Samhain

NialScorva:

It's dependent upon whether the subject denies their emotional feelings and disregards them, or whether the subject uses their emotional feelings in order to better understand a given situation and draw a conclusion based upon other information rather than just using emotional feeling as the information.

Sorry to piss on your empirically verified condition, but if it is not an objective truth that can be applied to all people in all places at all times and considered psychologically unhealthy in every situation, this is not an objective truth, and as such, means dick (no offense). If you hold that it is perfectly possible for this given situation to not have unhealthy setbacks (and it seems obvious that you do, by your statement that it "can be" harmful), then this proves nothing other than that some people or even a majority of people may have some kind of unhealthy side effect to such a position regarding emotion. This really doesn't have any bearing on what I'm talking about, anyway, but I think you can see where I'm going with this. If we cannot rely on this position as an unhealthy pyschological condition as objectively true in all cases, then one must fall back upon the point that individual existence is just that, individual, in all cases, and as such, a person who views emotions in such a way is not denying their experience or existence, but instead, is creating their own, by not allowing themselves to be defined in such a manner.

But can't reason be used to try to understand things within the world around us? In this case it would be an inherently irrational desire to understand life.

Once again, I never said this. It seems that people have an amazing ability to put words into my mouth. You seem to think that I'm saying that living emotionally is the ungenuine existence as opposed to the idea that living intellectually is the ungenuine existence (what I hold is seeming to be your view, correct me if I'm wrong). I hold the exact opposite of both. I hold that both are genuine existences as long as we all accept responsibility for the actions we make, whether they be emotional, irrational, reasonable, or informed and rational, and do not lapse in to Sartre's mauvaise foi or bad faith. My only view that I am trying to relay is that, and that there is a more possible potential for lapsing into bad faith when one makes an irrational or rash decision, and also that it is more probable that a rash or irrational decision can be made through emotions rather than through logic and reason. Also, I'm not "simply wrong" since, if we accept that humans create their own existences and perceptions of their existence, the choice of rationalism as a view to combat emotional feelings is a choice of how one wishes to exist, and as such, we cannot judge against it if there are no negative side effects against it (which is perfectly possible, as you also seem to hold). What is "simply wrong" is the idea that we are defined as emotional beings, and telling others who do not feel emotions the same as the norm does is wrong and thus that they have some kind of psychological dissociative disorder.

I'm not exactly sure that I completely understand what it is you're trying to accomplish or trying to get me to clarify for you, but I'll give it my best shot. My only point with my reply was that you failed to understand that how people choose to exist and live their lives is not objective, and therefore, we should not be making any kind of prejudgements or generalizations as to whether something is "right" or "wrong" but only trying to understand for what reasons something is true or not. Condemning males for their possible emotional detachment by saying that such emotional detachment, is in all cases, wrong, because it is a denial of human existence is a ridiculous generalization on several levels. The two major levels seem to be that it is true that it is unhealthy, which is not the case in all circumstances, which I think we both can agree upon. Also the idea that it is a denial of existence, which is false because if these things are not objectively true or false regarding the psychological health of the subject, in all cases, then we can be seen to create our own perception of existence and life, and as long as we do not fall into bad faith, it is still genuine existence. Regardless of what you may think.

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

NialScorva

Samhain,

I'm not sure what you're arguing. If you'll read my original post, I said such things as "tendency" and "as a general rule", both of which are clear designations that what I speak of is sometimes a problem, and not a universal. The fact is that such intellectualization does have negative consequences on one's self and others. Not everyone does this, but the intention was to show the ridiculousness of extrapolating the tendancy to the extreme that the tendenancy of women being religious has been.

Ender

Nialscorva

How much is “somewhat?” What misogynistic remarks have I made that you don’t find substantial? And if you can see walrus’ points, I’m designating you the official Walrus translator.

We’re now doing psychology. Men usually rationalize embarrassing emotions away in order to safe face and uphold masculine traits in the eyes of others. Some psychologists call this “sublimating” desires or “repression” but the process of rationalization of emotions remains the same in both genders. I’ve always thought that thoughts themselves were lighter, darker shadows of feelings.

That is due to an insufficient ability to handle emotions, an obvious sign of immaturity. Women, being better at expressing emotions, are by default more skilled at deception. The lie is a fault in a boy, an art in the lover, and second nature to woman.

I’d like how you came up with that thesis of essentialism- because women are considered unfathomable because they have no bottom to be found. But the “internal reality” you state is actually lacking- women are not even shallow! <a href="http://www.dhalgren.com/Doom/ch07.html" target="_blank">Here is a nice follow up on that statement by a chick </a> and <a href="http://members.aol.com/albrtusm/private/mask.txt" target="_blank"> another one that focuses on the maxim.</a> Once I talked about this “hollowness” with a gal who majored in psychology and her reaction wasn’t a typical knee-jerk outrage- but that of a consent. Amazing!
I don’t know what the ubermenschen are- but that they are the meaning of the earth whether they are our technology becoming “them-actualized” or a narcissistic belief in our ability to resculpt humanity with bioengineering...
~WiGGiN~

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Samhain

I'm not arguing that "as a general rule" that this is particularly false. The problem I had with your post was that it seemed to generalize and accept an idea that intellectualizing everything means a division from emotion, which is not always true. Or that such an emotional detachment is a denial of human existence, which I also hold is false, as I say when I point to the idea that we create and choose our own personal existences, and if we live without bad faith, they cannot be seen as any less human, in any aspect, regardless if we deny our emotions or not.

Also, just to point this out, I don't mean to be nit-picking, and I don't know if this is the way you meant it, but:

These two statements seem to contradict each other. You say generalizations and tendencies in the first, and then in the next you state that it is "fact" that such intellectualization is negative. I don't know if you meant to say this, but I just wanted to point it out just to "cover all bases".

EDIT: Unless of course, you feel that repression of emotion always has the negative side effects that you listed earlier, once again, though, I don't think this can be proven to be objectively true, although, it does seem that in most cases this is quite reliable.

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

NialScorva

Now you're just arguing to be arguing. "Such intellectualization" refers to the excessive negative kind that I'm saying men have a tendency torward. Reading skills are important, the first couple sentences introduce what I'm talking about-- men have a tendency torwards X. These are the effects of X.

Samhain

NialScorva:

Not so, and I'll show you why.

Yes they are. Just as important are writing and clarification skills.

If such was the case, I wouldn't have argued it. What it seemed more to me was: Men have a tendency towards X. These are always the effects of X, and they are a state of denial of human existence or human experience. Later on: Thus, women at least do not suffer from the denial of X, and in this way, are more "in touch" with their internal reality. Re-read your original statement, you do not state that the effects of X are only to be allowed in excessive cases or that it is just a possibility. You state that many men suffer from X, thus X is a negative in all cases as a form of denial. Nothing noted about extreme cases, etc. Do you see why I could have misinterpreted this, if this was not the intention of your original statement?

hinduwoman

Based on personal experience, there is probably something in the theory that women are more inclined to think in people terms.
I find even now, baby Krishna, the adoloscent lover Krishna to be very cute. And the way Kali is addressed by her devotees is so very human and moving. that is why possibly at present hindu women are more involved in reglious activism.

Ender

Yes, Hinduwoman, there was this pop psychology floating around in the philosophy of the mind course i sat in recently- i don't know the name of this theory but it seemed to be very trite and trivial but here goes!

The story is about a possible scenario on the immediacy illness of a child and the scarity of money, what would you, as the parent, do?

Most men admitted they would steal the medicine for the kid, while most women said they would talk to the pharmacist into a lower price of the drug.

What does this little scenario amount to?
Men are more likely to honor the principles they hold while women are more likely to fight for the relationships they have.

~WiGGiN~

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

I don't want to start anything (Hubert forbid), but if atheists were more emotionally and socially sophisticated then maybe more women could be enticed away from religion.

DarkDruid

I'm going to offer a slightly differant opinion than that "women are more emotional then men" garbage I see going around.

Based on my own experiances, women are not acctually more religious than men. Please do not confuse church attendance with true belief. On the few occassions I have visited churches, I have only seen maybe one woman stand up and "testify" or preach or whathaveyou. It's always the men doing this, and the women tend to just sit in the pews and occassionally nod. Hell, my mom never believed in any sort of God but she was always taking us to church when we were little. She said it was a good place to make friends and meet people.

Of course, Christianity does indeed have a sort of stranglehold on women. One wonders how many women in the church pews were born into the church or acctually converted. I'd say christianity does have a very powerful grasp on women, but that might also make it very unappealing to non-christian women who might convert. To think of it in other terms, a person who is comfortable with who they are and does not feel like they are "sinners" might be more than happy to not be a Christian, but the insecure self-scrutinizer might be. The same with women. Christianity has cut out a special place for them and likes to lock them in, like they have with so many other groups.