Emotion vs. Thought

[aviet]

As we see Hillary's emotionals prolapse through the streets I am left wondering on the nature of emotional-decision making - when it is appropriate and when it is not.

My thought is that emotions are in the now - they know no present and no future. They are like a dimension unto themselves. They are something we feel, but without input. They come from within ourselves.

On the other hand, with though we can look into the past or project into the future. They are too their own dimension, but one that is intently broader to the narrow-band of a handful of emotions.

You could live a life without emotion, but you could not live without thought. We can think on emotions, but can't feel on our thoughts. Thoughts have eternal reach, but emotions have a limiting grounding.

Based on this, it does not seem like a great idea to be an emotionally-driven beast.

I'm of the opinion that it is generally best to ground yourself in thought than emotion, but there are instances where it may be best to act on emotion than thought and those instances appear to be very limited in time-frame, i.e. the now.

For example, if someone steals one of your belongings it is best to emotionally react, rather than process at length what happened: Who stole it? What was their life like? What motives could they have had? What should I do? Will I got it back? On the other hand, if there are a spate of thefts going on, then this is the time to ask the aforementioned questions, rather than fizzling around with emotion.

To me it seems, as a general rule, or (almost) always, it seems like when considering large matters, it is necessary to think to reach fruitful outcomes; while emotion is only somewhat useful in the now.

Thoughts?

My final observation is that for a long time conservatives have been branded 'reactionary', typically followed by the word 'bigots' for basing actions on thought-processes. This is due to the perception that these actions are heartless or uncompassionate. Yet they are the true reactionary ones who base decisions on limited emotion without any thought for the long-term affects of those actions. Just as you would not think of the long-term when chasing after someone who has stolen something from you. For this reason, I have taken it on myself to culturally appropriate the word 'reactionary' and use it to describe regressives' impulses. Much to their chagrin.

[RichardY]

I think emotion gets ploughed into something.... whether its materialism fast cars, some sense of having security, people. Or cigarettes and whiskey and wild wild women they'll drive you crazy, they'll drive you insane...

 

Based on this, it does not seem like a great idea to be an emotionally-driven beast.

 

Personally I think its a very positive thing to be an emotionally-driven beast. Wide swings in emotion get people to do stuff. Thinking of a quote from Nietzsche " I love those who are the great despisers for they are the great reverers"

 

In terms of Jeb!( who felt he needed the exclamation mark) vs say someone like Trump. IMO you've got basically rich country club boy vs Trump who obviously ploughs his emotional energy into producing stuff that people are willing to pay for and women. Hillary damaged goods not bound by seemingly a sense of morality.

 

What I would find interesting would be if there is a relatively easy way to plough emotion into something productive. A movie scene that sticks out in my mind is from Saving Pvt Ryan "don't shoot let'em burn!". Not a particularly productive emotion taking some pleasure from cruelty. Maybe there is a way of doing a kind of reset of mindset, always take notice then when I've travelled somewhere abroad then come back to the UK how green everything seems and usually the moisture of the air. Perhaps some form of long term sensory deprivation(Meditation) then some pre-planned focus after emergence on something productive, sounds cult like or a bit like the film Total Recall.

[dsayers]

My thought is that emotions are in the now - they know no present and no future.

I don't think this is true at all. From trauma in our own past to self-preservation impulses from millenia ago, emotions are very much of the past. Additionally, many emotions have the express purpose of helping us to get ourselves to the future and more effectively.

 

You could live a life without emotion

How do you know? I don't think this is true.

 

Based on this, it does not seem like a great idea to be an emotionally-driven beast.

False dichotomy. All humans are both emotional and rational. They are two parts of the same navigation system and they compliment one another. I don't think you could have empathy without emotion and empathy is the only way to truly live.

My final observation is that for a long time conservatives have been branded 'reactionary', typically followed by the word 'bigots' for basing actions on thought-processes.

I think this comes from leftist marketing. They wrap up things interference with free trade via things like minimum wage as compassionate when it in fact achieves the opposite of its stated goal. Calling your competitor the things you mentioned are for the purpose of implying that non-conservatives are compassionate by comparison. Saves them the trouble of having to explain using violence and still not achieving their goals despite their goals sounding benevolent on paper.

[brucethecollie]

I agree with dsayers. Where you said, "For example, if someone steals one of your belongings it is best to emotionally react, rather than process at length what happened: Who stole it? What was their life like? What motives could they have had? What should I do? Will I got it back? On the other hand, if there are a spate of thefts going on, then this is the time to ask the aforementioned questions, rather than fizzling around with emotion."

 

Similar to this example, let's say someone robs your wallet. Your anger provides the adrenaline boost for energy and fearlessness while your rationality can instantaneously inform you as to your best reaction by quickly processing all the factors available. Many in this scenario choose to let someone run off with their wallet for their personal safety. Many others safely fight back and win. These reactions are often not mindless yet, there are strong emotions serving as the wings. 

 

In a slower example, more like the one you described, anger/hurt again provide the motivation to seek answers to the questions the rational mind will have. Using both these gifts, you would be fueled to seek justice. Your hurt and anger would serve to remind you that someone stealing from you isn't a small thing but is instead an injustice. Coupled with gathering your information you then ultimately figure out the best way to proceed.

[dsayers]

Your use of the word slower reminded me of the material I partook of that helped me to understand that emotions are not the enemy of rational thought. It's a video series by the name of The Philosopher's Toolkit. In one segment, the instructor talks about emotions vs rational thought and provides an example of a ship at see and a plane in the sky. Amid both is an emergency that is potentially catastrophic. In one scenario, the person in control remained level headed, referred back to his training, and was able to save the day. In the other, the person in control had an emotional reaction that caused him to act against his training in a way that ended up saving the day. Sorry I cannot recall the specifics.

 

The point being that they are both problem solvers. One is just slower than the other. Specialization is a good thing

[rosencrantz]

Emotions and thoughts are two sides of the same coin. You can't have one without the other. While this may be positive in dangerous situations it proves to be an liability when you can rationally dispute dysfunctional ideas but the emotions connected to them make sure they come back again and again.

[David Ottinger]

I think the emotions VS thought (or better yet somatic mind VS intellectual mind) is a short hand dichotomy for what's actually going on.  An analogy I've found useful is to consider oneself as an exposed nerve to the world.  And with that, emotions are derived from this relationship with the world. 

 

From an evolutionary standpoint, we have developed various features (e.g. brain functions) to navigate this world.  Intellectualizing the world around us is one of many coping mechanisms we have.  This particular feature of the human condition is so advanced that we are able to adapt to the world around us insofar as to change the environment.  

 

In order to manifest our ideas, we ascribe emotional associations with them, or else how will they ever be experienced empirically? 

 

The absence of emotions is apathy.  That sort of state of mind is antithetical to being a productive being.  But to be inspired and motivated to achieve something feels like a fire burning within.  Thus emotional vigor is essential for a fruitful life.  And having access and acceptance of your full range of emotions allows you to be stoic in that you're more aware of the self, thus are more immersed in the present as you experience the world as well as how you "the exposed nerve" interprets these experiences.

 

And, from that understanding, one can adapt his/her responses.  Mind you, there is no such thing as omniscience, so there is no such thing as a perfect response.  Either way, the world doesn't stop moving while you try to think things through.  So, if the body always waited for the intellectual feature of ourselves to respond, then we'd be dead and extinct.  Hence, when the base brain function (analogously the reptilian brain) takes over, you're stuck within the flight, fight, or freeze response of this brain function.

 

Our abstraction of this sensation is called fear.

 

Do you really think you can live without fear?

 

Can you see why fear is a healthy response?

 

I hope my crude explanation was helpful in providing a different perspective. 

[AccuTron]

"So, if the body always waited for the intellectual feature of ourselves to respond, then we'd be dead and extinct. "

 

Somewhat oblique point:  Apparently, our limbic system evolved from olfactory systems, because proto-mammals were nocturnal.  We smell our home, good food, our family, etc....resulting in what we call emotions, that is, we feel good when we smell these things.  A whole new layer of survival circuitry.  

 

It's a reverse of Pandora's box...we have all this good stuff, and one bad thing, which is called Fear, and it stems from specific places in our amygdala.  Feeling jolly with evolving newer scent detection would get proto-mammals eaten by reptiles not lost in grinning contemplation.  

 

The fear circuitry, an emotion with new types of reflexes, is apparently a bit faster than pre-existing (logical) and already fast reptilian attempts to eat the evolving subjects.  The result is the reptilian jaws closed upon air instead of skull.  

 

If you imagine something scaring a reptile, maybe something heavy falls near a garden lizard, they turn and scoot, quick but nothing exceptional.  If you think of prey mammals, rabbits and hamsters come to mind, they often have a very fast jumping away reaction, more like a compressed spring than muscles logically ordered to act.

[David Ottinger]

Hi AccuTron,

 

Thanks for the response.

 

Why is Fear a bad thing?   I don't find that it is.  If we didn't mistake shadows for predators lurking in the bushes and ran away, then we wouldn't be here -- which I was vaguely referencing in the above post.

 

Basically, there are pros and cons to all these mechanisms.

 

This site gives pretty good insight into all the "feel good" chemicals that occur:

 

https://innermammalinstitute.org/