Posted: Jun 30, 2018 1:29 am
SafeAsMilk wrote:I'm not really sure what you mean by "emotional in essence". I've got a toddler, I think it's safe to say he's largely driven by what he feels at any given point in time. But at the same time it's clear that he's becoming aware of relationships between things, and that leads to reasoning. Seems pretty essential to me.jamest wrote:Eta2: I'm even wondering whether we're wholly emotional in essence and that reasoning is something we've merely learnt to do, like science? Again, just chewing the fat. No conclusions drawn atm.
Well I'm not sure why you're not sure what I mean as you seem to have answered my question. I mean, you said that your son started off life by being driven by his feelings, but now he's started to develop his reasoning powers. Which implies to me that he was an essentially/innately emotional being but is learning to be reasonable.
Though he may have been born with the potential to reason, he had 'nothing' to reason about. On the other hand, he had no experience of anything at the onset yet was able to be emotional at the drop of a hat, from the onset.
This is of course universally common amongst all new-borns. So, would you agree that although we are born with the capacity/potential to develop our reasoniong powers, we don't have any knowledge/reason at the onset? Conversely, that we don't have to learn how to be emotional as it's innate at the onset?
This isn't a trap, I'm just trying to establish a basis for a meaningful discussion. Even if you agree, I'm still not sure where that leaves me. I mean, I often profess to being the most reasonable person here within the philosophy forum. However, upon immediate reflection of what I've just written I don't even know whether that statement has any value (regardless of whether it's true), as all I can think of atm is that I desperately wanted the ability to reason perfectly/absolutely to be innate also.
I need to go and chew some more fat.