What's the value of emotions? Is value even possible without them?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

It looks like I may have irreparably damaged a very important relationship (not a love relationship,or a family relationship, or even a friendship exactly, but nevertheless, a relationship that has meant a lot to me) due to losing my temper over something very insignificant. I have been pulling back and thinking a lot about anger, and about emotions in general. Because of this, I am feel a slight pull toward a more "mindful" (a la Buddhist practices) approach to things, or a classical western emphasis on reason and some sort of taking control of one's passions.

However, taken to the extreme, these approaches become unattractive to me. It's true that I have created problems for myself by allowing myself to get angry too easily, and expressing it too aggressively; but it is still other emotions which cause this to even matter to me. If I did not love this person, if I did not regret hurting her, etc. then how much would the incident matter to me (and would it have taken place to begin with)? To me, Buddhism's cure for suffering is too severe. (This is maybe less true of later, Mahayana forms of Buddhism, but even in something like Tantric Buddhism, desire is suposed to be used to extinguish desire.) In my experiences with meditation, I have found it beneficial in some respects, but I have also found that it sometimes starts to make me feel too removed from my thoughts and feelings. I'd like to get a little distance, but not too much.

What attitude should I take toward emotions? Without emotions, could there be any sense of value, beyond various forms of (non-emotional) pain and pleasure? I love emotions, dumb as that sounds to say. At least, I love some of them. I think at times I even enjoy the negative ones, except fear. Sometimes I think I just enjoy the intensity. I get a little restless when there is no emotional intensity in my life. (This is one of the benefits of dancing, for me: the rush of intense positive feelings it brings me.)

This is probably too many topics all at once, too abstract and too personal at the same time, but let's see if anyone has anything to say.

― DeRayMi, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

New earnest and self-revealing answers.

― DeRayMi, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Martha Nussbaum just wrote a big heavy book defending the importance of emotions for all kinds of things (ethics, aesthetics, etc. i.e. main loci of value for analytic philosophy), if that's your bag.

I don't have a good argument for why but it seems obvious to me that you can't have the full range of human values without emotions. Thinking that doesn't mean you're committed to thinking that the emotions should or should not be kept under control by your rational mind. I'm inclined to think that they shouldn't be, totally, but again, I don't have an argument.

― Josh, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

And of course emotions are vital when fighting Cybermen. It is the only edge we have?

― Pete, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

To use an example ILE can relate to—if you knock a glass over you don't have any influence over whether it breaks or not. Emotions are like the glass breaking—they're the result of something else, so I don't think you can really do much about them except handle them as they come. You can't call them up at will or make them disappear on command. You can't influence the result - all you can do is influence the things that cause that emotion - which can actually be fairly predictable. For instance if I don't have any greasy food all day I go batshit.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

That sounded really gross in a way I didn't intend. Anyway, I don't know about the "value" thing.... like you don't feel like things are valuable to you unless you get emotional about them?

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Pete is wrong. You will all be crushed.

― Cybercontroller, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

And of course emotions are vital when fighting Cybermen. It is the only edge we have?

We also have gold badges.

― Dan Perry, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

'batshit'

― alix, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Gold badges v. batshit FITE

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Serious if not detailed answer -- I've had my moments over these past few months regarding emotional release after being a little too bottled up. They can be an annoyance when combined with certain fears and concerns I have. Yet I appreciate the fact that they're there, it's a drive and a spur, a release valve and more.

Besides, I love the upsides. :-)

― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I disagree w/ tracer. I think emotions are very much subject to human will and effort and control, just not in a particularly direct manner. The point is that those emotional energies can be channelled in productive or counterproductive ways.

― Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

okay Sterling my challenge to you: become overcome with nostalgia IMMEDIATELY!

― Tracer hand, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't feel many positive emotions anymore. I am a sad man. I'm fairly confident this will change at some point, but it's been a long wait.

― Sean, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

True, acute nostalgia isn't an emotion in my book. It's a kind of synaptic flood.

― N., Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Tracer: done. First I thought about on girl, then another girl, then just went back to building tree-forts in fourth grade with people I was soon to never see again & the sense of awe & mystery at the little scruffy grove of trees at the back of the schoolhouse because who knew where it might lead.

― Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

ahit i have been through this so much, especiallya fter my breakdowns - because as a child, certain emotions became a no-no, not teo be experssed, and so you repress them, or slef medicate them or channel them etc...

what i have come to know - emotions themselves are valuable, they are part of feelings that make us human, and every emotion whther it be sadnes or anger or horror is there and is acceptable.

What isn'ta cceptable (or aren't)are the behaviours/acitons taken supposedly as a result, or justified by, said emotions. I'm a firm believer in 99 % of the time you control what you do, that's where personal responsibility comes in.

― Queen G, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Another example of directing anger. In the pop psychology book on anger than I'm reading, "Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion" (which is actually quite good), it talks about one way that people who don't get angry easily tend to avoid it: by thinking things like, "This clerk is probably having a bad day. . . Maybe the cashier made that mistake because she didn't get enough sleep," etc.

At the moment, I tend to agree with the idea that emotions are indirectly controlable.

― DeRayMi, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Some people are just more emotionally expressive than others. Is it cultural? I suspect it largely is. I can't say that some people are more emotional than others, because all I know is that I respond to my emotions more readily than others - I just don't know how it works with other people.

You can't cut off your emotions - they are biologically rooted. You need to feel them and respect them, but also understand that they have a power of their own, and not allow yourself to be seduced into thinking they are the sole truth, even though they are a source of truth. It's not a matter of controlling them - it's more of a dialogue. And language is so inadequate when it comes to explaining our emotions to ourselves and each other.

But maybe you didn't damage your relationship, if you're sincerely trying to understand and make amends. Only a cold-blooded asshole or someone who never felt anything to begin with would turn their back on that. The point is not to be perfect - the point is to always be questioning and changing.

― Kerry, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

But maybe you didn't damage your relationship, if you're sincerely trying to understand and make amends. Only a cold-blooded asshole or someone who never felt anything to begin with would turn their back on that. The point is not to be perfect - the point is to always be questioning and changing.

I didn't give the details, but the temptation to comment on this is too strong to resist. I wish I could so easily dismiss the people in question as cold-blooded assholes if they don't accept my apologies and my genuine intention to keep this from happening again. On the other hand, it's kind of a breath of fresh air to read these things that I would never think in this case. I guess since I myself am a grudge-holding bastard at times, I can't point the finger.

― DeRayMi, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

And thanks for the Martha Nussbaum recommendation above. I have not read her but based on comments I've read in the works of other authors (e.g., Joseph Margolis), I have a slight prejudice against her as someone who I suspect glosses over metaethical questions about whether there are real moral properties or how ethical judgments can be legitimated. At the moment, though that's not really what I'm concerned with, and applied ethics, if that's really what she does, might be just what I'm looking for.

― DeRayMi, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I can't say for sure as I only paged through it in a bookstore (it was really fucking expensive, hardcover still), but I wouldn't call it applied ethics. It presents a metaethical argument for the importance of emotions to moral theory. There's a lot of illustrative material drawn from art and I think some personal junk of hers, though.

― Josh, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

This is the best thing I've ever read on this subject...

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

...though if a friend gave you some of this advice you'd want to knock them in the teeth.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 24 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Ah...Epictetus! One of the Stoics, along with Marcus Aurelius, I think. Interesting that one was a slave and one was an emperor (?if I remember), but they both established similar views. A lot of Stoicism forms a strong philosophical influence on contemporary cognitive psychotherapy...

But anyway, DeRayMi, from what you are saying, I'd say you should embrace your emotions, they are part of being human (including anger). If the behavior that arose from the emotion isn't to your liking, usually that is something you could try to change next time.

― Joe, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think it's interesting, though maybe not really surprising, how close Stoicism is to certain strains of Buddhism, particularly the Dhamapadha (sp?).

It still seems too severe to me. Eliminating desire as much as possible may make for peace of mind, but it's too big a price to pay, in my view.

― DeRayMi, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't think ol' Epictetus is talking about eliminating desire for everything, just those things which are beyond your control. this is my favorite bit (tho the translation's a little wonky):

"Is anyone preferred before you at an entertainment, or in a compliment, or in being admitted to a consultation? If these things are good, you ought to be glad that he has gotten them; and if they are evil, don't be grieved that you have not gotten them. And remember that you cannot, without using the same means [which others do] to acquire things not in our own control or expect to be thought worthy of an equal share of them. For how can he who does not frequent the door of any [great] man, does not attend him, does not praise him, have an equal share with him who does? You are unjust, then, and insatiable, if you are unwilling to pay the price for which these things are sold, and would have them for nothing. For how much is lettuce sold? Fifty cents, for instance. If another, then, paying fifty cents, takes the lettuce, and you, not paying it, go without, don't imagine that he has gained any advantage over you. For as he has the lettuce, so you have the fifty cents which you did not give. So, in the present case, you have not been invited to such a person's entertainment, because you have not paid him the price for which a supper is sold. It is sold for praise; it is sold for attendance. Give him then the value, if it is for your advantage. But if you would, at the same time, not pay the one and yet receive the other, you are insatiable, and a blockhead. Have you nothing, then, instead of the supper? Yes, indeed, you have: the not praising him, whom you don't like to praise; the not bearing with his behavior at coming in."

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

For how much is lettuce sold? Fifty cents, for instance.

A man ahead of his time, indeed.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Wait a minute. He uses lettuce as an example of eliminating desire? That's cheating!

― N., Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I believe that lettuce was highly prized in the ancient world. There are very passionate lines in Sumerian verse about well-irrigated lettuce.

On a similar note, there was a New York Times article recently which mentioned a scholar who believes that the martyrs will be rewarded by 75 (or whatever the number) virgins in paradise is actually based on a mistranslation of an old Christian text which promises 75 very pure white raisins. Although this sounds like something out of Woody Allen, I am not making it up. Imagine some soul who was recently martyred in some gruesome manner arriving in Paradise and being handed his raisins: "Here is your reward. You have done well."

― DeRayMi, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Accidentally left some words out there, but you can figure it out.

― DeRayMi, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

what's yr point deraymi? i like raisins!

― mark s, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

at which point martyr should stomp off angrily because it certainly was within his control to read the New York Times or at least have someone keep him up to date on the latest martyr-reward developments.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Virgins are always being mistranslated! They must have had virgins on the brain. Doesn't the immacualte conception thing rest on translating a word to mean 'virgin' when it probably actually said 'young woman'? Or maybe Mary was a white raisin. I don't know. It makes you think.

― N., Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Luxenberg tries to show that many obscurities of the Koran disappear if we read certain words as being Syriac and not Arabic. We cannot go into the technical details of his methodology but it allows Luxenberg, to the probable horror of all Muslim males dreaming of sexual bliss in the Muslim hereafter, to conjure away the wide-eyed houris promised to the faithful in suras XLIV.54; LII.20, LV.72, and LVI.22. Luxenberg 's new analysis, leaning on the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, yields "white raisins" of "crystal clarity" rather than doe-eyed, and ever willing virgins - the houris. Luxenberg claims that the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offerred, and not unsullied maidens or houris.

In Syriac, the word hur is a feminine plural adjective meaning white, with the word "raisin" understood implicitly. Similarly, the immortal, pearl-like ephebes or youths of suras such as LXXVI.19 are really a misreading of a Syriac expression meaning chilled raisins (or drinks) that the just will have the pleasure of tasting in contrast to the boiling drinks promised the unfaithful and damned.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,631332,00.html

― DeRayMi, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I'm a bit of a resigned absurdist. On the one hand, I just submit to circumstances and feelings, and on the other, I observe with detachment.

― Kerry, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

PS--Things turned out okay after all with the people I upset. So I guess I can go back to being mindlessly ruled by my emotions. What a relief. (Psych!)

― DeRayMi, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.