Are Feelings Facts?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Are Feelings Facts?
Hart Caplan argued 'Feelings are Fact' in this article.
https://www.nightingalecounselling.com/ ... ngs-facts/
Hart quoted David - Feelings are Not Facts;

“Your feelings are valid, important, and worthy of honoring with compassion, but they are not facts or directives that get to boss you around.”
Susan David Ph.D., Harvard Medical School psychologist.”
Link

Hart's view:

My first reaction to reading this was shock.
It felt wild to me that someone with a doctorate in psychology would contrast feelings with facts.
Here, a feeling is, in actuality, a fact.
Let me make a stronger claim: all feelings are facts.
They are facts in the same way that the table I am sitting at currently is made of wood and that I am a psychotherapist.
All are part of the same category of thing we call facts.
Feelings are facts!
To argue otherwise is foolish or cruel.

Hart’s argument is that feelings can be verified empirically via science.
I agree with this argument, i.e. a feeling within an individual is a fact.
Btw, one has to read Hart's argument in detail in that article to understand his argument.

However, Susan David’s short statement ‘feelings are not fact’ is inferred from a different perspective from Hart's argument, which is similar to Neff’s view ‘feelings are not facts’.
https://neurodivergentinsights.com/blog ... -not-facts

Here Neff gave an example, if someone heard a change of tone from say the boss, he may interpret the boss as angry and perceive his work as not up to standard; in actuality, the fact is the boss never had such thoughts at all, as evidence by the big bonus he was paid the next day.

In another example, a person may have a terrible rush of fears upon seeing a snake in the shade, when in actually, the fact is, it was a piece of rope.

In the above, David and Neff assert the feelings are not the fact as in the world.
The point as Hart stated is, it is,
“—a fair point at that—that sometimes one’s feelings might not be well-founded and/or they don’t correspond accurately to the real world.”

Hart accused David of sloppiness:

“It does definitely behoove those of us who work in the psy-disciplines to be precise with our language, but in this case let’s call this a bit of good faith sloppiness.”

I agree with Hart that feeling are facts.
If one makes a wrong judgment from the feelings, the judgment is wrong but that does not obviate the existing of the feelings.

The feelings that are driven by emotions is real and represented by real physical neurons in connectivity and actions as in ALL humans. This is a biological and psychological facts within their respective FSERC, thus is factual and objective.

What is subjective is the judgment following the emotions and feelings.

Similarly there are feelings and emotions related to morality, these are biological facts and objective moral facts within the moral FSERC.

As such, when one empathize [driven by the related mirror neuron within the moral set of neurons and their actions] in not killing another humans, that is an objective moral fact within the moral FSK.

In this particular sense, morality is objective.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH et. al. arguments that morality cannot be objective is different from the above;

P1 All moral elements of morality are subjective arising from the subjects' inferences.
P2 Whatever is objective must be based on fact which is absolutely independent of the human subjects' conditions and mind. [this is based on philosophical realism].
C1 Therefore morality cannot be objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Age]

Are Feelings Facts?
Hart Caplan argued 'Feelings are Fact' in this article.
https://www.nightingalecounselling.com/ ... ngs-facts/
Hart quoted David - Feelings are Not Facts;

“Your feelings are valid, important, and worthy of honoring with compassion, but they are not facts or directives that get to boss you around.”
Susan David Ph.D., Harvard Medical School psychologist.”
Link

Hart's view:

My first reaction to reading this was shock.
It felt wild to me that someone with a doctorate in psychology would contrast feelings with facts.
Here, a feeling is, in actuality, a fact.
Let me make a stronger claim: all feelings are facts.
They are facts in the same way that the table I am sitting at currently is made of wood and that I am a psychotherapist.
All are part of the same category of thing we call facts.
Feelings are facts!
To argue otherwise is foolish or cruel.

Hart’s argument is that feelings can be verified empirically via science.
I agree with this argument, i.e. a feeling within an individual is a fact.
Btw, one has to read Hart's argument in detail in that article to understand his argument.

Do you, still, not yet realize how 'arrogant' you come across here sometimes "veritas aequitas"?

What you are essentially saying here is if absolutely any one does not agree with and/nor accept this one's argument, then they have not read the argument in detail, to understand the argument, which you agree with.

Just maybe, others might not agree with 'that argument' because 'that argument' is just not sound nor valid. Have you ever considered this "veritas aequitas"?

However, Susan David’s short statement ‘feelings are not fact’ is inferred from a different perspective from Hart's argument, which is similar to Neff’s view ‘feelings are not facts’.
https://neurodivergentinsights.com/blog ... -not-facts

Here Neff gave an example, if someone heard a change of tone from say the boss, he may interpret the boss as angry and perceive his work as not up to standard; in actuality, the fact is the boss never had such thoughts at all, as evidence by the big bonus he was paid the next day.

In another example, a person may have a terrible rush of fears upon seeing a snake in the shade, when in actually, the fact is, it was a piece of rope.

In the above, David and Neff assert the feelings are not the fact as in the world.
The point as Hart stated is, it is,
“—a fair point at that—that sometimes one’s feelings might not be well-founded and/or they don’t correspond accurately to the real world.”

Hart accused David of sloppiness:

“It does definitely behoove those of us who work in the psy-disciplines to be precise with our language, but in this case let’s call this a bit of good faith sloppiness.”

I agree with Hart that feeling are facts.

The saying, 'feelings are facts', is nonsensical in and of itself. Full stop.

And, that there are internal feelings, or emotions, within human bodies, is a Fact. That no one could refute. Again, full stop.

What is also an irrefutable Fact is that absolutely every internal feeling/emotion is perfectly understandable, normal, and/or reasonable. Considering 'the Fact' of where all internal feelings/emotions come from. What is also an irrefutable Fact is that for the exact same experience there can be completely different and even completely opposing internal feelings/emotions within those human bodies. Also, full stop.

So, what is 'it', exactly, that you are 'trying to' get across and convey here "veritas aequitas".

What can be seen here, again, in this thread, is another prime example of 'complicating' what is Truly 'simple', and making 'hard' what is Truly 'easy'.

If one makes a wrong judgment from the feelings, the judgment is wrong but that does not obviate the existing of the feelings.

OBVIOUSLY, if some thing comes from something else, then the second thing does not remove the existence of the former thing.

Why do you speak and write in such ludicrous ways sometimes "veritas aequitas"?

The feelings that are driven by emotions

What are you on about here, now?

Provide an example of a 'feeling' that was driven be 'emotions'?

And, just as good, provide 'your definitions' for the 'feelings' and 'emotions' words here.

If you do not, then there is not a human being on earth that 'knows' what 'it' is that you are actually saying and writing about here.

is real and represented by real physical neurons in connectivity and actions as in ALL humans.

Once again, you have, 'successfully', actually achieved to 'complicate' what is pure simplicity.

That is; within human bodies, there are, invisible emotions, and invisible thoughts. Both, emotions and thoughts have an effect on each other, and thought, itself, effects how the body, itself, behaves, or misbehaves. But, on realization that 'thought' is also affected by the 'emotions', which arise.

Also, when you human beings have, finally, 'grown up', 'matured', or 'evolved' enough, then you, also, learn how to control not just 'emotions', but also 'thought and thinking' as well.

This is a biological and psychological facts within their respective FSERC, thus is factual and objective.

Is there even a human being who would say that 'emotions' and 'thoughts' exist 'outside' of the 'biological and psychological' aspects of 'human bodies and human beings'?

If there is not, then there is no need for 'your' ridiculous use of letters like 'fserc'.

If, however, you know of any human being who claims that 'thoughts' and 'emotions' exist outside of biological bodies, then will you name them here.

What is subjective is the judgment following the emotions and feelings.

Why, to you, only 'following'?

Is it not possible for the emotions/internal feelings, themselves, to be 'subjective' to the individual person, and/or individual body, that they are within?

Similarly there are feelings and emotions related to morality, these are biological facts and objective moral facts within the moral FSERC.

This is another prime example of where and when you have just chosen some words, and are just trying to use them in a way that will, somehow, back up and support your 'currently' existing presumptions and beliefs.

As such, when one empathize [driven by the related mirror neuron within the moral set of neurons and their actions] in not killing another humans, that is an objective moral fact within the moral FSK.

you could not have made a worse attempt here to 'try to' bring some of 'your beliefs' together to 'try to' argue and fight for 'your position'. Although, and obviously, you have made worse attempts, previously.

In this particular sense, morality is objective.

LOL Okay.

Everyone 'morality', itself, is 'objective'. Because "veritas aequitas" says it is.

Discuss??
Views??

you have read some article, from some counselling service, about 'feelings, supposedly, being fact'. Again, instead of from the Truly open perspective that every thing is best 'looked at' and 'from', but instead you read that article 'from' your 'currently' existing belief/s, and have gone straight from 'feelings are fact', to, 'morality' must therefore 'be objective'.

Which is really quite humorous to watch and observe play out here. As, just be absolute coincidence, you were already believing, absolutely, that 'morality is objective', anyway.

[Age]

PH et. al. arguments that morality cannot be objective is different from the above;

P1 All moral elements of morality are subjective arising from the subjects' inferences.
P2 Whatever is objective must be based on fact which is absolutely independent of the human subjects' conditions and mind. [this is based on philosophical realism].
C1 Therefore morality cannot be objective.

Besides the Fact that you are using the Wrong interpretation of others views or beliefs, to 'try to' fight and argue against them, you are not even actually fighting and arguing for your own positions and belief/s here Correctly.

you are, essentially, arguing against your own, strongly held onto, positions and beliefs.

One does not even need to speak and write against a lot of what you posters here try to argue for, nor even against, as you individual posters here are actually pointing out and showing where 'your own positions and beliefs' are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect.