Conscience Vs Emotion

InFront

I dont know who you are and I have never debated or spoken to you before.

Those comments were in relation to child rapists as opposed to pornographers. If you want to argue against the points I have made in that thread, and I absolutely stand by, please do so there.

You dont seem to have a problem with my opinion on theories of conscience and emotion, but if you do, you can discuss that here. It is after all, the topic at hand.

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

Silly statement. Of course they have valid emotions, everyone does. Doesn’t imply one should act upon them.

There probably is, but not much when compared to the anti-nuclear side.
[/qoute]
Maybe one should. Or Maybe not
How do you know that?

That is correct - simply saying that your opposition is irrational or illogical does not mean your own position is right.

But thats exactly what these supposed rationality lovers always do.

However, it does mean that their argument is wrong. That is to say, even if your irrational opposition’s conclusion is true, the means by which they are arriving to it are flawed, if not outright crap. For your logical argument to be true you would have to also propose your side rationally, as discrediting your opposition is not enough.

Ok I can see what you saying, they maybe right but emotion seems distorts arguement. There is difference from showing and using emotion and being emotive. I don't like emotive arguements (Will somebody think of the children! etc) myself but maybe there are right. But in that example I gave the all the minister said was, the 'they don't want to negotiate what can we do'. Of course that isn't true.
But because he seems to be the dispasionate one, alot of people will believe him, as he discredits that other side with being emotive (which they occasionaly are) ugh

Nonetheless, it does not change the fact that an irrational argument cannot prove a rational truth.

Can we have a rationaly arguement but display emotion at the same time.

Do we live in rational world, rationality is GOD, its not the be all and end all, and people who seem to use rational arguement aren't always right. They could be lieing.

What sort of emotions would do people think that pro-nuclear people (for example) have, when they argue for nuclear power in Ireland or about how and why Chernobyl happened, becasue they must be having some emotion whether hidden or public and using that in their argeument.

Actually it’s because we’ve found logic and reason to be far more accurate tools of decision making than emotion or instinct. It’s a simple case of results.

Perhaps thats it, its not using emotion or instinct but being accused of using them on their own. I figure the best tool of decision making is using all four.

Simplistic. The hysteria that surrounded the witch trials of Europe and North America a few centuries ago was an excellent example of what can occur when what we define as conscience and emotion takes precedence over reason. Should we reintroduce that?

Maybe on some of these occasions they were clincal, based on removing emotion such as empathy that was the problem, or replacing one emotion with another, fear.

Perhaps people proclaim and think they are rational are being driven but a number of emotions to, not sure what they are.


ah I dunno

The Corinthian

lostexpectation wrote:

Couldn't it be said that some of these idealogies were clinical, based on removing emotion and empathy and this was the crux of the dangerousness to them. Or perhaps replacing one emotion from another.

It could be said, but then you’d be historically incorrect.

Which means the pro-nuclear side has as much emotion as the anti, just different ones.

Did you delete a big chunk of argument where you explained the connection between ideologies that you claimed removed emotion and empathy and this last statement?

Maybe one should. Or Maybe not

I still don’t see any relevance in your point.

How do you know that?

How many hysterical hippies to you see demonstrating for nuclear power?

But thats exactly what these supposed rationality lovers always do.

That’s irrelevant. An emotional argument will not stand up to scrutiny. The side of the argument it may support may still be right, but not the way the emotional argument is trying to put forward.

Similarly, if that emotional argument is debunked, then it is up to those promoting that side to argue in a manner that will not fall apart when examined and not to whinge that it’s because the rationality lovers are bullying them.

Ok I can see what you saying, they maybe right but emotion seems distorts arguement. There is difference from showing and using emotion and being emotive. I don't like emotive arguements (Will somebody think of the children! etc) myself but maybe there are right. But in that example I gave the all the minister said was, the 'they don't want to negotiate what can we do'. Of course that isn't true.
But because he seems to be the dispasionate one, alot of people will believe him, as he discredits that other side with being emotive (which they occasionaly are) ugh

I’m not familiar with this example, so I really can’t comment.

Can we have a rationaly arguement but display emotion at the same time.

Yes, that’s not the same thing as using emotively originated arguments.

Do we live in rational world, rationality is GOD, its not the be all and end all, and people who seem to use rational arguement aren't always right. They could be lieing.

Then it’s no longer reason, it’s deception.

What sort of emotions would do people think that pro-nuclear people (for example) have, when they argue for nuclear power in Ireland or about how and why Chernobyl happened, becasue they must be having some emotion whether hidden or public and using that in their argeument.

What on Earth is your point?

Perhaps thats it, its not using emotion or instinct but being accused of using them on their own. I figure the best tool of decision making is using all four.

If you can do more than just surmise this you may convince people.

And as for all four? Would you like to add conscience and make it five? Let’s add phobias and make it an even six.

Maybe on some of these occasions they were clincal, based on removing emotion such as empathy that was the problem, or replacing one emotion with another, fear.

Or maybe you should read the historical facts to this too rather than inventing even more fanciful conjectures?

Perhaps people proclaim and think they are rational are being driven but a number of emotions to, not sure what they are.

Maybe they just don’t know what they’re talking about?

InFront wrote:

You dont seem to have a problem with my opinion on theories of conscience and emotion, but if you do, you can discuss that here. It is after all, the topic at hand.

I was simply observing an inconsistency, but no matter.

Jackie laughlin

Of course an argument can be rational and display emotion. Great arguments are both carefully constructed and filled with passion and rage.

The technical quality of an argument is analysed by looking to whether or not it is valid and sound. This kind of examination is vital but seldom - if ever - applied to a political argument. The lazy, inept opponent is more likely to try to dismiss the argument as "emotional".

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The technical quality of an argument is analysed by looking to whether or not it is valid and sound. This kind of examination is vital but seldom - if ever - applied to a political argument. The lazy, inept opponent is more likely to try to dismiss the argument as "emotional".

Yet emotionally based arguments are not valid or sound. They’re based upon false and spurious logic designed to justify the emotion that evoked them.

So, are you suggesting then that rejecting an argument as being emotionally rather than rationally based is solely the providence of the lazy and/or inept?

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

How many hysterical hippies to you see demonstrating for nuclear power?

what's the emotion being shown here ^ ?

metrovelvet

lostexpectation wrote:

ok thats part of it, do animals have emotions?.

I have no idea. Some do. We're animals and we have them. Apparantly our emotions are located in the limbic or "mammallian" part of the brain while reason is in the neo cortex. I dont know.... from what I can see the body has its own logic, the heart has its own mind... so who the **** knows?

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually it’s because we’ve found logic and reason to be far more accurate tools of decision making than emotion or instinct. It’s a simple case of results.

And some very interesting ones too, like xeno's paradox or the world being flat.

The Corinthian wrote:

Simplistic. The hysteria that surrounded the witch trials of Europe and North America a few centuries ago was an excellent example of what can occur when what we define as conscience and emotion takes precedence over reason. Should we reintroduce that?

No and that wasnt what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting is that it is we have the option not to buy into the binary oppositions and that it could be possible to consider reason as an emotion itself.

And as for the people who burned witches, Im sure they "had their reasons" too.

Yes, while the 20th century saw the grotesque exploitation of passion, it at the same time saw the absolute aneomia of compassion.

Since language is in itself emotive, I fail to see how any argument can be devoid of emotion completely, especially when the whole spirit of argument is persuasion, that in itself is motivated - seeking to change your mind, while emotion is the impulse to change/act/move I]movere[/I.

The Corinthian

lostexpectation wrote:

what's the emotion being shown here ^ ?

It’s called contempt. Now, do you have a point to this and all the other points I have questioned you on in my previous post, or are you simply indulging in diatribe at this stage?

metrovelvet wrote:

And some very interesting ones too, like xeno's paradox or the world being flat.

Did anyone say that logic, or it’s application, is infallible? If it were, we would not have debates on (and in) it.

No and that wasnt what I was suggesting. What I was suggesting is that it is we have the option not to buy into the binary oppositions and that it could be possible to consider reason as an emotion itself.

Reason, rather than being an emotion, is the antithesis of emotion. People feel emotion, they do not feel reason.

And as for the people who burned witches, Im sure they "had their reasons" too.

The point being that they were emotive reasons, largely born from hysteria, although, no doubt, there were more than a few opportunists too.

Yes, while the 20th century saw the grotesque exploitation of passion, it at the same time saw the absolute aneomia of compassion.

How did that differ from every other century?

Since language is in itself emotive, I fail to see how any argument can be devoid of emotion completely, especially when the whole spirit of argument is persuasion, that in itself is motivated - seeking to change your mind, while emotion is the impulse to change/act/move I]movere[/I.

Does this mean that because we cannot escape the irrational completely, we should surrender ourselves to it?

DadaKopf

Corinthian, I really think you're unjustifiably narrowing your terms of definition for the sake of argument. You define 'rational' extremely narrowly, and 'irrational' as everything beyond your narrow definition.

You say

Reason, rather than being an emotion, is the antithesis of emotion. People feel emotion, they do not feel reason.

What exactly do you mean by this and explain exactly how it's so. Are you discussing the non-existent, rationalist ideal, or an actual psychoneuralogical capacity/mechanism in the human body that can achieve this perfect antithesis?

If you can't explain this capacity/mechanism, or can't find other's theories of this (that date from the mid-20th century), then I'll have to assume that your argument is informed significantly by emotive factors.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Corinthian, I really think you're unjustifiably narrowing your terms of definition for the sake of argument. You define 'rational' extremely narrowly, and 'irrational' as everything beyond your narrow definition.

Thank you for your opinion.

What exactly do you mean by this and explain exactly how it's so. Are you discussing the non-existent, rationalist ideal, or an actual psychoneuralogical capacity/mechanism in the human body that can achieve this perfect antithesis?`

I’m discussing the abstract concept of reason, not it’s application. I thought that obvious at this stage.

If you can't explain this capacity/mechanism, or can't find other's theories of this (that date from the mid-20th century), then I'll have to assume that your argument is informed significantly by emotive factors.

Are you asking me if I can indulge in post-modernist wankology too?

DadaKopf

Are you asking me if I can indulge in post-modernist wankology too?

Hardly. My own view of theories of mind are materialist. That's not to say that emergent properties of these material systems aren't non-physical.

Thank you for your opinion.

Yes, at least I admit as much. But also, it's my rational analysis of your argument, which I think is excessively idealist. I'm fairly happy with a dialectical relationship between the two, within a materialist framework.

Are you asking me if I can indulge in post-modernist wankology too?

"Post-modernist wankology"? Now it's you who are labelling to avoid a sensible debate.

I’m discussing the abstract concept of reason, not it’s application. I thought that obvious at this stage.

My point is that discussing reason abstractly is fine provisionally, but when you make universalising statements such as "rationality is the antithesis of emotion", abstract examinations only get you so far and actually can lead analysis down incorrect paths. There is a reason why those examining this concept have shifted perspectives from idealism to functionalism and materialism. Resorting to idealism, surely, provides space for you to invent any explanations you want without having to refer to the physical conditions of human existence, which is what this discussion is broadly about. Now that's "post-modern wankology".

In any case, your discussion of the 'abstract' idea of idealism doesn't preclude asking you to explain how 'rationalism' and 'emotion' are categorically distinct, which you declined to even touch off in your post.

I still ask you: explain to me how these categories are entirely separate from one another, and as you contend yourself, where and how rationality and emotion overlap, at what stages, under what conditions, do these overlaps entail qualitiatively distinct sub-categories, how do you know they're the only categories etc.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

"Post-modernist wankology"? Now it's you who are labelling to avoid a sensible debate.

No. You first accuse me of unjustifiably narrowing my terms of definition and then suggest that I may only draw from third-party sources “that date from the mid-20th century”. So please spare me the irony of such accusations.

My point is that discussing reason abstractly is fine provisionally, but when you make universalising statements such as "rationality is the antithesis of emotion", abstract examinations only get you so far and actually can lead analysis down incorrect paths. There is a reason why those examining this concept have shifted perspectives from idealism to functionalism and materialism. Resorting to idealism, surely, provides space for you to invent any explanations you want without having to refer to the physical conditions of human existence, which is what this discussion is broadly about. Now that's "post-modern wankology".

No, because regardless of that ideal, I have never said at any stage that the application of reason is in anyway perfect or removed from emotion. Ultimately we are still creatures of emotion and can only apply it as best as we can.

However, simply because our applied reason is imperfect, does not mean that we should take this as an acceptance that emotion is equally valid in rational debate. To do that would simply be to further distance ourselves from the rational ideal, rather than move towards it. And that would indeed be "post-modern wankology".

In any case, your discussion of the 'abstract' idea of idealism doesn't preclude asking you to explain how 'rationalism' and 'emotion' are categorically distinct, which you declined to even touch off in your post.

This entire thread has been that explanation - read through it, it’s been said. Emotion, be it instinctive, through conscience or otherwise, is a purely inductive process, where (from the rational perspective) the initial axiom and the conclusion are the same and the argumentative process simply becomes a justification of that premise. Reason is, on the other hand, typically deductive (induction is sometimes also used, but is questionable logic), beginning from an initial axiom and moving to a separate conclusion.

Does that response satisfy you or do you require me to cite a few mid-20th century philosophers before you consider it academically valid?

Jackie laughlin

An argument is valid if its conclusion follows from its premises.
That argument is sound if its premises and concepts survive scrutiny.
Logic and reason are not the same.
Emotion cannot be isolated from reason.
It might be entirely reaonable to invest an argument with powerful emotions. It could be argued that arguments without passion and commitment are sophistry.
An appeal to emotions without logical content is simply not an argument. It is a device to avoid argument. As a device it is more crude than dismissing an argument as "emotional" or "emotive" without examination.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote:

Reason, rather than being an emotion, is the antithesis of emotion. People feel emotion, they do not feel reason.

Again, buying into the binary opposition. How is reason the anti-thesis of an emotion? They seem pretty connected to me. And Im not the only one either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_therapy

The Corinthian wrote:

How did that differ from every other century?.

It doesn't.

The Corinthian wrote:

Does this mean that because we cannot escape the irrational completely, we should surrender ourselves to it?

No and I dont know why you assume there's a battle going on. What is the picture here? The neurotransmitters of neo cortex waving white flags to the ones over in the limbic brain?

Im very good friends with my irrational side. In fact I think I may have it over for tea later.

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s called contempt.

just for me to note

contempt, disdain, condescension, simmering anger, distant sneering, heartless, cold blooded, hostile,conceited,indifference disparagement