What are the purpose of emotions?

[Lord Lavender]

Emotions are a universal thing across advanced animal life (At least in theory) and I was thinking on the possible reasons for emotions existing as I reasoned they must have some purpose for existing, I have many ideas but I shall hear from the rest of you and interject my theories as they go along to get any debate going.

 

[Population: 1]

Dr. Ernest Von Cat Brainz, Professor of Emotional Studies at TypeC University! My esteemed colleague.

Let me say I believe emotions are necessary for more complex life forms, particularly species with social interdependence, to function in a healthy manner. Ants work well together arguably far better than humans but they are relatively simple constructs with very limited needs. Humans are not driven to stay together by simple instructions in simple nerve centers. Without emotions say love for example, parents my provide offspring with food and shelter but little more. The child would seldom be held except for feeding and the changing of diapers but never simply because of the love of the parents for the child and the need to express it through physical connection and communication. The infant would not develop a sense of caring for it’s family and humans in general. A lack of empathy for the plight of others leads to a less effective society a less effective society dies.

This I believe held true in the past at least when humans lived in smaller less structured groups where maintaining a cohesive community wasn’t so much dependent upon infrastructure and rules and regulations so much as it was kept strong through emotional bonding.

Just a theory.

 

[Lark]

Emotions are a universal thing across advanced animal life (At least in theory) and I was thinking on the possible reasons for emotions existing as I reasoned they must have some purpose for existing, I have many ideas but I shall hear from the rest of you and interject my theories as they go along to get any debate going.

Humans and animals are affect driven, affect is an idea attached to emotion or strong emotion, more rationalising than reasoning, that is deciding on the basis of these affects and "explaining" their thinking after the fact, there's a whole bunch of complex explanations of why this is so, its been the word of psychology to do so since the early days even pre-Freud.

For the time being some evolutionary psychologists have the best explanations I can think of, ie that our cognitive brain, is a recent innovation, for much longer, probably the greater part of human history, we've been reliant on the older "serpentine" brain, under stress, in crisis or under threat, it kicks in, some people are more reliant on that part of the brain more than the cognitive part, lesions, brain chemistry, it all matters, anyway, affects, particularly strong affects, can compel behaviour quicker than cool headed reasoning, for the greater part of human history I think that's been important to survival so its that which gets passed on the following generation, evolution has selected for it and maybe carries on selecting for it.

 

[Lark]

Dr. Ernest Von Cat Brainz, Professor of Emotional Studies at TypeC University! My esteemed colleague.

Let me say I believe emotions are necessary for more complex life forms, particularly species with social interdependence, to function in a healthy manner. Ants work well together arguably far better than humans but they are relatively simple constructs with very limited needs. Humans are not driven to stay together by simple instructions in simple nerve centers. Without emotions say love for example, parents my provide offspring with food and shelter but little more. The child would seldom be held except for feeding and the changing of diapers but never simply because of the love of the parents for the child and the need to express it through physical connection and communication. The infant would not develop a sense of caring for it’s family and humans in general. A lack of empathy for the plight of others leads to a less effective society a less effective society dies.

This I believe held true in the past at least when humans lived in smaller less structured groups where maintaining a cohesive community wasn’t so much dependent upon infrastructure and rules and regulations so much as it was kept strong through emotional bonding.

Just a theory.

Empathy developing out of attachment behaviour which ensure that babies survive beyond infancy?

Bowlby developed the theory first, out of a love for Darwin's theory of emotions in man and animals, then it got developed further by other theorists in their child observation studies and empirical research.

 

[Population: 1]

Empathy developing out of attachment behaviour which ensure that babies survive beyond infancy?

Bowlby developed the theory first, out of a love for Darwin's theory of emotions in man and animals, then it got developed further by other theorists in their child observation studies and empirical research.

I didn’t say it was my theory. I remembered reading about it in an article dealing with serial killers and theories on possible causes for their sociopathic behavior.

 

[Red Memories]

Well this is a religious perspective mind you,

but if we were never sad, or angry, or downtrodden, we would never understand what it is to feel happy. Without emotions we cannot find pleasure in things.

So in essence, emotions exist so we can feel pleasure in life.

 

[á´…eparted]

An emotionless life has little purpose. It gives the world meaning.

 

[Coriolis]

An emotionless life has little purpose. It gives the world meaning.

You see emotion as the only meaning in the world - everything else is meaningless? That dismisses quite a bit of the human experience.

 

[The Cat]

I don't always believe emotions can be trusted, or are constructive; I try to never feel anything too strongly...

 

[Coriolis]

I don't always believe emotions can be trusted, or are constructive; I try to never feel anything too strongly...

Agreed. At most they are part of the picture, a handful of data points among many others. They feed into the decision making process along with everything else, but should not drive it.

 

[The Cat]

Agreed. At most they are part of the picture, a handful of data points among many others. They feed into the decision making process along with everything else, but should not drive it.

yeah nobody likes an over emotional person in the pilot's seat in a plane, I dont want them running the show in my head either.

 

[á´…eparted]

You see emotion as the only meaning in the world - everything else is meaningless? That dismisses quite a bit of the human experience.

I don't see anything as having inherent meaning. Things simply are. We create meaning by what we think and feel about things.

I do admit though that this is not a question that can be answered succinctly.

 

[Dreamer]

I can say so much on this topic but to be as concise as possible, to sum up what I feel the purpose of emotions is, that I am simply colorblind without them. I still see the world very clearly, there is factual data that I can't cry away, or that I can't feel into existence, but the emotions I feel give a topography to an otherwise flat landscape. Emotions give me the snow capped mountains in the silence of winter, and vast green meadows filled with dandelions, a light breeze and birds chirping in a nearby tree.

 

[Typh0n]

Emotions are a universal thing across advanced animal life (At least in theory) and I was thinking on the possible reasons for emotions existing as I reasoned they must have some purpose for existing, I have many ideas but I shall hear from the rest of you and interject my theories as they go along to get any debate going.

Purpose for existing? I don't think emotions have prupose, in the sense of utility. Sure, they help us bond, but emotions are so much more than a social experience.

I would say they don't have a purpose for existing, rather it is the other way around: emotions are what give purpose to our existence. When you think about, any kind of purpose, or goal, we create for ourselves is not logically motivated even if it is justified through logic.

 

[The Cat]

I can say so much on this topic but to be as concise as possible, to sum up what I feel the purpose of emotions is, that I am simply colorblind without them. I still see the world very clearly, there is factual data that I can't cry away, or that I can't feel into existence, but the emotions I feel give a topography to an otherwise flat landscape. Emotions give me the snow capped mountains in the silence of winter, and vast green meadows filled with dandelions, a light breeze and birds chirping in a nearby tree.

Outside give me those things. ;p seriously though, if you feel like expounding on that, I'd love to hear more of your perspective; metaphorically for me I suppose they're tools suited to specific tasks and when not needed put back in the toolbox...

 

[The Cat]

Purpose for existing? I don't think emotions have prupose, in the sense of utility. Sure, they help us bond, but emotions are so much more than a social experience.

I would say they don't have a purpose for existing, rather it is the other way around: emotions are what give purpose to our existence. When you think about, any kind of purpose, or goal, we create for ourselves is not logically motivated even if it is justified through logic.

This is interesting too...I tend to think of my goals as practically motivated, I dont know if that's the same thing as pure logic per say, would you mind expounding a bit?

 

[Typh0n]

Outside give me those things. ;p seriously though, if you feel like expounding on that, I'd love to hear more of your perspective; metaphorically for me I suppose they're tools suited to specific tasks and when not needed put back in the toolbox...

I think you may be confusing short term emotions like anger or immediate joy with deeper feelings. Yes, I agree that it's more contsructive to have emotions follow you rather than you follow emotions, but there are deeper things like wonder, curiousity, beauty, love - things which are not just a fleeting feeling but can be considered experiences withing the emotional range.

This is interesting too...I tend to think of my goals as practically motivated, I dont know if that's the same thing as pure logic per say, would you mind expounding a bit?

Thanks, I don't think thats the same thing as logic, though you probably using both logic and the deeper motivations mentioned above. I am the same way - I use pragmatism to choose goals, a mix of pragmatism and knowing what makes me happy. I could want to make lots and lots of money in the business world for example that would be pragmatic but if it doesn't make me happy, then why? I do want to make some money, so I choose a compromise between my own deepest desires and the limits of reality . I hope that makes sense, since I'm having a hard time explaining exactly what I mean.

 

[The Cat]

I think you may be confusing short term emotions like anger or immediate joy with deeper feelings. Yes, I agree that it's more contsructive to have emotions follow you rather than you follow emotions, but there are deeper things like wonder, curiousity, beauty, love - things which are not just a fleeting feeling but can be considered experiences withing the emotional range.

Ah, that's a very interesting way of looking at it, I'd never considered those others as emotions before. Thank you for giving me another perspective to consider...

 

[Typh0n]

Ah, that's a very interesting way of looking at it, I'd never considered those others as emotions before. Thank you for giving me another perspective to consider...

I guess I would consider those emotions, I dunno that it sticks to everybody's defintion or conception of emotions though, as it is true that the concept may be a bit vague (the concept of an emotion)?

 

[The Cat]

I just wish my brain would quit jumping to that Arrested Development scene where Gob and Michael discuss what love is...