FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-18-2003, 11:56 AM   #1
The Insomniac
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Objectivism and Emotion

I've read a few places where objectivism downplays the value of emotions in decision making. There is a serious problem here though, without emotion there is no value (is there?), without value there are no values, without values there is no morality. Where does one derive value logically, it seems to me the only form of this is mathematics, and pure value statements -- there is no morality in mathematics, or value statements. Green is green, water is wet, and 2 + 2 = 4.

As a person who is clinically depressed, my emotions have been dulled down so far, on a few spells, I've looked Nihilism directly in the face, up close and personal. The fact is morality is based on emotion, and an "appeal to emotion" is, in fact, a logical fallacy. So is there a truly logical morality, devoid of emotion? Are any emotions objective? Emotion is subjective, therefore morality follows its leader.

Nihilism is based on pure logic (fuck it all), subjectivism takes emotions into account (which is why I consider it superior), and objectivism tries to take a logical position but the fact is it relies heavily on emotion (can one value life without emotion?) -- just compare it to nihilism.

I'm just babbling, but if anyone wants to debate, I'll give you as much time as I deem worthy.

The subjectivist who sometimes can't sleep...
 
Old 03-18-2003, 12:45 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Durango, Colorado
Posts: 7,116
Exclamation

Hi Insomniac,
Quote:
Nihilism is based on pure logic (fuck it all), subjectivism takes emotions into account (which is why I consider it superior), and objectivism tries to take a logical position but the fact is it relies heavily on emotion (can one value life without emotion?) -- just compare it to nihilism.
This is one of the reasons that I "reject" objectivism. It is my firm belief that it is ultimately *impossible* for humans (at this stage in our evolution anyway) to entirely separate ourselves from our emotions, nor do I believe we should necessarily want to. The psychological phenomena of emotion is IMO an evolved trait that while sometimes f*cks us up, is in many ways what makes us "human" in the most positive senses of the word as well.
christ-on-a-stick is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 02:18 PM   #3
The Insomniac
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I like a 1/47 average ( now it's 2/50). Not too many can compete.
 
Old 03-18-2003, 04:37 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO
Posts: 3,515
Default Re: Objectivism and Emotion

Quote:
Originally posted by The Insomniac
I've read a few places where objectivism downplays the value of emotions in decision making.
There are different views of this, but the one I subscribe to says that emotions are not meant for decision-making and, indeed, are not used that way. Rather, emotions are a form of perception -- a way of interpreting what is seen or heard or experienced.

As with all perception, it is sometimes subject to error. Just as something sticking out of water appears bent, or something hot can be made to feel cold, our emotions can tell us that something appears dangerous which is in fact safe, or soothe us when we should be alert to danger.

These relationships have been drawn from millenia of evolution, attaching certain sights and sounds and smells with signs of danger -- reinforcing those relationships where it aided the survival of our ancestors, and diminishing when the relationships acquired do not aid survival.

The rational person is not wise to dismiss out of hand any category of information. To dismiss the emotions because they sometimes misinform is like plucking out the eyes because we sometimes see things not as they are.

The appeal to emotion fallacy goes in the opposite direction, and gives more credit to the information contained within emotion than it is due. It is like arguing, "All lines that appear curved really are curved; all sticks that appear bent when they stick out of a pond really are bent."

The information contained within emotion is not to be dismissed out of hand, or accepted as infallible. It is to be evaluated like all other information. The truly rational and wise person does this.
Alonzo Fyfe is offline  
Old 03-18-2003, 05:57 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: my mind
Posts: 5,996
Default

As an objectivist, I agree completely with Alonzo.

Emotions must be understood as any other form of perception. One can always be aware of your emotions and have the option to act against them. That is the true moral position, IMO. For example one can feel sudden extreme anger. A true objectivists, understands this anger, and where its coming from. Is aware of it and controls it according by going against the immediate impulse of this anger, calming down instead and taking a more rational action.

Other times emotions must be released without harming others. Again this is done by being aware of this emotion and controlling it by allowing it to be let out (such as crying). You can also release anger in non harmful ways for example by taking kick-boxing classes. It all takes awareness and an understanding of your own emotions, what they are telling you about yourself, and where they come from.
99Percent is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:09 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.