Do we need so much emotions in life?

[Tiltyred]

Well, are you mixing up a potion, or constructing subliminal messages for the media to use, or how will you go about this?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yes, I am mixing a lot of everything since I am searching for solution in the situation where something what people could see as good solution technically is quite unlikely.


What I am saying is that this is a problem of much bigger magnitude then some other problems. The thing is that you can't push this kinds of things through media all the time without creating a mass panic. Plus a lot of peopel are all ready on edge so this could easily be something that will push them over edge.


The reason why I have started this thread is because I am intereted in thoughts of others about this kinds of things.
Since my actual position in this kinds of things (big picture) is extremly dark I am showing my argument in much lighter form.
Because I know that if I say what I trully think people will not be that much interested.
This is why my posts in this thread are so random.

 

[Pancreas]

1. Neither do I, I have even created a thread about this kinds of things.
This is probably because we are both stabile Ts. For me is not sensory, just something that has to be done.

Oh no. I lerv food. I don’t overeat by any means, but I enjoy it. A lot. But again, it’s a sensory thing. I like the taste, the textures. The idea of getting attached to food, emotionally, is just ridiculous to me. That having been said, I can see the possibility for people getting attached to the idea of food. In some way. Maybe. It’s not something that I can relate to, though, so I have no real idea.

But this sort of relates to the point you made about Western culture and the short-sightedness of Western societies.

People may go out and buy something, not because they need it, but because they want to. These decisions are certainly not based on any sort of long-term logic, which is what is required (Is this what you mean by a ‘shift towards T and N’?).

Anyway, now that I understand (I think) where you’re coming from, I’d have to say I pretty much agree with you.

Currently a lot of decisions are made with seemingly little regard for the future. I’d say a lot of these decisions are based on perfectly acceptable logic (and/or emotions, etc.) but the main issue is the lifespan of these decisions. The decisions are often only logical in the short-term. Someone's hungry and there’s a fast food joint right around the corner which happens to sell a meal cheaper than what they'd get if they drove to the supermarket and bought healthier food. So the person goes and buys some sort of deep-fried lard in a wrap with extra cheese, and short term, they’ve solved their problem. In the long term, they’ve created another one.

I see a lot of politics in this light. There are a lot of short-term decisions made because that’s all that counts in the life of politics. If an elected official tries to implement a long term plan that doesn’t produce the desired results as quickly as a short term fix, they’ll get voted out.

So we need a shift towards long term or sustainable decisions. Is this what you’re getting towards?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Oh no. I lerv food. I don’t overeat by any means, but I enjoy it. A lot. But again, it’s a sensory thing. I like the taste, the textures. The idea of getting attached to food, emotionally, is just ridiculous to me. That having been said, I can see the possibility for people getting attached to the idea of food. In some way. Maybe. It’s not something that I can relate to, though, so I have no real idea.

But this sort of relates to the point you made about Western culture and the short-sightedness of Western societies.

People may go out and buy something, not because they need it, but because they want to. These decisions are certainly not based on any sort of long-term logic, which is what is required (Is this what you mean by a ‘shift towards T and N’?).

Anyway, now that I understand (I think) where you’re coming from, I’d have to say I pretty much agree with you.

Currently a lot of decisions are made with seemingly little regard for the future. I’d say a lot of these decisions are based on perfectly acceptable logic (and/or emotions, etc.) but the main issue is the lifespan of these decisions. The decisions are often only logical in the short-term. Someone's hungry and there’s a fast food joint right around the corner which happens to sell a meal cheaper than what they'd get if they drove to the supermarket and bought healthier food. So the person goes and buys some sort of deep-fried lard in a wrap with extra cheese, and short term, they’ve solved their problem. In the long term, they’ve created another one.

I see a lot of politics in this light. There are a lot of short-term decisions made because that’s all that counts in the life of politics. If an elected official tries to implement a long term plan that doesn’t produce the desired results as quickly as a short term fix, they’ll get voted out.

So we need a shift towards long term or sustainable decisions. Is this what you’re getting towards?

This is exactly what I mean. I think we will need to set up entire society in a more rational way. But if you do that you have moved the balance on the spectrum. If you do that the entertainment could change which could drive that process few steps further. So in the end you should see the difference.
Which will probably not be astronomical but still it will be observable.
To tell you the truth I think that people will not do it willingly. Instead they will be forced by environment.

I have personally seen F shifting toward the T in a time of crisis and bad times. This will be no different, just more massive in number.

But the thing is that tech level is growing and as it grows you will need more and more T in your life.
So it is questionable if things will ever get back to "normal".
Because of this you could end up with a society where people that are clearly F are quite rare.

My argument was never purely theoretical even if it look like it is.
Instead, it is quite practical question if you ask me.

 

[Moiety]

Only people don't just live their lives to improve the standards of future generations. There has to be a balance between present and future.

Long-term perfection means very little if you don't live a happy life in the meantime. Obviously, short-term problem-solving isn't the answer either. Much like everything else in life, balance is needed.


I think this problem goes beyond T vs F, into the realm of J vs P.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think this problem goes beyond T vs F, into the realm of J vs P.

That is probably true but I am trying to aviod "Everybody should be more like me."arguments.

 

[garbage]

Only people don't just live their lives to improve the standards of future generations. There has to be a balance between present and future.

Long-term perfection means very little if you don't live a happy life in the meantime. Obviously, short-term problem-solving isn't the answer either. Much like everything else in life, balance is needed.

I think this problem goes beyond T vs F, into the realm of J vs P.

As a pretty strong J, I'm slowly beginning to discover this truth about long-term perfection.

 

[entropie]

I think emotions account for a lot of good aswell as bad things. But so does thinking in the long run.

I see emotions more like a plane of existence you can adventure in and get them to know. The good thing is emotions give you the direct link to your bodys inner way of making you happy or sad. I think without them, life would only be half complete.

Its like that rainy day, when you sit in your chair, in your wooden house at the canyon, let the world be the world and your beloved one brings you a scotch and sits down on your hip. That's perfection.

And besides that, emotions are a mighty tool to relay intuitively conceived ideas. Thats never to be underestimated. As in for example all the great books I read when I was in puberty

 

[alcea rosea]

Short answer to the main question in the to long OP:

Yes!

 

[Virtual ghost]

Short answer to the main question in the to long OP:

Yes!

Would it be too much if I ask "Why?"

 

[alcea rosea]

Would it be too much if I ask "Why?"

Because.

 

[entropie]

Because.

No you have to say: "It wouldnt be too much, if you pay me for answering !"

 

[garbage]

I often feel resentment toward a particular person and have wanted to let it go.. because I really just don't feel that I should feel resentment or other negative emotions.

My feeler friend said that that resentment is probably what's protecting me from allowing this person into my life getting hurt by them again. There's a lot of merit to that.

I'm actually kind of fortunate and even glad for my resentment and have come to terms with it, now that I understand its purpose..

Whatever triggers an emotion is something that needs to be recognized as another fact in analyzing a given situation, another variable that sheds light on the whole picture.. but the reason why the trigger exists is often difficult to pinpoint, for me at least.

 

[entropie]

Nicely said !

You share your emotions flamboyantly directed by a rational note and I do understand as does probably 99% of the population right now. See thats what I cannot, share my emotions I mean.

Maybe we should combine forces, I am the sensitive and overbearing one and you explain the situation to the people In the end you know alot of shit, noone needs to know and I get closer to the ability to pinpoint out the things that bug me or to at least to recognize them.

What do you say ? All-in ?

 

[sade]

Short answer to the main question in the to long OP:

Yes!

+1

 

[*Strictly_The_Facts*]

Answer to the main question is no.

The necessity of emotions, to live as humanity defines it's existence, is definitely required. The issue is the amount, the levels which these very emotions rise or drop. The majority of the autrocities committed in our society, as well as throughout history, have been driven by emotions, not logic. Many murders, thefts, assaults, lies, depression, inability to break habits, (I could go on forever) are results of unneccassary drops or elevations of emotions. If these levels had some sort of controlling mechanism, or at least short range lengths, then many of the above mentioned incidents would tremendously drop in number.

 

[AOA]

a) It creates a bond between people which allows society to exist at all
b) It allows for empathy which makes people care about one another, hence again ensuring that society will take care of the people that are part of it
c) Ever seen the matrix? The robots have a 'society' without emotions and work together only for a common goal. And many are sacrificed in the process. Not to mention that they have no ethical filter on their cold logic.

No disrespect, but this sounds pathetic... and, not to mention - boring.

... there are some emotions that lead people to do silly things, as well as there are some emotions that lead us to war and conflict. There isn't a straight forward explanation as to what emotions are for (or how much they affect our lives).

Most people would agree not to 'understand' what such and such emotions are about any way, given the real life circumstances.

Our societies are normally governed by the law (and the upper hierarchy, which is the business economy)... sure, we never realize how far liberty has brought us, but here we are.

 

[MrME]

This topic is moot. As long as we have a nervous system, we'll have emotions. Deal with them.

 

[*Strictly_The_Facts*]

As long as we have a nervous system, we'll have emotions.

This has nothing to do with the topic...

 

[MrME]

My question is: Do we need so much emotions in life?

The problem is not that there are emotions the problem is how much emotions there are.

As long as we have a nervous system, we'll have emotions. Deal with them.

Seems pretty relevant to me... we have them, we have many of them, whether they are useful or not is irrelevant. Welcome to the human condition.

Of course, they are useful for survival, so, yeah, useful.