calls with this person's car.

Whether you focus on the flaws of emotion, the alternatives to emotion in forming desire or the problem of interpretation - it's a hard sell to say that emotions are the only way of determining what we value.

User avatar
Omniverse
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: September 25th, 2017, 3:40 pm

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Omniverse » April 8th, 2018, 1:11 pm

Judaka wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 12:53 pm
But emotions are a form of drive/motivation. An example would be sex drive. Now, drive/motivation is a synonym for desire and something mattering to you. For example, if you are driven to do something, then you have the desire to do something and that thing matters to you. From there, something mattering to you is a synonym for value because the only way something can have value is if it matters. It makes no sense to me to say that something can have value if it doesn't matter. Since emotions make things matter to us, then they are what make things of value to us in our lives. As for negative emotions being a positive high for an individual, they can't.
Sex drive is a bad example, since this is not an emotion but a psychological desire... If you want to turn every form of desire into an emotion then it's a circular argument. I also care about things due to pride, image, integrity, compassion, attraction, ideals and many other things, on top of psychological needs and desires. There's very little I care about due to emotions, perhaps I'll eat tasty food to make myself happy or do things I enjoy and I do value such things, clearly emotions do have a role in what we value and when we are emotional we are in a sense displaying some degree of passion for something. I think the ego, interpretations and psychological needs are the big players in deciding what we value and I don't think it's hard to see that this is the case. Emotions are unreliable, illogical, inconsistent and transient... my emotional reaction to stubbing my toe ranges from angry to frustrated to annoyed to apathetic or dismissive, just depends on my mood and the only exceptions are huge events (which are also heavily subjected to interpretation).
Only if you felt a positive emotion from having negative emotions would you be having a positive high from having negative emotions. Positive emotions can only give us a positive high and good value in our lives while negative emotions can only give us a negative experience/high and bad value in our lives.
I agree. This is the power of interpretation, one can view a tragedy as a comedy and laugh. Positive emotion experienced from negative emotions just show that our emotional reaction to things is based on interpretation before it's based on values. You need to determine what you're seeing before you can have an opinion about it, that's only logical. So an emotional reaction to an event is based on an interpretation, so the person experiencing road rage does so because their car is precious to them and they get mad when people get close to damaging it. Then we interpret that, "well sure you're concerned about your car but aren't you actually angry because you feel others should respect your car and you feel by driving recklessly that they're not?" or whatever else we want to say about this anger about close calls with this person's car.

Whether you focus on the flaws of emotion, the alternatives to emotion in forming desire or the problem of interpretation - it's a hard sell to say that emotions are the only way of determining what we value.
When you feel sexually aroused, that is something very transient since a feeling of sexual arousal does not last. It would be no different than if you felt a panic attack. The emotion known as panic does not last either. It just comes and goes. You said that emotions are transient. Since sexual arousal (sex drive) is transient, then it would have to be an emotion. Lastly, emotions would be an unreliable, illogical, inconsistent, and transient source of value in our lives. But I still think they are the only source of value. Also, in the examples you have given such as someone feeling road rage, it would just be the idea of his car being precious and valuable to him that would result in him feeling that way. But it would just be an idea and nothing more. It is only his feeling of rage which would allow him to perceive bad value in regards to people getting close. So, again, our intellect, morality, and character alone just gives us ideas and beliefs of value being perceived in our lives, but no real perception of value. It is only our emotions that allow us to truly perceive value.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7430
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Greta » April 8th, 2018, 5:15 pm

Thoughts, sensations and emotions - not so easy to parse!

Dachshund
Posts: 510
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Dachshund » April 9th, 2018, 11:47 am

Greta wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 5:15 pm
Thoughts, sensations and emotions - not so easy to parse!
Especially not for the females of our species; whose rational cognitive faculties are always very prone ( i.e. highly biogenetically predisposed) to be overwhelmed by emotions most of the time.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7430
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Greta » April 9th, 2018, 6:06 pm

Dachshund wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 11:47 am
Greta wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 5:15 pm
Thoughts, sensations and emotions - not so easy to parse!
Especially not for the females of our species; whose rational cognitive faculties are always very prone ( i.e. highly biogenetically predisposed) to be overwhelmed by emotions most of the time.
Borat, an analyst of similar depth to you, noted that a woman's brain is the size of squirrel's. Meanwhile, as perhaps the second most emotionally labile person on the forum, your comment leaves you in an ironic position.

Judaka
Posts: 235
Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Judaka » April 9th, 2018, 11:43 pm

When you feel sexually aroused, that is something very transient since a feeling of sexual arousal does not last. It would be no different than if you felt a panic attack. The emotion known as panic does not last either. It just comes and goes. You said that emotions are transient. Since sexual arousal (sex drive) is transient, then it would have to be an emotion.
That's not how it works, sexual arousal is physiological and temporary like emotions but that's not what makes something an emotion, it's also completely separate from sex drive which is near omnipresent. It seems to me there are two arguments and I'm not sure which one you're propagating anymore. The first is that emotion is solely responsible for determining what we value and the second is that emotion is solely responsible for demonstrating our values.

My point with the man's precious car is not to say that the basis for caring couldn't be emotional, I'm refuting the idea that simply because you feel emotional about something, it's showing that you care about something specifically. People show emotions for a variety of reasons and not simply because they value something, equally their emotional reaction to things is highly dependant upon things like stress, anxiety, frustration, interpretative states like depression and physiological states like other kinds of depression or hormones like testosterone and estrogen for example. Emotion serves a role in communication and is used to dominate and manipulate others. You can never know for certain what it is you are actually feeling emotional about, that's mainly because emotions are illogical, inconsistent and unreliable but it's also because of the problems of interpretation I've described.

If your argument is in fact not that emotions are our only method of demonstrating that we care about something but are in fact responsible for our ability to care and determining what we value then I point again to formulations of values within psychological, biological, philosophical, social, cultural, egotistical, religious and other means. These things also impact how emotions are felt and expressed through interpretative differences. As you said yourself, it's the idea that his car is precious that makes him feel the way he does, the basis is not emotional and really it wouldn't even make sense for it to be emotional. However more importantly many examples exist such as with psychological needs that transcend emotions and do not look for certain emotional responses.

You may not trust others or yourself, emotions are visceral and at times uncontrollable and perhaps that gives them in your view a sense of honesty and purity that you won't find in deeper, more complicated ideas. However emotions aren't trustworthy, they don't show us anything specifically and they're a fraction of what makes up human desire and expression.
Thoughts, sensations and emotions - not so easy to parse!
There's more to it than this, emotions aren't the basis for ambition or values and neither are sensations or thoughts. However everything is happening in the same place and it's all interconnected but I think we should be able to distinguish between the basics.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3133
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by LuckyR » April 19th, 2018, 4:29 am

Greta wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 6:06 pm
Dachshund wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 11:47 am


Especially not for the females of our species; whose rational cognitive faculties are always very prone ( i.e. highly biogenetically predisposed) to be overwhelmed by emotions most of the time.
Borat, an analyst of similar depth to you, noted that a woman's brain is the size of squirrel's. Meanwhile, as perhaps the second most emotionally labile person on the forum, your comment leaves you in an ironic position.
I can't believe I didn't see this earlier.

Do you see what I was talking about in that other thread? Well done.
"As usual... it depends."

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 519
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Karpel Tunnel » April 19th, 2018, 8:34 am

Dachshund wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 11:47 am
Greta wrote:
April 8th, 2018, 5:15 pm
Thoughts, sensations and emotions - not so easy to parse!
Especially not for the females of our species; whose rational cognitive faculties are always very prone ( i.e. highly biogenetically predisposed) to be overwhelmed by emotions most of the time.
I find women to be much less overwhelmed by emotions than men. They are more comfortable with the full range of emotions, if one is going to make broad generalizations. Men are often trained to convert fear into rage - which is a kind of 'being overwhelmed' and sadness can easily overwhelm them also.

I think we confuse lack of expressiveness with not being overwhelmed. Women are - setting aside culture/nature debates - more likely to acknowledge a full range of emotions when they are triggered. Men keep a tighter lid. The fastest way to get overwhelmed is to keep a tight lid. They may say things that 'make sense' but this does not mean they are grounded or relevant.

User avatar
MutatedFunges
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: April 22nd, 2018, 7:28 pm

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by MutatedFunges » April 22nd, 2018, 8:11 pm

Greta wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 6:06 pm
Dachshund wrote:
April 9th, 2018, 11:47 am


Especially not for the females of our species; whose rational cognitive faculties are always very prone ( i.e. highly biogenetically predisposed) to be overwhelmed by emotions most of the time.
Borat, an analyst of similar depth to you, noted that a woman's brain is the size of squirrel's. Meanwhile, as perhaps the second most emotionally labile person on the forum, your comment leaves you in an ironic position.
Lets stay on topic, unless there is some relevant argument not implied? Because, if the person is replying to the question, I think he is saying that women aren't in the denial of their emotions.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7430
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Humanity is in denial of their own emotions

Post by Greta » April 23rd, 2018, 1:38 am

MF, if mine seems a jaundiced interpretation, please note that D is continuing on lines he adopted in earlier threads and you have effectively walked into the middle of pre-existing discussions. So D indeed is not suggesting that women are in touch with their emotions, just that emotions allegedly render women unreliable.

Note that this is the same reasoning he used to claim in another thread that society would be better off it women were no longer allowed to vote. As you may imagine, I did not agree.

It's well known in psychology and neuroscience circles that emotions are critical to motivation. So, if there is denial of emotions, it's not amongst at least those specialists and related sections of academia. So it's not all of humanity who may be in denial of emotions.

So which parts of humanity can we identify that undervalue emotions? The obvious "culprit" is the corporate world, which is mostly run by unbending policies and machines rather than people, with employees increasingly seemingly operating like interchangeable cells within the bodies of corporations.

Post Reply