Posted: Jul 01, 2018 10:38 pm
by jamest
Fallible wrote:
jamest wrote:
scott1328 wrote:Emotions are just another part of the cognitive package. You ignore them at your own peril

I'm not suggesting that we ignore the emotional aspect of ourselves. I'm just wondering how far detached the emotions are from reasoning and what drives these desires (our innate needs/nature? If so, can we say something universal about our innate needs/nature?).

There's plenty to explore here if anyone's interested. I know that I am.

Eta: I'm also wondering just how difficult it is for 'us' to be Spock-like and be perfectly reasonable given our emotional nature. Has anyone ever managed to be Spock (so to speak), ever?

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.

We've evolved with both, suggesting that both are advantageous. No, no one's ever been Spock. My non-scientific understanding is that emotions, combined with reasoning, drive behaviour.

I'll just pass on your metaphysical assumption that 'we' are merely a product of physical causes/evolution, because metaphysical assumptions are (or definitely should be) utterly devoid of value to reasonable people who engage in philosophical discussions. I personally have not, yet, even tried to make any conclusions from the discussion. Yet here you are imposing yours upon me/us with no substance behind it. Thanks for fuck all.

As for Spock and whether anyone has ever been close to being like him, I'm not sure. If anyone has, it's mathematicians and philosophers. Kant certainly comes to mind, from what I've read about him.

That 'we' are both emotional and reasonable isn't essentially in dispute. That reason and emotions both have value isn't in dispute atm either. Whether they are utterly distinct (and therefore opposing) ways of thinking/reacting is my immediate concern.