Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 12:23:46 GMT -5
Can our emotions be rational? Are all of our emotions rational?
If not, then how do we separate the rational from the irrational emotions?
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jan 27, 2018 16:15:44 GMT -5
Should we understand "rational" as meaning that there is good reason to experience a particular emotion in a given situation?
If so, then as an example, yes, it is rational to be afraid when you are in real and immediate danger. Let's say: a man is threatening you with a gun and he has just shot someone else. But, no, it is not rational to be afraid when you are not in danger. Let's say: you see a picture of a man holding a gun in a newspaper. So maybe our emotions can be either rational or irrational, depending on circumstances.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 20:41:00 GMT -5
Human beings evolved to be sensitive to any kind of possible danger. That's why early man seeing a boulder as a possible lion was conducive to survival. So looking at a picture of a gun and having fearful emotions is just another form of that. I know when I see a gun used as a avatar, for instance, I don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Jan 28, 2018 1:32:14 GMT -5
Right, Lily. A reminder of a dangerous thing (a picture of a gun) can evoke emotions similar to encountering the dangerous thing itself (a man pointing a gun at you). But your reaction to the reminder would be far less intense than your reaction to actually being in danger. It is reasonable to be "scared to death" when there's a gun in your face, but it's not reasonable when you just see a picture of a gun.
Perhaps when deciding if an emotion is rational in some situation, the intensity of emotion or emotional response needs to be considered.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Jan 28, 2018 10:03:07 GMT -5
Generally, people think of rational thought as being entirely without emotions and emotions to be entirely without rationality. I think it's a mix, and one that varies from moment. Often, we use rational thought to help us achieve emotional goals. 8->
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 17:31:39 GMT -5
Should we understand "rational" as meaning that there is good reason to experience a particular emotion in a given situation? If so, then as an example, yes, it is rational to be afraid when you are in real and immediate danger. Let's say: a man is threatening you with a gun and he has just shot someone else. But, no, it is not rational to be afraid when you are not in danger. Let's say: you see a picture of a man holding a gun in a newspaper. So maybe our emotions can be either rational or irrational, depending on circumstances. I didn't supply a specific definition of "rational" because I thought it would be more interesting to hash it out inside the discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 17:40:41 GMT -5
One interesting question here is whether emotions come before we start acting/thinking rationally, or whether our rational mode of thinking already interacts with the emotions themselves.
Do we select our emotional drives and motivations based on rational reasoning, or does the rational reasoning come after our emotions (and with them, our motivations, drives, wants, needs etc.) are already in place? Fun stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 22:09:02 GMT -5
That sounds familiar, Mcans. And I'm still mad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 12:37:11 GMT -5
That sounds familiar, Mcans. And I'm still mad. Why are you mad?
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 1, 2018 14:46:57 GMT -5
Like I wrote, I think we used thinking to support our emotions, not the other way round. But that's just me.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Feb 1, 2018 17:02:11 GMT -5
I'm too emotional to answer this question. Also, probably not smart enough.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 1, 2018 21:04:02 GMT -5
Like I wrote, I think we used thinking to support our emotions, not the other way round. But that's just me. Nope. Not just you. Hume said it back in the 1700's. Searle pointed out that "promises" are exceptions to this. Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 2, 2018 9:17:51 GMT -5
Unless, of course, promises are rational statements in support an emotion. Yes, I like you (emotion), so I promise to come to your party this Saturday. 8-D
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 2, 2018 9:31:37 GMT -5
Unless, of course, promises are rational statements in support an emotion. Yes, I like you (emotion), so I promise to come to your party this Saturday. 8-D Not really. Searle views promises as a means to guarantee our future behavior even if we may not emotionally want to. Example: I order something in a restaurant. The ordering mean I am giving an implicit promise to pay when I finish the meal. But what if at that future time, I just don't feel like paying? Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 2, 2018 16:05:34 GMT -5
Then you sneak out the door? There are many varying degrees of promises, but people are pretty casual about breaking most of them. Broken New Year's resolutions have become a standard joke. Often people only do what they promised if they're cornered and forced to. Like being forced to pay for your meal u nder threat of arrest. Of course, there's always the old standby - I wanted to do [whatever it was I promised], but X, Y, and Z stopped me. 8->
I just don't see promises as a guarantee of anything. More like guidelines. LOL
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 2, 2018 19:05:31 GMT -5
Then you sneak out the door? There are many varying degrees of promises, but people are pretty casual about breaking most of them. Broken New Year's resolutions have become a standard joke. Often people only do what they promised if they're cornered and forced to. Like being forced to pay for your meal u nder threat of arrest. Of course, there's always the old standby - I wanted to do [whatever it was I promised], but X, Y, and Z stopped me. 8-> I just don't see promises as a guarantee of anything. More like guidelines. LOL Then why have promises to begin with? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 20:39:34 GMT -5
How does one separate emotions from thought?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 8:59:49 GMT -5
How does one separate emotions from thought? That's an interesting question. Personally I don't think we actually can, because our thoughts are informed by the emotions that drive them.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 3, 2018 9:46:50 GMT -5
>Then why have promises to begin with?
Promises are a feature of social animals who can communicate at a high level and can visualize the future. They're from before the days of written contracts. Promises, oaths, agreements, deals, whatever, occur when someone tells someone else that they will do something in the future.
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
Or...
"We'll let it go this time, but if we ever see you doing this again, you'll be banished from the clan." "I promise to never do it again."
Oaths are interesting because they're promises connected to religion. Either a promise to a deity or a promise to a person, but backed up by bringing in deities to oversee the deal.
"I swear by Odin's eye that I will do such-and-such next week."
Anyway, promises have a social function in the human herd. People who often break promises may become social outcasts, or worse.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 3, 2018 10:15:17 GMT -5
How does one separate emotions from thought? That's an interesting question. Personally I don't think we actually can, because our thoughts are informed by the emotions that drive them. Can't it work the other way too? Can our emotions be informed by our thoughts as well? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 3, 2018 10:25:34 GMT -5
>Then why have promises to begin with? Promises are a feature of social animals who can communicate at a high level and can visualize the future. They're from before the days of written contracts. Promises, oaths, agreements, deals, whatever, occur when someone tells someone else that they will do something in the future. Anyway, promises have a social function in the human herd. People who often break promises may become social outcasts, or worse. Exactly the point, Fred. In order to have a society, we have to rely on others to perform tasks in the future whether they want to or not. This is what John Searle calls "a desire-independent reason for action." When we are under an obligation, we have a reason to fulfill the obligation no matter what our emotions are telling us at the moment. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 14:10:57 GMT -5
That's an interesting question. Personally I don't think we actually can, because our thoughts are informed by the emotions that drive them. Can t work the other way too? Can our emotions be informed by our thoughts as well? Bob How would you know what came first? The chicken or the egg?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 3, 2018 19:10:53 GMT -5
Can t work the other way too? Can our emotions be informed by our thoughts as well? Bob How would you know what came first? The chicken or the egg? Exactly the point. How can we know which direction it works? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 20:05:22 GMT -5
How would you know what came first? The chicken or the egg? Exactly the point. How can we know which direction it works? Bob You just thought of that?
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Feb 3, 2018 21:13:21 GMT -5
It seems to me that emotion and reason are intwined, with sometimes one and sometimes the other being experienced as coming first or being dominant. But there is a lot of activity below the level of conscious awareness, and I really have no idea what's happening there.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 4, 2018 9:19:07 GMT -5
Lily wrote: >How would you know what came first? The chicken or the egg? ---Insects and babies seem to have emotions, but little or no rational thought. Seems to me that rational thought clearly comes long after emotions have developed.
Bob wrote: >When we are under an obligation, we have a reason to fulfill the obligation no matter what our emotions are telling us at the moment. ---We may also have a reason to figure out a way to cheat and get out of our obligations. LOL
There's a thing in mental illness called "poor impulse control". It's when humans cannot control their actions and do whatever their emotions dictate, regardless of future consequences. Again, this indicates that emotions underpin everything else. With years of training, people like soldiers, firefighters, and such can ignore their emotions and do dangerous jobs. But anyone, with no training at all, can ignore their thinking. 8-D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2018 11:34:52 GMT -5
Lily wrote: >How would you know what came first? The chicken or the egg? ---Insects and babies seem to have emotions, but little or no rational thought. Seems to me that rational thought clearly comes long after emotions have developed. Babies do think. And I said "thought", not "rational" thought, although I suppose that could be debated as well.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 5, 2018 0:25:02 GMT -5
Bob wrote: >When we are under an obligation, we have a reason to fulfill the obligation no matter what our emotions are telling us at the moment. ---We may also have a reason to figure out a way to cheat and get out of our obligations. LOL Yes. But that does not negate the fact that the obligation is a non-emotional reason to perform an action no matter what we are feeling at the moment. That supports Searle's point. The purpose of a promise is to commit us to a future action no matter what we are feeling at that future moment. Promises are a form of impulse control. The example you give of soldiers, firefighters, and such is another example of impulse control.If we didn't do that, we would all be going around doing whatever we felt like at that moment. That would put humanity back in the jungle. Bob
|
|
|
Post by faskew on Feb 5, 2018 8:29:32 GMT -5
Promises may also be emotional, (Don't worry, Helga. I shall avenge your father!). They are social interactions, but whether or not they are kept depends on many variables. The obligation may or may not have any penalty associated with not following the promise. Threats of punishment for breaking a promise may also be enough to move a promise from the non-emotional box to the emotional box. (OMG, they're going to kill me if I don't give them their money!!!).
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Feb 5, 2018 13:54:56 GMT -5
Promises may also be emotional, (Don't worry, Helga. I shall avenge your father!). They are social interactions, but whether or not they are kept depends on many variables. The obligation may or may not have any penalty associated with not following the promise. Threats of punishment for breaking a promise may also be enough to move a promise from the non-emotional box to the emotional box. (OMG, they're going to kill me if I don't give them their money!!!). Yes. I don't dispute that there are many variables involved in whether promises are kept or not. Or that there may be emotional reasons for keeping them. That does not change the fact the reason for having promises to begin with is to create a non-emotional reason for action at a future time when we may have emotional reasons for not taking the action. Bob
|
|