F---ing logics

[Haphazard]

It does matter whether a feeling is justified (not necessarily logically) or not, though. Feelings that are not justified should not be valued. Does that make sense?

Yes.

I'm just trying to say that feelings may be illogical but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve attention. That's it.

 

[nightning]

The point is that humans are not inanimate objects. There are a lot of things affecting humans at any given time and because you all are human (an assumption, I know), you've had to deal with it too. Feelings can be considered the logical result of responses to stimuli and brain chemistry, but the feelings themselves may not be logical. So no, feelings are not logical. But that does it matter? No.

You say it does not matter... but when dealing with people it does. Somehow being logical has been associated with being a desirable thing to have. To the extend in misuse of the word. (Feelings being logical for one...)

Another example is multiple intelligence... emotional intelligence. What is emotional intelligence? A misnomer. Any time the issue of intelligence is raised in this forum, some people get defensive and bring up other forms of "intelligence".

Must we all be perfect in having all the desirable traits? It seems like the attitude the western society is willing to coddle. Why can't people just accept that not all of us can have everything instead of deluding ourselves that we have which we do not?

 

[Haphazard]

You say it does not matter... but when dealing with people it does. Somehow being logical has been associated with being a desirable thing to have. To the extend in misuse of the word. (Feelings being logical for one...)

Another example is multiple intelligence... emotional intelligence. What is emotional intelligence? A misnomer. Any time the issue of intelligence is raised in this forum, some people get defensive and bring up other forms of "intelligence".

Must we all be perfect in having all the desirable traits? It seems like the attitude the western society is willing to coddle. Why can't people just accept that not all of us can have everything instead of deluding ourselves that we have which we do not?

It all depends on definition. What is 'intelligence'? Is it strictly working with facts and things, or can it be applied to handling emotions and other people? 'Emotional intelligence' is a good thing to have, whether the term be a misnomer or not. Why not just leave the label? Somebody who understands the theory will know that 'emotional intelligence' is not the same as 'intelligence' by its usual definition, but it gets the point across just the same. It just refers to the aptitude of a different set of skills than typical 'intelligence.'

People have to work with the terms that are given to them. People might be bringing up multiple intelligences because they feel like the word 'intelligence' is being misused as 'superiority,' even though that might not be the intent.

I don't see this as people 'must have all the desirable traits,' I just see this as a confusion of terms. Language is imperfect and tricky, created by irrational human minds. We've just got to figure out how to deal with the limits.

 

[Ender]

We make decisions emotionally and justify them rationally.

 

[nightning]

What is irrational is to let feeling override rational interpretation. If our rational interpretation is incorrect, our feelings will not be well suited to the situation. (e.g., it there really were a bear and you continued walking toward it, that could end very badly.) I.e., our feelings can be misleading, but sound arguments are never misleading.

Yes feelings (emotions) have a functional role in our survival. The R complex, the limbic system... there are needs for "base" emotions. Feelings are at best subconscious though... To react immediately without thinking and therefore they just are... and not inherently logical.

It all depends on definition. What is 'intelligence'? Is it strictly working with facts and things, or can it be applied to handling emotions and other people?

That's another can of worms. It has been discussed in previous threads, but we can start a new one again.

'Emotional intelligence' is a good thing to have, whether the term be a misnomer or not. Why not just leave the label? Somebody who understands the theory will know that 'emotional intelligence' is not the same as 'intelligence' by its usual definition, but it gets the point across just the same. It just refers to the aptitude of a different set of skills than typical 'intelligence.'

I'm not suggesting EQ is of no importance. Which it does, immensely in social interactions. It's just that the typical person does not truly know what "intelligence" means yet they brandish the term as a means of justifying their believes. Much like how "social darwinism" came into existence.

I don't see this as people 'must have all the desirable traits,' I just see this as a confusion of terms. Language is imperfect and tricky, created by irrational human minds. We've just got to figure out how to deal with the limits.

You might not see it, but people unconsciously feels inferior whenever a "desirable trait" is mentioned that they do not have. Some then proceed to arguing for that which they do not have.


Fixed!

We make decisions emotionally and attempts justify them rationally.

The term for that in psychology is confabulation.

So you agree that feelings (and your Fi) are illogical?

 

[Ender]

We make decisions emotionally and attempts attempt to justify them rationally.

Fixed!

Yes it is..

adds another word to his bitening to English dictionary

The term for that in psychology is confabulation.

So you agree that feelings (and your Fi) are illogical?

Hell no my feelings are completely logical. Unless I was faking them.. Only then would they be illogical in truth or a confabulation of sorts.

 

[disregard]

Playing with an idea:

Feelings occur naturally, by which I mean, one cannot control one's feelings.
Nature is composed of cause and effect--in other words, logical.
Thus, feelings are logical.

 

[nightning]

Yes it is..

adds another word to his bitening to English dictionary

You know well enough that was a typo! :steam:

Hell no my feelings are completely logical. Unless I was faking them.. Only then would they be illogical in truth or a confabulation of sorts.

How are they logical? Feelings are never logical. They're just there! You believe it's right because it makes you feel good, so you do it. Where's the logic in how feelings come about?

Playing with an idea:

Feelings occur naturally, by which I mean, one cannot control one's feelings.
Nature is composed of cause and effect--in other words, logical.
Thus, feelings are logical.

Exactly!

 

[Ender]

You know well enough that was a typo! :steam:

How are they logical? Feelings are never logical. They're just there! You believe it's right because it makes you feel good, so you do it. Where's the logic in how feelings come about?


Exactly!

So you tell me that feelings are never logical.. Then agree with Dana that they are?

Where's the logic in that?

 

[nightning]

I agreed with her first part... that's all...

Feelings are natural and thus uncontrollable.
The second part is a non sequitur though...

In fact that's a perfect example for illogic.

 

[quaeresne]

So in reading this thread, I am curious: how would you guys define a justifiable emotion? If someone's brain chemistry is screwed up and thus they are affected with severe depression, is this emotion justifiable, or just an extreme version of exactly what happens when, say, you cat gets run over, just due to a different stimulus?

 

[nightning]

I don't believe emotions can be "justifiable". To me, they just exists as natural built-in responses that helps survival. So if somebody has abnormal responses in their neurons, all that means is that the inputs are faulty... (the interpretation/judgment process can also be affected in depression) but assuming those are okay decisions will still be "logical", they might not seem rational to you and I though because they're not getting correct inputs.

Edit: The rest of them probably do not agree with me though.

 

[Athenian200]

I don't believe emotions can be "justifiable". To me, they just exists as natural built-in responses that helps survival. So if somebody has abnormal responses in their neurons, all that means is that the inputs are faulty... (the interpretation/judgment process can also be affected in depression) but assuming those are okay decisions will still be "logical", they might not seem rational to you and I though because they're not getting correct inputs.

Edit: The rest of them probably do not agree with me though.

But there is a way of emotional functioning that's considered correct, isn't there?

For instance, if I feel angry towards someone who stole something from me, that's somewhat justified. If I feel angry towards someone because they blinked, that would a problem... you see?

Or, to take it further... suppose you think someone did something to you, and you get angry with them. This would be normal. If you find out they didn't do what you thought they did, you'd normally stop feeling angry with them. If you continued to feel angry with them even though you know they didn't do anything, that wouldn't be justified. Some feelings are justified and should be valued, some feelings are not justified and should be dismissed.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[nightning]

Athenian... I think you're defining emotions as "justifiable" post hoc. Yes, there are cases where I get angry at someone. Sometimes you can call it "reasonable"... and other times it's "unreasonable". But the emotional system for us was developed way back evolutionary wise... Back then, all emotions are beneficial to our survival.

Our society has changed, and thus affecting our thoughts on emotions. Such as our attempts to categorize emotions as appropriate and inappropriate when emotions just are. Neither appropriate nor inappropriate. They're merely natural responses without thought.

I do believe though that there's a difference between experiencing emotions and acting out on them. So judgment should be placed on the latter... that is your behavior after cognitive processing of your emotions. Because feelings are irrational, but your actions should be controlled.

So it all depends on the way you perceive emotions doesn't it?

 

[Dom]

Emotions are neither justified or not. They simply are.

Your response is what can be justified or not, attacking the guy you thouht stole from you even when you found out they didn't is unjustifable. Feeling angry still, is probably normal for a while anyway....

 

[Athenian200]

Our society has changed, and thus affecting our thoughts on emotions. Such as our attempts to categorize emotions as appropriate and inappropriate when emotions just are. Neither appropriate nor inappropriate. They're merely natural responses without thought.

I just don't like that very much. I don't think it has a right to "just be." I don't think emotions are part of the nature of reality, I think they're just the nature of how we as humans react to reality.

I still think some emotions are wrong, and others are right. People who feel the wrong ones disgust me, and I sympathize with those who feel the right ones.

I'm pretty sure there's a particular emotional template we're all aware of that gives a rough idea of how a typical human being would react, and I think that people who react too far outside of this are feeling the "wrong" emotion, possibly because of a neurological glitch. Does that make sense?

 

[Dom]

I just don't like that very much. I don't think it has a right to "just be." I don't think emotions are part of the nature of reality, I think they're just the nature of how we as humans react to reality.

I still think some emotions are wrong, and others are right. People who feel the wrong ones disgust me, and I sympathize with those who feel the right ones.

I'm pretty sure there's a particular emotional template we're all aware of that gives a rough idea of how a typical human being would react, and I think that people who react too far outside of this are feeling the "wrong" emotion. Does that make sense?

how compasionate and accepting that people work differently to each other!

Why do people still sepperate humans as though we are not part of nature, reality and all the rest of it?

How on earth can 'the nature of how we as humans react to reality' not be 'part of the nature of reality'? of course it is!

As for that template, yes it exists and is part of reality but it is created by humans in our soical concepts and constructed ideas, hence why canabilistic tribes didn't feel terrible emotions when eating humans as most europeans would.

emotions are not constructs of an individual mind, they are physiology. What is justified or not is constructed by you.

 

[nightning]

I just don't like that very much. I don't think it has a right to "just be." I don't think emotions are part of the nature of reality, I think they're just the nature of how we as humans react to reality.

I still think some emotions are wrong, and others are right. People who feel the wrong ones disgust me, and I sympathize with those who feel the right ones.

That is your Fe speaking. If you take a step back and think about emotional responses, you will see that they're composed of very simple and basic physiological responses.

6 basic emotions:
Happiness
Sadness
Fear
Surprise
Anger
Disgust

Each of these are associated with particular physiological states and facial expressions. And these are displayed unconsciously. So even if you try to suppress them, they leak out as "microexpressions". Other emotions are simply some combination of these 6.

I'm pretty sure there's a particular emotional template we're all aware of that gives a rough idea of how a typical human being would react, and I think that people who react too far outside of this are feeling the "wrong" emotion, possibly because of a neurological glitch. Does that make sense?

The emotional templates do exist... they're encoded in your genes. That's how people recognize those 6 basic emotions despite differences in culture and social learning. However, these expressions only indicate the emotional state you're experiencing. In essence we're predicting behavior based on what emotional signals are displayed on other people's faces. Like animals' dominant and submissive postures, they help in ensuring survival. But there's never direct encodings for proper behavior. All that is learnt socially. Much like a dog would has grown up with people and was sudden allowed to interact with other dogs. It starts being territorial and barks.

People aren't that different from other animals... it's good to keep that in mind.

As for that template, yes it exists and is part of reality but it is created by humans in our soical concepts and constructed ideas, hence why canabilistic tribes didn't feel terrible emotions when eating humans as most europeans would.

emotions are not constructs of an individual mind, they are physiology. What is justified or not is constructed by you.

Well said.

 

[reason]

I feel logical today.

 

[Kiddo]

emotions are not constructs of an individual mind, they are physiology. What is justified or not is socialized into you.

Correction.

Individuals only construct personal justifications from various socialized constructions they have encountered in life (books, people, religion, media, etc).

I'm pretty sure there's a particular emotional template we're all aware of that gives a rough idea of how a typical human being would react, and I think that people who react too far outside of this are feeling the "wrong" emotion, possibly because of a neurological glitch. Does that make sense?

Read up on socialization.

Socialization: the process whereby individuals are made aware of the behaviour that others expect of them in regards to the norms, values, and culture.

Example: There are people who feel disgust for homosexuals, whereas I feel disgust for people who are disgusted by homosexuals. Who is right? Or is it more likely that we have just had different experiences that lead us to feel differently?