Philosophy Now Forum

“...unthinkingly complacent about the political and social status quo?”

The way of thinking is normative in your provocation. Such a cheap and thoughtless objection is in each nook, and each corner, of the planet, holding its fingers crossed. All over people are making the objection, here, in this place, you make. You are one among the generality. In change, one begs to change in the way one wishes to improve. Each one has become aware of the individuality, why? Because individuality is exactly the symptom of collective selective breeding by the second nature, which is the human world. What goes with the desire to rescue the human, is the mechanism of the technicle planet. It is the reason one seeks rescue in progress, in the unfolding of what is banal and everywhere the same. As a more multifarious same. There is no striving for that in former ages. In fact, in the Medieval time, man strove to be rational. To be rational meant that all humans could be the same!!!! Absolutely and perpetually the same in the ideal of one’s behaviour. One must see the comprehensive borders of the hoop one sits in. One must see it, to see beyond it. You are in a room with no windows, seeking to turn the room, you stare at white walls, until you see all the seven colours of the rainbow and weep in banal joy.

You aren't grasping what Jung-denken (neo-thinking) is. You're falling in with the forms that you find yourself amidst and unfolding their orders like an ant.

This is a well thought out position, even if you disagree. I just want to point out that emotions are required by evolution;. That's why we have them.

"I just want to point out that emotions are required by evolution;. That's why we have them."

What does emotion mean here? Electrical impulse? That just avoids the question in the OP. Besides, why do you bandy about these vapid claims with no arguments? What in Tartarus does the slimy body, "required by evolution", mean?

It's annoying when thoughtless people take over one's thread with their everyday chatter.

Troll, it is evident that your emotions are standing in your way of a rational discussion of emotions. Is it some particular trauma that has led you to make claims about:

academic charlatan's assumed conventional Pseud's Corner-worthy spiel

or is this just your own example of such?

So, this is the same as a formal system, or a system determined by a Sample Space.

The difficulty of speaking simply is that there remains nothing to hide behind. This is also its power, but many are defeated by it and resort to jargon or the appearance of profundity by making poetic pronouncements about the limits of others, as if thus escaping those limits themselves. Despite your self congratulatory attitude of superiority anyone familiar with the Continental tradition knows just how derivative everything you say is.

What emotion means in daily life differs from what it means in the sciences.

You have appealed repeatedly to what emotion means in daily life, the commonsense notion of emotion, and other conceptions of emotion without saying what those notions are or which if any of those notion you accept. At first you seem to be supporting the claim that:

… elan vital means emotion
… emotion and life are the same thing

But then back off this claim without saying what your revised concept is.

You claim that the split between emotion and feeling is not “philosophical” because:

One would have to ask, how was it arrived at?

And yet you then go on to dismiss the basis of the distinction because:

The division I spoke of, and exampled exactly with particular examples!!, is between daily life and traditions of research projects, not mind and body.

You would do well to look at yourself when you say:

You are living in a dank scutcheon of rank dishonesty the repellent stench of which smiles out at the forum.

Now, in the older way of thinking, one said this: "feeling" is not chosen. Neither is profound mood, as in deep set antagonism, hate or "bias".

A physiological account of the emotions may be fully consonant with this way of thinking, for both may claim that emotions are what happen to us. The difference being that one gives a physiological account and the other eschews explanation. Contrary to it is the notion that emotions are constructs built on signals we receive from the world and the body. See, for example, Lisa Feldman Barrett’s “How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain”.

Epictetus said:

What disturbs men's minds is not events but their judgements on events

… the physiology as opposed to the structure or anatomy.

What is the physiology as opposed to the structure or anatomy of an organism?

What your trained to think is only in terms of gathering phenomena, and connecting it to a system of organizing it. Natural science as analytic philosophy.

This shows a basic misunderstanding of science. It is not just a matter of gathering phenomena but of controlled experiment, understanding of mechanisms, processes, molecular and chemical structures and interactions that are not phenomenal, modelling, etc. It is not simply connecting phenomena to a system of organization, but rather, of altering the theoretical framework to fit the observable facts. The connection between natural science and analytic philosophy is at best questionable, no doubt based on a misunderstanding of both.

You see, it assumes the value of life is gathering such functioning accounts …

It assumes nothing of the sort. The science of emotions says nothing about the value of life. Such questions are outside its purview. Whether one holds to a view of scientism says nothing about a scientific understanding of emotions.

However, when, as is increasingly the case, one immediately assumes the technical term is the authority, one says, it is never so that someone is "unemotional", since emotion, then, refers to the electrical language of the nervous system.

Unemotional and being without emotions are two different things.

If one passes off the ordinary habitual concept as merely subjective, what is one saying?

The question is, what are you saying? Of course the emotions are subjective. This does not mean that one “passes off the ordinary concept”. The ordinary concept tells us nothing about the etiology of emotions.

All research programs start with common sense, yet, this is obscured by the fact that they have long traditions behind them of which the individual researcher is usually largely unaware.

What long tradition is it that you think researchers are largely unaware of and how is it that this lack of awareness makes their research problematic?

The number of things taken for granted in such a channeling into an equipmental rearing up of resources towards a manipulation of beings, is vast. It is a goal form within one, as one of the ones who does ‘science’ under the current notion one has of what science is.

If you are saying that the science has a practical or therapeutic aspect then yes that is true. But at least since the time that Plato described Socrates as a physician of the soul there has been a therapeutic value to such inquiry. And, of course, this is not exclusive to the west. Zen master Lin Chi, for example, described what he did in much the same way.

I don’t know that this answered the question, concerning the usage of emotion in daily life.

The usage of emotion? You just faulted science for “equipmental rearing up of resources towards a manipulation of beings” and follow it up by talking about the usage of emotion.

As all they aim at is manipulation.

And what does the usage of emotion aim at?

It's been said (and I don't want to be a sexist) that women are more emotional then men. But maybe evolution gave them strong emotions because men don't listen to a woman's logic.

When a father and son are having a horrendous argument, the mother may cry and say "You are tearing me apart". This will not end the argument and the father and son may not talk for a very long time.

But eventually the father may go to the son and say, "Let's bury the hatchet for the sake of your mother" He does it because his wife is very upset.

Blessed are the mothers.

Some of you guys seem to take this thread as a platform for a Nobel Prize.

Keep it simple. Every Tuesday, after a hard days work I do HIIT(google it up) on my trainer bike, fill up a bath in my tub and lie there for a couple of hours. First hour I listen to a online Book (currently Pride & Predjudice). After that I simply lie there in the warm water and stare at a candle on a alcove in the wall.
And things come to me, without any external stimuli, I just stare at the candle. Thoughts come to me, often creative thoughts. But also emotions. I can just suddenly feel comfortable or anxious. Now what the hell is that? I'm pretty sure it's no use in making some kind of physiological/biological explanation, you will not come up with an explanation to why I felt that at that specific time. My 25c is that psychology is the best explanator currently available.

And like hell women or artists should feel emotions more than a tech guy like me. As a group we are not maybe as poetic retelling those emotions to others but we bloody well feel as much as anyone. (And in my native language I am as poetic as anyone else)

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:57 am Some of you guys seem to take this thread as a platform for a Nobel Prize.

Keep it simple. Every Tuesday, after a hard days work I do HIIT(google it up) on my trainer bike, fill up a bath in my tub and lie there for a couple of hours. First hour I listen to a online Book (currently Pride & Predjudice). After that I simply lie there in the warm water and stare at a candle on a alcove in the wall.
And things come to me, without any external stimuli, I just stare at the candle. Thoughts come to me, often creative thoughts. But also emotions. I can just suddenly feel comfortable or anxious. Now what the hell is that? I'm pretty sure it's no use in making some kind of physiological/biological explanation, you will not come up with an explanation to why I felt that at that specific time. My 25c is that psychology is the best explanator currently available.

And like hell women or artists should feel emotions more than a tech guy like me. As a group we are not maybe as poetic retelling those emotions to others but we bloody well feel as much as anyone. (And in my native language I am as poetic as anyone else)

You make claims without foundation. Isn't that true?

“Troll, it is evident that your emotions are standing in your way of a rational discussion of emotions.”

What does rational mean here? If one said the most intelligent thing when in a great rage, that would be no defect of the thing said, would it? I think you are under the spell of a defunct usage of the word rational, where it stands in contradistinction to the passions and the appetites. Today we live amidst an unbelievable vulgarization of the assumed conventional dogmatic conceptions which most all take up without understanding.

“Despite your self congratulatory attitude of superiority anyone familiar with the Continental tradition knows just how derivative everything you say is.”

If what you said were true, it would be no rebuke. Since taking something up, on one’s own feet, is a great thing. Provided the teaching of the great philosophers is granted to be worth learning. The worthy question would be, is it taken up, does it live in the inquiry, or is it merely rehearsed?

“without saying what those notions are or which if any of those notion you accept.”

I gave an explicit example. SO far as I remember, I even repeated it. And so shall not do so again since you are either dishonest, stupid, or lazy, and you are surely ignorant of that example! .


I eschew answering the rest since I have not the impression you are either sincere or rational. Though, you don’t tell us, what is rationality?

PS

"Sample Space" is not jargon, it is a technical term of Probabilistic Analysis. It is in the post, of course, used colorfully. Though seriously. However, in straightforward terms, what I mean is that the thing under study is assumed in the way of investigating. A simple example, that is to be used as an analogy for all forms of investigation, is counting the number of beans in green bean pods. If anything but whole beans are found, we don't take that as a data point. Even if we find the brilliant disk of the sun in the pod, and the researcher is obliterated by its fierce shafts, we only have eyes for the whole beans.

It's been said (and I don't want to be a sexist) that women are more emotional then men. But maybe evolution gave them strong emotions because men don't listen to a woman's logic.

However, why does it not happen the other way? Are you claiming women have a greater inclination, by nature, to hear logic? Or, is it rather, that since men are larger, it is easier for them to ignore the smaller rational animals so called. In the style mentioned by Plato, on the walk along the walled path that leads to the Piraeus, if I am not mistaken, Socrates says, perhaps I will persuade you. Not, the other replies, if we don't listen.

I don't suppose you meant to suggest that there is a specifically woman's logic?

According to Larry Summers, men are both more and less reasonable. They tend to the extremes.

Troll:

If one said the most intelligent thing when in a great rage, that would be no defect of the thing said, would it?

What one might say and one what one does say are two different things. If and when you say the most intelligent thing we can discuss it.

I think you are under the spell of a defunct usage of the word rational, where it stands in contradistinction to the passions and the appetites.

What one does or fails to do because they are being emotional has nothing to do with what you think of how I might be using a term rational.

Today we live amidst an unbelievable vulgarization of the assumed conventional dogmatic conceptions which most all take up without understanding.

Nice bloviated speech but beside the point since you are responding to your own assumptions rather than anything I actually said.

If what you said were true, it would be no rebuke. Since taking something up, on one’s own feet, is a great thing. Provided the teaching of the great philosophers is granted to be worth learning.

We all learn from the great philosophers, but we do not all adopt an attitude of superiority when repeating what they say while faulting others for not being able to:

see the comprehensive borders of the hoop one sits in.

It is a great thing when you stand in “the hoop”. Repeating:

already granted notions of the tradition

I gave an explicit example. SO far as I remember, I even repeated it.And so shall not do so again since you are either dishonest, stupid, or lazy, and you are surely ignorant of that example! .

You are letting your emotions get the better of you again!

An example of an emotion does not identify what notion of emotions you accept as correct. An example of an emotion is hardly sufficient. Even those you are critical of would agree that sadness is an emotion. This tells us nothing. Emotions are not limited to sadness or mood or hate or bias. An example is not a definition or an explanation. Emotion does not mean sadness or any other example you might cite.

I eschew answering the rest since I have not the impression you are either sincere or rational.

Well, that is one way of avoiding addressing my criticisms, but hardly convincing.

"Sample Space" is not jargon, it is a technical term of Probabilistic Analysis.

Sample space is an example of jargon. If you are still confused a definition might help:

special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.

This is a good example of why an example of something is not an adequate substitute for the meaning of the term.

Troll wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:43 pm What is the origin and locus of the conception of Emotion?

a product of the mid brain. such as animals (including the animal man) have.

Emotion is instinct.

a product of environmental stress/threats (tribal/outside animal threats (lions/etc)).

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:58 am This is a well thought out position, even if you disagree. I just want to point out that emotions are required by evolution;. That's why we have them.

yep

Troll wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:56 am

"I just want to point out that emotions are required by evolution;. That's why we have them."

What does emotion mean here? Electrical impulse? That just avoids the question in the OP. Besides, why do you bandy about these vapid claims with no arguments? What in Tartarus does the slimy body, "required by evolution", mean?

It's annoying when thoughtless people take over one's thread with their everyday chatter.

from your reply your moniker does you well.

i thought the poster was clear myself and so no need to interogate him/her.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:59 am When a father and son are having a horrendous argument, the mother may cry and say "You are tearing me apart". This will not end the argument and the father and son may not talk for a very long time.

But eventually the father may go to the son and say, "Let's bury the hatchet for the sake of your mother" He does it because his wife is very upset.

Blessed are the mothers.

I think you are confusing Women with James Dean here.