WJ

Samhain!

Aside from noting the differences say between why men tend to be better map reader’s and so forth, I’d like to briefly explore the criteria (thanks Walk) of what is objective truth viz. the subjectivity of whether it is a male or female drawing the conclusions to what is considered as a ‘true or false’ perspective (whew). I am also finding I am in more agreement with Walks on Fire and almost exclusively Nialscorva here. I am also finding it just a bit perplexing, selfology's comment:

”Unfortunately, most atheists (from what I know) didn't arrive at their position because of emotional reasons. Most, such as myself, actually had to fight the emotional hold that religion had over them in order to make the rational decision that atheism was a "better" worldview. This may also explain why most atheists are men. What are your thoughts.”

That has to be false. Emotions were seemingly the the 'essences' of reason to engage in religious activity to start, and the same 'essences' of emotion and reason to disengage. And, emotions don’t stop once one ‘decides’ to ‘disengage’ in a belief. In fact, emotions obviously continue to drive the belief (or disbelief) in whatever it is that one 'chooses' to believe. This is so because it is not possible to separate emotions from our perceptions and decision making process. There exists only theories based upon empirical studies of the mind (psychology) that suggest the primacy of emotion v. reason. But, as those of us familiar with the contradiction of philosophical Voluntarism, this problem shall remain a regressive game of which came first; chicken or egg.

Leaving religion and women aside for a bit, I think that is really what drove you to your existential/utilitarian/subjective/objective interpretations of the problem. How can you separate reason from emotion? Right? We can’t. (In our case, what can we learn from psychological essences of Being-the psychology of Being?) What are true objective ‘essences’ if we cannot uncover the true separation and/or primacy between emotions and reason from our perceptions of the world around us (consciousness)? I think before we can gender-ize the problem, we ought to at least realize the insoluble ‘intrinsic’ problem. To that end, just for fun, I tried to arrive at some random questions that may or may not provide for just a bit of insight.

Here are some existential type questions/statements [somewhat rhetorical] that suggest *irrational* existence is the order of the day (insoluble objective existence). Regardless of how you/I think we can even make the absolute claim that pure reason can save us in our understanding of this so-called tension of existence, (in making sense of decisions effecting our perspectives on responsibility and responsiveness of Being), there exists some basic fundamental problems. In answering these, I try to think about whether they fall into the dichotomies of pure reason v. pure emotion.

1. What prevents us from the act of suicide when one logically concludes there is no reason to live?
2. Why should one logically marry the poor soul, when a 'wealthier' prospect has the potential of bringing greater 'happiness' by most standards?
3. Why should the happiness and sacrifice as derived from altruism be avoided if it becomes selfishly pleasurable-does reason or emotion invent this concept?
4. Anal retention (ouch) only makes life more stressful in the end?
5. 2+2=4 makes me feel good knowing it is the absolute truth in my world?
6. When I lie in bed at night and before going to sleep I have nothing but my thoughts and feelings, from which I cannot escape either?
7. Wisdom only comes from feeling emotional pains from a life of sentient existence?
8. Why is one unhappy when by all rational objective standards, he/she has everything he/she could possibly want and/or has waisted or invested time and money in/on what they thought was rationally a way to increase one’s level of happiness?
9. Why have people killed other people over a ‘feeling’ that they believe in, regardless of the type or origin of the feeling itself-drugs, hate, anger, selfishness, money, belief systems, etc?

Regardless of the answers, if we can safely assume say, women and AA’s from studies mentioned in the thread, indicate a lack of objective ‘reason’, what does this have to do with the meaning behind why people choose a religious existence/belief/non-belief to begin with? What criteria is considered absolute, objective, and universal in determining why ‘feeling’ is any more or less relevant to the problems of existence? The reason I ask is also because of your ‘absolute’ objective/subjective argument, is a little bit confusing to me when you said:

“I feel that acting from pure emotion has more potential to have adverse effects since the action isn't intellectually rationalized, but goes off of feeling alone.
Existence preceeds essence, that's all I'm saying. What I object to is the idea that we live less genuine if we decide to use our intellect more than our emotions, or that we are less in touch with our beings if we do so. It is perfectly possible to not allow oneself to act directly from emotion, but to examine it instead and act from a rationalization from a utilitarian perspective including our "feelings" as a factor, and to still exist genuinely, for our existences preceed our essences. We do not live less genuine if we rationalize our emotions instead of acting on how we "feel" as long as we confront those emotions and understand them.”

“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).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.”

Though I do not understand your interpretation of existence preceeds essence as you have described, I think you would agree that acting on the side of rational existence can be a good, but also a bad, thing.

How can rational existence, as you suggested, save the human condition?

Walrus

Ender

In a nutshell, your post amounts to the Humean maxim "reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions" or what Kierkegaard did on subjective truth, after reading Kant.

crab juice

Men are generally raised to believe that they determine their own worth. Women are generally raised to believe that their worth is determined by others. Is it surprising that most women would fear alienating the people who they believe determine their worth?

I think that most women, when faced with social disapproval, will react in one of two ways...they will go overboard in conforming to the female "norm" of their society, or they will say, "Fuck it, there's no point in even trying, I will never be able to be that way and I wouldn't want to". It is very difficult to walk away from those expectations knowing that people will think less of you (but ultimately worth it).

Samhain

Walrus:

First, I have to say. Based off of the things I said or responded to, I have no idea how you came up with an argument such as the one you just presented. Perhaps it's my fault, maybe I was not entirely clear with what I was stating, I don't know. Maybe I'm just missing the correlation? I'll try to explain my stance a bit better for you, all the same. I think you may have just missed my point by over-analyzing a little too much (not that that's a bad thing).

Let me try and restate what I was saying a bit more clearly:

Existence preceeds essence - The view I hold here is quite Sartrean. The point I was trying to make here was simple. My personal and individual existence preceeds any definition of what I am as a human, since I create my own definition as time passes and as I make choices, since I am an emotional and rational being, not to be predicted, manipulated, generalized or defined. Basically, a statement that "I am human" is innacurate and incomplete at best. As a rational being, the only thing that "being human" refers to is those things which must be objectively true of all humans, such as emotional response, rationality, etc. Humans cannot be defined by anything but their own traits which are given to them at birth. "I am human" tells one nothing about what it means to me to be human as a rational and emotional being, therefore such a definition seems to be an inaccurate statement. We create our own definitions, my statement that "I am Dale Lawson" is the statement which defines my Being. Why? This statement only applies to me and my personal experience, it only applies to how I view life and myself as a conscious entity. One could not define my entire existence by saying that I am a White Male, this is only my essence, not my existence. Therefore since we can see that, since I define my own meaning of what I am as a human, the statement that "I am Dale Lawson" preceeds over the statement that "I am human" (Existence preceeds essence). Now, as it is applied into the context of my response, existence preceeds essence because how I choose to deal with or deny my emotions is part of my existence. My emotions themselves is part of my essence. Therefore, genuine existence allows that one can exist while denying or ignoring their emotions, but that does not make them any "less human" in any aspect and it is not wrong to do such either since we define ourselves by our choices. In other words, just because I am an emotional and rational being, this does not, in any way, mean that as such, I am defined to be a certain way because of these attributes. I do not have to coincide with any set "definition" of what it is to be human, since, as a concious entity, I create my own definition of what it is to be human.

Sorry if I babbled on that one, just trying to be thorough.

selfology

I agree with you, however, I never said that emotions weren't involved when I or other atheists (not all) decided to question our previous world view. I simply stated that a decision was made based on a rational analysis of our previous world view, not on any emotional (or other) reasons that may have initially compelled the question. You are simply stating that emotions will preceed and follow ones decision to engage or disengage from or to their belief system, which is true. However one does not have to make any conclusive decisions based on those emotions.

For instance, lets say that I were a theist and my wife died tragically. This tragic event triggers an emotional whirlwind that causes me to bring my entire theistic world view into question, but rather than just ditching everything that I believed over this tragedy, I decided to put it through a rigorous revaluation. Based on this evaluation, I came to the conclusion that I should stay with my current world view. The emotional loss of my wife, though bringing the question into perspective, did not influence the final decision.

Samhain

Walrus:

Ok, I thought about it, I felt that, for some reason your questions, which you posed, required some answers. Note: The answers I give here are personal answers based upon my personal experience and my personal philosophy, I will attempt to apply it to a more universal sense, but the answers may not be entirely to your liking, but I hope that by answering them, you may understand a bit further on my personal existential position (remember, I do not list these answers a "proofs" only personal opinions):

No reason really. I understand the correlation to refusal of life if our existence is absurd. If our existence is wholly absurd, there is no pervasive reason for us to choose life. However, I, as others like me, value a conscious existence over everything else. My own consciousness and rationality give an amount of order to the chaos and absurdity, if in a small way, since we can view non-existence as the "ultimate" absurdity of our living existence. The purpose of life is to live. While this may be somewhat circular it is the only reason that I could present for one to live, and it certainly works for me. While my existence is absurd, I continue to battle against the absurdity of it through consciousness and rationality, without existence I fail to be capable of doing such.

If you mean in literal terms of "marriage to a poor soul" (which is what I derive from this, sorry if I am mistaken, it seems rather cryptic), I would say it has to do with personal values. This is not an entirely objective question. People have different motives and different desires, who am I to say that marriage to a soul less "wealthy" is any better for another than the marriage to a soul which is "wealthier". It's all based upon personal perceptions and values.

Once again, it depends on personal values. If one holds altruism for selfish purposes of pleasure, why should one hold that this is to be avoided? It does not cause harm to the other, does it? In fact, it seems it does just the opposite. Both parties seem to benefit in such a case, selfish desires are fulfilled through sacrifice of oneself to the other. If one holds that "selfish desires" are to be avoided at all costs, no matter if it be from a nihilistic or an altruistic sense, then that is a personal opinion, nothing more, and as such, should not be applied to all beings.

Once again, it depends on personal values. For some, anal retention may be a good thing in the end, for some, a bad thing. That it makes life more stressful cannot be applied objectively, different situations require different perspectives.

Clarify this. This seems more of a statement than a question. We create and/or accept our own absolute truths. Is it entirely possible (while ridiculously unlikely) that this statement that 2+2=4 is an absolute truth? Once again, this is based off of human perception. While this can be considered true for all with human perception it does not mean that there are not more possibilites out there (perhaps, though HIGHLY unlikely). How do we know what is objective truth if all of our truth is derived from personal (though perhaps, collective) perceptions, especially if our perceptions are dependent on our personal senses.

One cannot escape existence except through non-existence. Our thoughts and feelings are our essences, and, while we cannot be wholly defined by them, part of us requires them to be conscious entities.

No offense, but ask someone who this would apply to. It is all based upon personal perceptions and values.

I've never personally done such, so this could not apply to me either. I cannot answer a question of this magnitude without personal experience on the matter. It would seem that these "feelings" of emotion have stepped in the way of the reason, and as it were, have caused the subject to act rashly and perhaps, irrationally.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "objective reason". Clarify this. They choose their religious existence/belief/non-belief as a matter of personal values, personal beliefs and personal emotions, remember, personal.

None. That's exactly the point. How one wishes to value their emotions is a personal matter, and as such, we should not condemn another for their personal views on such a matter, whether they wish to value emotions over logic or logic over emotions, as long as they accept the responsibility of their actions in either case, their existence is genuine, and I cannot dispute it. The only problem I saw is that when one makes a rash or irrational action, one may be more likely to fall into Sartre's "bad faith" and one may be more prone to make rash and irrational decisions if one acts solely off of emotions rather than logic.

This is also dependent on personal values and perceptions. For some, yes, it can be bad, for others, perhaps not, there are no objectives here. Regardless of whether or not a rational existence can be a bad thing or a good thing, we have no right to condemn others of somehow being of lesser existence because of it as long as they accept the responsibility of their decisions.

What reasons do you pose that the human conditions needs saving if under rational existence? If an individual can exist without regard to emotions, and live in good faith, then why does the human condition need saving in such a case. Different people require different things. Some require emotions to survive such as love, caring, etc. Some require logic to make sense of the world. Some require a balance. The requirements are subjective, I do not hold that any one is better than another, only that some seem to work better for some people, and for what reason should we label them as in denial of human existence if they choose their own existence for themselves?

I hope this clarifies things for you on my viewpoint. I will not say that all questions were answered with 100% accuracy, your language seemed to be cryptic, and I had some trouble understanding what you're trying to say in some cases, respond how you will, but do not be surprised if I said I misunderstood you on some points

WJ

Samhain! (ender, nialscorva, selfology, walk, et al)

Well, I am sort of having a spiritual experience (another thread) as I’ve read thru some of the responses to this issue, of how people with a ‘lesser degree’ of ‘rationality’ seek ‘acquiescence’ [aka religion] in a world of absurdity (which we’ll come around to drawing the distinctions from the gender thing a bit later)! Also, I have to give Ender just a teany tinny bit of credit here in his synopsis of framing the ‘philosophical approach’ to our/this ‘feeling’ of absurdity in and of itself. And this is relative to Kant and Keirkegaard. Unfortunately Kantian [critique of] reason seems to pervade or at least lay a certain amount groundwork for analysis of this problem, yet I personally am more a fan of the religious existentialist Keirkegaard, and more specifically the entire existential thought process-es that have been out there for awhile(ie, Nietzcheian joyful wisdom).

I think, though, one central point that is eventually going to require an explaination, is going to be whether or not women/AA’s etc. (assuming there is a lack of ‘rational intelligence’ by someone’s criteri/standard) are in fact ‘inferior’ viz. the original thread’s question. We have somewhat tested the inability to see what amount of ‘good’ rationale can change the circumstances of our so-called human condition. Not to be presumptious here, but my argument will default to something like: no amount of rationality will ever change the underlying intrinsic need for a deeper, ‘spiritual’ [religious] feeling relative to life’s meaning [the why’s of existence], which all of us (health individual)at one time or another have contemplated or questioned. This of course, leads to our apparent agreement that truth, remains [Keirkegaardian Subjectivity] subjective, yet, an psuedo-objective standard exists; a standard based upon an inescapable tension from sentience. That tension, to sum up, speaks to the question of what shall one do or act with the tension from our consciousness/conscience; deny it, or integrate it? (The existence and essence of our stream of consciousness-said another way.)

If there is any value in pursuing that line of thinking which we have already done so, what follows is the question of whether women are more predisposed towards recognizing this truth (unknowingly, without the exercise of going thru our little analytical thought process)about the impacts that sentient existence has over us or, simply ‘sentience’ and feelings? And/or do ‘different‘ personalities in themselves consist of how each individual actually puts together these so-called ’ inescapable dichotomous cognitive processes’ from our rational/irrational sentient existence/ feelings about our place in the world? This of course brings us back to subjectivity; the subject person him/herself. (In other words ask yourself, what makes someone a perceived ‘superstar’ versus the ordinary person regardless of gender?) Why are some people different? Why do some view the same concept differently? By evidence of the posts thus far, I think many of us have our own answers to those questions.

But perhaps getting to thinking like a ‘superstar’ means you have to have ‘all’ relevant information at hand in order to even try being one. And having all relevant information at least means recognizing the ‘truth’ as derived from both emotions and reason. Otherwise, we are basing our decision making [volitional existence] on half-truths. (It goes back to extremes and why one would argue that they would rather be a ‘Spock’.) That also returns us a close-to- perfect objective formula of knowing what is, and is not, important in life. And so I think one would not be a ‘whole’ person if a denial of either rational or emotional existence was not considered in the decision making process from all aspects of life. Spock as the demonstrative extreme, is not a whole person-he is not fully human.

I want to reply to those questions that you were so gracious enough in taking time to respond to as you did. And, also bring to light one apparent paradox that you described (perhaps unknowingly) when you tried to justify the accuracy of objectivism in framing our belief to act a certain way but, let me do that via two separate posts (a subsequent post-I hate people who do long posts).

I do believe though, in keeping with the existential theme, that ultimately, ‘volitional’ existence will force us into making choices about a perceived belief system [like religion] which in the end, a person who posses much ‘rational intelligence’, (as it were) can simply come to the ‘same’ conclusion v.the person who is 'lacking' that very same intelligence or knowledge. In this regard, the ‘will to believe’ must have it’s origins in something other than rational epistemology. (Of course William James’ psychology of religion would be a good source here).

So, it may be then that we are in much or at least some agreement after all (thru some redundancy here), but I did want to offer my personal experiences with respect to those earlier questions (and I thought of two more in the meantime) to check out my theories, if you will… . And, although this thread could be entitled the psychology of religion (or some other name), perhaps by exploring an objective/subjective standard derived from personal experience (inductive reasoning) we can make better assumptions about the truth of what motivates other people/genders viz. religion.

I hope that clarifies some of my earlier ramble as well. Perhaps I've created yet even more...

Walrus

philechat

I have always considered atheism a "choice", yet I found Kierkegaard's solution unsatisfactory...and that I would rather live as an aesthete in a Nietzschean sense, accepting neither the standard of society nor religion. You could say it's because I would rather "be a poet and be misunderstood" then "be a swine and be understood by the swineherd" (You should know what I meant since you read Kiekegaard). I have accepted my loneliness and the impossibility to be understood a priori, especially after a childhood wishing to be loved, accepted, and comprehended by people and living in complete sickness and resentment. I deemed the gods as unworthy of worship, since by following any one ritual over another implies a loss of independence and an escape from absurdity.

I saw organized religion as a resort of the unimaginative. People followed the myths set by others because they were unable to create their own myths. If truth is subjective as you want to say, then I say people who created their own myths, knowing it's never objectively true, are those who are most bold in confronting "the absurd".

Therefore, artists, actors, novelists, and even some scientists are the greatest models for modern subjectivity, I will say. Do artists need to believe in Venus to paint her? Do musicians need to believe in God to compose sacred music (no according to both Verdi and Brahms)? Do actors need to believe what their characters believe to perform well? No. But were their presentation less convincing because of their non-belief? I don't think so. The way theists imagine their "religious experience" as unique was unfounded and arrogent at best...similar experiences were found in atheists with a radically different interpretation.

[ May 02, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

WJ

Samhain!

"One could not define my entire existence by saying that I am a White Male, this is only my essence, not my existence."


But, 'White Male' is related to existence; not essence. We do not have knowledge of our essence(s) (rational mathematical truth).

"Therefore, genuine existence allows that one can exist while denying or ignoring their emotions, but that does not make them any "less human" in any aspect and it is not wrong to do such either since we define ourselves by our choices."

Unless I've misunderstood, which is entirely possible, I can't agree. Though I don't know how you are using the word 'wrong', denying something that exists from our stream of consciousness would be like denying the fact that I'm not a perfect Being. I think it would be 'less human' to exclaim that I am perfect.


"In other words, just because I am an emotional and rational being, this does not, in any way, mean that as such, I am defined to be a certain way because of these attributes. I do not have to coincide with any set "definition" of what it is to be human, since, as a concious entity, I create my own definition of what it is to be human."

Well, we are back to objectifying a 'standard' based upon our sentient existence. In an ethical sense (what shall I do with my life) I agree with you, however, by virtue of you *not* being capable of being a Spock (bad example but will have to do for now), you are in fact defined objectively as a human Being. And that means you posess all that other emotional baggage we haven't got to yet. (?)

I'm still working thru the questions....

Walrus

Samhain

Walrus:

Perhaps we are confused by the definition of our essences. My view holds that our "essence" is that which is objectively true and not reversible by personal decision. The fact that I am born as a white male into a middle income home is my essence, I could not change this part of me. One cannot change the "base" of their existence, if you will (such as their past), but through present decisions one can change their existence. Our "essences" are what allow us to be considered human. Essences being things like consciousness, intelligence, emotions, etc. We cannot change that we have these things, we can only ignore them. I think maybe you got essences confused with "souls" or "spirits"? Essences have to do with what it is to be human, existence preceeds this because it has to do with how I choose to exist as such, and doing so, I create my own definition of myself.

I don't think it's possible for someone to deny emotions to the point which they believe that they do not have them, this falls under bad faith as well to do such. What I mean by emotional "denial" is denying our emotions in a sense that we either hold them inside of us (which has potential for psychological damage), or refuse to let them effect our logic. We cannot deny the fact that we have emotions. Part of what makes us human is that we have emotions, we can no more deny that our emotions do not exist than a white person could deny that they were born white. Do you see what I'm saying? We cannot deny our essences to the point of which we believe that they do not exist, this is part of bad faith. We can only make a personal decision as to how we wish to deal with our emotions. Whether we act on our emotional impulses, ignore our emotions, contain our emotions, etc. these are all personal choices and none can be defined as the absolute right way to deal with our emotions. Different ways work for different people, and because our emotional views are subjective no one could possibly say that one view is better than another, therefore just because someone ignores their emotions or contains them, we cannot say that this is an objectively bad thing because it is part of existence and existence is individual.

Not quite, even Spock was capable of emotion, as we can see in one of the movies (if I remember correctly). We are capable of being a Spock because all Spock does is holds his intelligence, rationality, and reason at the highest standard and refuses to let emotion affect him. He does not deny the existence of his emotion, but holds that it is almost unimportant. What we are not capable of is a Commander Data lifestyle, our emotions are always there, how we choose to deal with them is a personal matter and as such, no one can objectively point that it is wrong to deal with emotions in a Spockian ( ) fashion.