Search the Community

Reason Vs. Emotion Vs. Belief Vs. Consciousness Reason, emotion, belief, and consciousness, have a fundamental place in epistemology and psychology but I have not found where they sit. I especially haven't found where they sit from first principles. My hope with this discussion is that these things can find their proper place. Emotions reflect belief and beliefs are always rational I have some ideas, each with their own arguments and evidence. From what I gather, Stefan has an implicit, specific conception of the relation between these things. The two major premises I can identify are 1) Emotions reflect belief, and 2) beliefs are always rational. Now, this second premise seems obviously false, but there is a corollary to it 3) beliefs do not necessarily reflect conscious thought. I should make it clear, by beliefs I mean what we really believe deep down and might not even be conscious of. Evidence for It's from these premises that much of the psychology in this community can be explained. We can explain the true self as rationality and the collection of beliefs. We can explain the false self as the origin of conscious thought that is not wholly informed by beliefs. We can explain free will by saying that it is a choice whether conscious thought wholly informs itself with belief. It also conforms with the evidence. It explains self-defence mechanisms where a person consciously thinks something but believes something else. It explains how personalities as a collective can be fragmented throughout history from all the evils that take place. It gives foundation to how a child protects themselves with false thoughts. It explains how psychotherapy works, by uncovering beliefs using critical thinking and self-reflection. It explains procrastination, as procrastination just reflects the belief of resentment. It would suggest we should follow our emotions as long as we identify them properly. Evidence against The issue is, there is a lot of evidence against these things. Are emotional leftist protesters simply misunderstanding their emotions? Are they masking a true self with a false self? Do people fall for propaganda because of the false self, or maybe we aren't actually innately rational? Another problem is, it seems incredibly redundant to have a true self making calculations, and then a false self making entirely different calculations about the same thing. Cognitive therapies suggest something is wrong with cognition itself. For example, schema therapy suggests that we have core beliefs that are often themselves unconscious and formed in childhood that are irrational and make us feel some ways or generate negative thoughts. It would be strange to have an extra layer to this by saying that those irrational core 'beliefs' are preceded by true beliefs. It is very hard for me to believe that emotions reflect belief and beliefs are always rational. But it also explains so much and makes life a lot easier. Argument for from first principles Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Rather than doing some kind of trial-and-error, making observations, etc, an argument from first principles would take away a lot of doubt about the psychology taught in this community. I would think that arguing for these psycho-epistemological concepts from first principles would be the most important thing, as the psycho-epistemology kind of defines what this whole community is about. I tried to find these first principles, and I found these quotes from Ayn Rand. "There can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a fact of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards." (Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 147) All knowledge is derived from reality, so emotions follow cognition. Perhaps we could further say from this that emotions reflect cognition. And, perhaps we can assume cognition and reason that goes with it have sovereignty. Indeed, doesn't seem logical that a rational faculty would allow something like 2+2=5. It is more likely that anyone who thinks such a thing is not using their rational faculty. It would also seem strange that the rational faculty would switch off, rather than keep working at the background. In fact, I think that our very feeling of having a self and having free will sort of rest upon the idea that we have some kind of sovereignty, and that we know what is best for ourselves, and we trust our faculties to give us the most accurate information possible. Perhaps this should be self-evident. Perhaps this is self-evident to any peacefully parented individual. Argument against from first principles Ayn Rand would disagree with our second premise; that beliefs are always rational. "Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions—which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values." (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 5) also, "An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception . . . . In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: “What do I feel?” and “Why do I feel it?” (Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, p. 17) Rand is seeming to suggest emotions can reflect irrational thoughts. It seems beliefs held in the subconscious can be 'programmed by chance'. She says that using the rational faculty is not automatic but voluntary. So it has sovereignty, but it is up to a person to use it. Her view does make a lot of sense. Our working memory is incredibly limited, so thinking rationally would be incredibly limited. Perhaps there is no 'true self' beyond our ability to reason consciously. If Rand is right, I believe it challenges the psychology of this community. Rather than listening to a true self, and to emotions and their origins, her views would suggest we should rather use reason alone to find what is the right thing to do and to create habits out of it. Perhaps one problem with her view is that there is no ought from an is. It makes a lot of sense to me that only emotions can tell us something as trivial as what flavour of ice cream to have and something as serious as whether I should really marry some person. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. Maybe the subconscious can be 'programmed by chance', but maybe it a somewhat active system which holds our true beliefs, while our conscious thoughts themselves can differ. What do people think? Can these premises be proven from first principles? Maybe you think the premises I outlined are inaccurate? How do you think is the best way to approach and deal with emotions and choices? Have any podcasts/books to share about this stuff?

I'm going through a critical time in my maturity. I am 19 years old. I'm experiencing things I've never done before. I'm finding out how to interact with the world and what is appropriate. I found this show much earlier. I started listening when I was 16 years old. Iv'e listened to at least a 1000 shows by now. I am an anarchocapitalist, I am an atheist, I have no unchosen obligations, and I'm very happy with the people around me. Am I happier now? No, I'm more depressed. How should this be possible? I think I made a grave mistake... I have a bunch of different emotions running through my head. It's these emotions that reflect my desires, that is, the true self. Rather than accepting that I have no free will over these emotions, I tried to rationalise them using logic. I tried to justify my behaviour. Should I kiss her? Is that in line with monogamy? What should my career be? Is that in line with UPB? Can white lies be justified? Do I have a moral responsibility to inform others about philosophy? The list could keep going on... I believe what I have done is conflate morality with the true self. When Stefan speaks, it is kind of assumed that you are a functioning human being who knows what makes you happy. For example, if someone calls in with a very particular topic about something happening recently in their life, it's unlikely that they will delve into self-knowledge, because if that was the problem, then they would most likely bring that up. Topics such as, how many times a week should you have sex or is it okay to drink alcohol don't come up. These are, catagorically speaking, aesthetic questions, and only now do I realise that these aesthetics are completely uncontrollable and subject to the true self. Morality attempts to dissolve what impedes upon the true self, rather than justifying the true self. It is impossible to escape the true self. If you try to rationalise your behaviour, you will inevitably rationalise your emotions, and when you start rationalising your emotions you will fail because emotions aren't subject to being universal. So you will create these theories which will try to attempt to explain your behaviour and feel intuitive. For example, men make bigger risks in gambling when a woman who is on her period is standing next to them rather than a woman who is not on her period. This level of behaviour is far below anything the conscious mind can percieve. The man might justify his behaviour with these complex theories such as it is moral to bet more when a woman is nearby because it makes her feel good and that is an exchange of value, or some other weird theory like that. He won't ever understand why he really is behaving the way he is. (Please pay attention to this example, it summarises my whole points ^) I believe it's my wanting to justify my behaviour that lead me to this show in the first place. I have always been obssesed with philosophy. Albeit, it has not made me happier. I feel I am becoming more detached from my true self as these rationalisations start overwhelming my pure emotions. This insight into myself is huge. Please don't mistake this as a criticism of any sort. From an intellectual standpoint, I am grateful to learn what I have learned. Even if I have used philosophy to bury my true self, I know it is also a part of my true self and a part of my inquisitive nature. That part will stay with me, and I'm sure that it will prevent myself from coming in contact with toxic, manipulative people in the future. So what now? I have a number of big opportunities ahead of me. I believe these opportunities have actually driven me to come to this realisation about myself and write this post. A way of my unconscious mind sort of saying, "Hey, these decisions are important. Are you sure you know what you are doing?". Thanks, unconscious mind. I will go head first into these opportunities, and I will allow my emotions to guide me. I have learned that it is perfectly safe (and necessary) to do so as long as I follow my moral principles on a very strictly, moral level. Forget applying it to the aesthetics. I am very, very lucky meet the people I have met, and have the opportunities that I've been given. It should not be squandered. It is not a coincidence that I am where I am. It is not a coincidence that I have befriended the people I have befriended. It isn't a coincidence that I'm doing the course I am doing. My true self was nudging me the entire time and I have just made it a struggle for myself. This is how I know I am on the right path, and it's okay to let go.

I think I had a dream that might be very helpful to some people if it means what I think it means. I was lost in an airsoft arena (for anyone who doesn't know that's paintball but with plastic bbs) that was more of a plywood maze than a coherent arena. I had one of my real steel guns with me (I'd been shooting the day before) but it had no ammo. I wanted to find my way out, but I had no clue where I was. I decided to follow this kid, a 10 year old boy in full gear who navigated like a pro, and as I followed him I'd get lit up by players who either didn't see my hands up or just wanted to shoot at me because I was defenseless. Another thing, I only had shorts on, no protection so the bbs stung like hell. We were making our way very slowly, and I had taken a lot of shots and was getting irritated. Finally I started searching around on the ground for airsoft magazines that would fit my gun and still had some bbs in them. I found a small magazine with odd looking bbs. They had the shape of practice rounds for police training courses, like little pills cut in half. I loaded them and let the bolt chamber a round, but it discharged and accidentally shot the kid in front of me in the head. The sound was deafening and everyone around us stopped. The kid in front of me collapsed to the ground. I threw my gun and picked him up. I saw there was a hole in the back of his helmet. I'd somehow loaded live ammo. I checked his cheeks to see if any blood was trickling. There wasn't any flowing, but I knew he was dead. I started to cry. I could feel myself crying, but I could only hear ringing. And right in front of us was a huge hole in the wall, right around the corner, that lead to a park with a calm pond, sunny and beautiful. I think the dream represents my journey through FDR so far and how I've been backsliding into forms of verbal abuse online. The arena represents the world. The airsoft bbs/guns represent dysfunction and abuse. The child who leads me is my true self/inner child. The arena/world is a place of uncertainty and fear where dysfunctional people can pop out of nowhere and attack you at any time. Me having my gun means I have the capacity for abuse, but keeping it unloaded means I choose not to participate. Wearing only shorts means I'm very vulnerable, which makes sense considering striving for virtue requires vulnerability. My child self is the kid in all the gear picking players off and slowly advancing towards the exit. But when I pick up bbs that I can fire back at these people, they aren't just bbs. They turn into real bullets. That's why I had a real gun. I realized how deadly and corrosive this abuse can be, and that's why I kept it empty. I still have the capacity to abuse, but I choose not to. And that explains why everyone else had bb guns. The shots didn't hurt like bullets, they only stung like bbs because I'm becoming immune to abuse. Everyone has real guns and real bullets. The abuse is 100% deadly, but only if you shoot back. And that explains why I shot the kid. By loading what I thought was just bbs, in truth I was loading 100% deadly live ammo, because abuse is perceived to the true self as just that. Live fire. And when I loaded my gun, I was choosing to abuse. And the only person an abusive me hurts is my true self. That's why I accidentally shot him in the back of the head. The second I choose that path, my true self is dead. And freedom was just around the corner. Is anyone else struggling with resisting the urge to be snarky or "clever" in comment sections and discussions? I can resist it to the point of seeing it for what it really is and losing the urge but sometimes things slip through.

Have you ever been told by a doctor that you have a chronic condition that will change your life from diagnosis going forth? it may affect your mobility, cognition, sight, etc, or other quality of your health and life negatively? Were you given a shorter life expectancy and/or increased physical burdens that made you consider how long you have? So much to do, never enough time. What about your kids? personal goals? Shoot me a message privately if you want a more intimate conversation about the topic. Many those who have had a loss need to know they are not alone. I would like to point out that personal loss of health, mentally and physically comes with age as our bodies wear out, are exposed to illnesses, injury etc., it is natural and it sucks to go through but so goes the arrow of life to death. As I remember, Stefan called it "the best cancer ever". Wow Stef, was he just trying to put a smiley on his face?! No, I know now that he felt it. It is that realism, that meaning to the meaningless, vivid-life, lucid dream one is in wear their life rushes through them and they feel a need for expression and a fulfillment of certain life goals, a need to self-improve. You take that look over your shoulder to scan the whole Maslow pyramid. Safety and security meme's for your family and wishes, memes to achieve self-actualization, and even if at all. Let me know what ya think.