Would we be better of without EMOTIONS?

[Lote-Tree]

Do you think without emotions life would simpler for us humans?

What say you?

Regards,
Lote

[Turk]

Beauties of life comes from emotions. Without emotions we would be walking dead, which is why i dislike people with low sensivity and blind emotions. A man without emotions is not even a human for me.

[kathycf]

Now I am going to be pickyune, Lote.

Why is "simpler" equated with "better"?

You title the thread asking the question would we be better off without emotions, but then ask if life would be simpler without them.

Simplicity may be superior in some contexts, while complexity may be superior in others. Would life be simpler without emotions? Perhaps...although that would be a tough question to answer in general terms...considering that emotions impact people in different ways and there are a couple of billion people roaming around the planet...tough to speak for all them.

Would life be better? I don't think so..and again, tough question based on what I just wrote above. For my own life, it would of course be much easier to be an emotionless automaton, but life would seem to lack quite a bit of richness, complexity and joy. Kinda boring....Of course if I was an emotionless automaton, I suppose I wouldn't care because those terms "richness" and "joy" would be meaningless to me.

[Demona]

kathycf, right in the nose :D

It certainly would be simpler, but would you call it a life at all then? Unfortunately, I happen to be acquainted with one or two people who just don't care about anything....nothing, nothing at all can stir their emotions, they don't need or want anything...or enjoy anything...that is a very pathetic sight. I certainly wouldn't like to experience that kind of emotionless existence.

[Durgamol]

i believe that the only thing that really distincts us from animals is capability of feeling, which means that without emotions we would no longer be humans

[Lote-Tree]

Beauties of life comes from emotions.


Trees seems to have quite a beautiful existence without emotions.



You title the thread asking the question would we be better off without emotions, but then ask if life would be simpler without them.


Better and Simpler in this context are the same thing Kathy. I should have used the same word to be consistent.



Would life be simpler without emotions? Perhaps...although that would be a tough question to answer in general terms...considering that emotions impact people in different ways and there are a couple of billion people roaming around the planet...tough to speak for all them.


There would be no wars? hate anger jelousy. We would all be logical and world would be such a peaceful place with billiosn of people.


kathycf, right in the nose :D

It certainly would be simpler, but would you call it a life at all then?


Without feeling life still goes on?



Unfortunately, I happen to be acquainted with one or two people who just don't care about anything....nothing, nothing at all can stir their emotions, they don't need or want anything...or enjoy anything...that is a very pathetic sight.


It would not have to be like this though. We can be perfectly logical and live that way. Without emotions getting in the way - words such as caring would not come into play.



I certainly wouldn't like to experience that kind of emotionless existence.

Perhaps not. But think of the advantages? No hate or jelousy, Anger. No more pain etc...


i believe that the only thing that really distincts us from animals is capability of feeling, which means that without emotions we would no longer be humans

Perhaps. But we can make descisions without any emotions involved. We can still live as humans.

[Durgamol]

Perhaps. But we can make descisions without any emotions involved. We can still live as humans.

i don't have any argument for this one. It is true. But making decisions without feelings would make us similar to machines....

[Lote-Tree]

i don't have any argument for this one. It is true. But making decisions without feelings would make us similar to machines....

But Durgamol we are indeed machines. Biological Machines. At the level of DNA this machinary is Digital :-)

[Turk]

Trees seems to have quite a beautiful existence without emotions.

Sense of beauty and estetic is directly connected to emotions.

[SleepyWitch]

and since when have trees been aware of their own existence? :p
well, maybe they are ... for all we know, they might actually be...

ok... if we based our decisions on logic alone, wouldn't our decisions still be aimed at reaching the maximum good/ convenience for ourselves and/or others?
how could we judge the results of our actions without emotions?

e.g. if i wanted to buy a new bike and there was a choice between a cheap low-quality bike and an expensive high-quality one...
if I picked the cheap one, the advantage would be that I'd spend less money.
if I pick the expensive one, the advantage is it will last longer and be better quality.
in other words, if I pick the cheap one, my *ss will hurt but if I pick the expensive one, my wallet will hurt ;)

at first glance, this is a purely "economic" decision. but can/do these decisions really take place in a vacuum?

but how does the individual register these (dis-)advantages without there being emotions involved? in either case, I will be either grumpy because of the disadvantages or happy because of the advantages.

or would those considerations be called "self-interest" or something, as distinct from emotions

[kandaurov]

Trees seems to have quite a beautiful existence without emotions.


Sense of beauty and estetic is directly connected to emotions.

I'm with Turk on this one. The trees only seem to have a beautiful existence because we perceive beauty through our senses. Beauty is much like an emotion: it requires a well-developed brain to perceive it. If there were no emotions we wouldn't think them beautiful. In fact, there would be no beauty at all.

Lote, as for the original question, I do agree with you, life would be simpler. We would be like birds. But, as Big K "spot-on"ly pointed out, the question of whether it would be better if we were birds, even though we couldn't be conscious of our own selves, let alone have complex emotions, is one for the ages :)

[Pensive]

Do you think without emotions life would simpler for us humans?

What say you?

Regards,
Lote

Have you read Dream of a Ridiculous Man by Dostoevsky? :p Because when I read it, the same question occured in my mind...

[Lote-Tree]

Have you read Dream of a Ridiculous Man by Dostoevsky? :p Because when I read it, the same question occured in my mind...

No. I must read it now though :-)

[Pensive]

No. I must read it now though :-)

It might not have a direct connection with your question, but it's a fine read. :p

[motherhubbard]

I think that Brave New World deals with this. In order to maintain a perfect society they did away with any strong emotion, like the love between husband and wife, or mother and child because these can both cause sorrow. They took away any kind of real intimacy with everyone belongs to everyone. They used state sanctioned drugs to numb the emotions that conditioning couldn’t control, A gram is better than a damn. But to make this work they had to retard the majority of the population so that they did not have the ability to think or ask about their existence.

I don’t think things would be simpler. When a person is younger it would be simpler if emotions did not run so hot and cold. That’s a rough time, but it levels out. In maturity emotion serves a lovely function because it is tempered in understanding. Life would not be simpler without emotion once that level has been reached.

[Lote-Tree]

and since when have trees been aware of their own existence? :p


They seemed not to grow in each other shadows :-)



ok... if we based our decisions on logic alone, wouldn't our decisions still be aimed at reaching the maximum good/ convenience for ourselves and/or others?


Not really. Logic would suggest "cooperation" for mutal benefit instead of selfishness.



how could we judge the results of our actions without emotions?


Computers already do this judging for us. When you drive your car the car airbags makes non-emotional decision to keep you safe in an event of accident.



at first glance, this is a purely "economic" decision. but can/do these decisions really take place in a vacuum?


Logic would have dictated one that protects your backsides and is economical.



but how does the individual register these (dis-)advantages without there being emotions involved?


You can use a objective method which does not involve emotions. Scientific Method is based on that.



in either case, I will be either grumpy because of the disadvantages or happy because of the advantages.


Without emotions there would not be grumpyness :-)

[SleepyWitch]

You can use a objective method which does not involve emotions. Scientific Method is based on that.


yep.. but even if I could use an "objective" method to decide which bike to buy or how to act for the common benefit etc, wouldn't the aims I want to reach by making this decision still be coloured by emotion?
e.g. if I bought the bike that is both cheap and high quality, wouldn't the aim be to avoid both pain to my bum and waste of my money? how can I decide that these are desirable aims without emotions?
buy a bike that meets both criteria can only be considered "good" when we compare it to the other scenario.. in which my bum hurts and my purse is empty, both of which are unpleasant (= a word conveying 'emotion'*)...

so i may be able to make an "objective" choice, but the aim of this choice is still to avoid something that wouldn't exist without emotions...

*do a hurting bum and grumpiness about waste of money count as emotions in this context? or were you aiming at more lofty emotions, like love etc?

[Demona]

Without feeling life still goes on?

Biologically yes. of course.



It would not have to be like this though. We can be perfectly logical and live that way. Without emotions getting in the way - words such as caring would not come into play.


Live that way...in the name of....what? *"exist" is more appropriate in this context, don't you think so? *



Perhaps not. But think of the advantages? No hate or jelousy, Anger. No more pain etc...
Somehow i see the other side of the question: there would be no love, caring, liking, enjoying, having fun, laughing. In other words that would be very boring. :D



Perhaps. But we can make descisions without any emotions involved. We can still live as humans.
As humans? A human is humane. Without emotions you'd be rational.

[Bii]

Without emotions can there be 'better'?

Doesn't the concept of 'better' have an emotional aspect to it?

I'd question whether the species would survive without fear.

[SleepyWitch]

Without emotions can there be 'better'?

Doesn't the concept of 'better' have an emotional aspect to it?



hey, cool, I think that's what I meant, only I didn't know :)

[kandaurov]

I'd question whether the species would survive without fear.

Spot on! That never occured to me. I, like others, I believe, was conceiving 'emotions' as happiness and sadness, and not as much as survival mechanisms.

Obviously, fear is an emotion, in fact one of the most basic ones. But I was thinking: can self-preservation be regarded as an emotion? I bet someone would answer me that it's an instinct. It is an instinct, but then again, isn't laughing for joy a primitive, sometimes irrepressible instinct?


EDIT: didn't see Sleepy's comment before I posted. Funny how we took a different slice of the same cake :p

[SleepyWitch]

Spot on! That never occured to me. I, like others, I believe, was conceiving 'emotions' as happiness and sadness, and not as much as survival mechanisms.

Obviously, fear is an emotion, in fact one of the most basic ones. But I was thinking: can self-preservation be regarded as an emotion? I bet someone would answer me that it's an instinct. It is an instinct, but then again, isn't laughing for joy a primitive, sometimes irrepressible instinct?

yep.. you could always argue, fear is a primitive instinct, not an emotion...
but then, if I'm scared of an exam, my survival in biological terms is not at stake. I won't get eaten by a tiger or be robbed of my food supplies, if I fail an exam...

hehe, I think Lote should define what counts as an emotion and what doesn't for the purposes of this discussion.

[kilted exile]

I manage to live quite happily without exhibiting the majority of my emotions. The only one I cant contain is anger, however I am a lot less angry than I ever used to be and can channel it better than before

[SleepyWitch]

I manage to live quite happily without exhibiting the majority of my emotions. The only one I cant contain is anger, however I am a lot less angry than I ever used to be and can channel it better than before

but not exhibiting your emotions is different from not feeling them/being incapable of emotion, isn't it?

[kilted exile]

Not really after a while it gets to the stage where you might as well not have them because they stop impacting things - the abscence of them effects things instead.

[motherhubbard]

isn't that just apathy? that's one emotion I think we would be better off without!

[kilted exile]

Nah, its not apathy. A good percentage of it is learned response to external stimuli & the rest is thinking with my head rather than my heart.

[kathycf]

Building on what Bii posted regarding "better" having an emotional aspect....Dissatisfaction, want, the urge to create (if that isn't an emotion or feeling, then perhaps someone else has a better definition?) emotional desire....are we "better off" without them? If people never wanted anything better, perhaps we wouldn't have these nice computers we are typing on?

If nobody has emotions, then they wouldn't have been exploring new ways of doing things...because they would not have experienced dissatisfaction with the old ways. The old saying is "necessity is the mother of invention" but once you invent the wheel, why bother wanting more?

Just putting it out there...;)

[Bii]

the urge to create (if that isn't an emotion or feeling, then perhaps someone else has a better definition?)

Also known as desire, lust, pleasure. All of which require an emotional response.

What is the difference between emotion and rationality? Is emotion the instinctive reaction which rationality seeks to override? If that's the case then presumably one can't exist without the other.

What would happen to morals? Rationally it may be acceptable to murder a person because their needs conflict with your own. Morally, and emotionally, this would be wrong. Take out emotions and morality ceases to exist.

[SleepyWitch]

Also known as desire, lust, pleasure. All of which require an emotional response.

What is the difference between emotion and rationality? Is emotion the instinctive reaction which rationality seeks to override? If that's the case then presumably one can't exist without the other.

What would happen to morals? Rationally it may be acceptable to murder a person because their needs conflict with your own. Morally, and emotionally, this would be wrong. Take out emotions and morality ceases to exist.

exactly. e.g. the Holocaust was based on this kind of rationality. it was also very "rational" in the way it got rid of thousands and millions of people using very cheap, economical means.
but nevertheless it was absolutely wrong in moral terms, as wrong as it can get, actually.

[Lote-Tree]

What is the difference between emotion and rationality?


Emotion: I feel 2+2 = 5

Rationality= 2+2 = 4



Is emotion the instinctive reaction which rationality seeks to override?


Primal Emotions are instinctive. Others can be consciously evoked eg. compassion.



What would happen to morals?


Morality based on pure emotions is not good idea. Morality kept in check by rationality is best bet.



Rationally it may be acceptable to murder a person because their needs conflict with your own.


Really? Is it that simple?



Take out emotions and morality ceases to exist.

Really?

So if I give you an injection that knocks your ability to feel anything.
Would you still murder?

[Bii]

Emotion: I feel 2+2 = 5

Rationality= 2+2 = 4

So, emotions are wrong, and rationality is right?


Morality based on pure emotions is not good idea. Morality kept in check by rationality is best bet.

So, you accept that morals have a basis in emotions.




So if I give you an injection that knocks your ability to feel anything.
Would you still murder?

Absolutely, if it served a rational purpose. Mainly I don't murder people because I'm squeamish (emotional), I don't like the thought of causing someone pain (emotional), I wouldn't want someone to murder me (emotional), I wouldn't want to permanently extinguish someones existence, because I assume that the person experiences consciousness the way I do (emotion - a very wordy way of saying empathy). Would it be murder if there was no emotional angle? Isn't the concept of murder, in itself, an emotional concept? If I had no emotions to hold me back then what would stop me? Edit - sorry, forgot to mention fear of getting caught (emotional!).

Without emotion life is valueless, because value in these terms is an emotional concept (value, as opposed to quantum).

[Lote-Tree]

So, emotions are wrong, and rationality is right?


Rationality is objective. Emotions subjective. And we can only agree on objective truths...



So, you accept that morals have a basis in emotions.


I believe that is how it evolved. But should we base our morality on emotions? I say perhaps not. We should strive for an objective standard.



Mainly I don't murder people because I'm squeamish (emotional), I don't like the thought of causing someone pain (emotional), I wouldn't want someone to murder me (emotional), I wouldn't want to permanently extinguish someones existence, because I assume that the person experiences consciousness the way I do (emotion - a very wordy way of saying empathy).


I find that little disturbing. That if your emotions fails you, you can murder. I would have thought one would have arrived at intellecutally that murder may be wrong. I believe that many people at some point in their life go through a period where they feel nothing, do they turn murderers?



Would it be murder if there was no emotional angle?


Yes. We can class one individual taking the life of another individual - murder. There need not be any emotions involved.



If I had no emotions to hold me back then what would stop me?


Your intellect - which goes beyond your emotions?



Without emotion life is valueless, because value in these terms is an emotional concept (value, as opposed to quantum).

Really? Is life of a tree valueless? Is all life apart from human's valueless because we have decided valueless? How arrogant of us is it not to state that?

[SleepyWitch]

Rationality is objective. Emotions subjective. And we can only agree on objective truths...



but what do you mean by objective? something eveyryone in the world actually agrees to? then you would have to ask everyone's opinion, which isn't possible.

something everyone could agree? In this case you'd be speaking for others and you can't really be sure they would agree if they were allowed to speak for themselves.

or is it something from the outside that was given to humanity by a god or alien:alien:?

how do you apply it to a concrete situations? especially when there are people with a different power statues involved?
let's say there is a rich plantation owner who exploits his workers. Now his workers demand higher wages and better treatment. But the plantation owner doesn't grant them. For him it is rational not to pay higher wages because that way he would make less money himself. For the Minister of Economy of this imaginary country, the plantation owner's decision is rational because it is good for the economy of the country in some way.
So what are the workers supposed to do?

[Lote-Tree]

but what do you mean by objective?
something eveyryone in the world actually agrees to?


Something that is Verifiable.

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



For him it is rational not to pay higher wages because that way he would make less money himself.


But that way he will not get happy workers and happy workers mean better workers - hence more productivity and quality - see Robert Owen (?) Experiments of 18th Century.

[Bii]

I believe that is how it evolved. But should we base our morality on emotions? I say perhaps not. We should strive for an objective standard.

I agree, morality should be based on a balance between emotion and an objective/rational judgement.




i find that little disturbing. That if your emotions fails you, you can murder. I would have thought one would have arrived at intellecutally that murder may be wrong.

But right and wrong are emotional judgements. Without emotion you have this or that and either choice is an option depending on what is expedient/efficient/necessary. To quote your own example:

"Computers already do this judging for us. When you drive your car the car airbags makes non-emotional decision to keep you safe in an event of accident."

With one slight alteration, car airbags don't 'decide' to keep you safe, they function or they don't. Either way it's a non-emotional issue. Take your computer example, say you have a computer which is designed to launch nuclear missiles in the event of certain pre-set criteria being met. One day those criteria are met so the missiles are launched. Does the computer 'care' if 100,000 people are killed? Is the computer a murderer? Of course not, but it's human 'emotional' intervention that would prevent it.



Really? Is life of a tree valueless? Is all life apart from human's valueless because we have decided valueless? How arrogant of us is it not to state that?

I was, of course, speaking of human life. That being said, the way we treat trees I'd argue that we must believe their 'lives' to be valueless. Otherwise we wouldn't chop them down and burn them, or shread and pulp them.

[Lote-Tree]

But right and wrong are emotional judgements.


How so?

2+2=4 This right.

2+2=5 This is wrong.

You can choose the right answer without emotions. But if you say that your emotions dictates that the answer should be 2+2=5 then you are not interested in right or wrong but just how you feel.



With one slight alteration, car airbags don't 'decide' to keep you safe, they function or they don't. Either way it's a non-emotional issue.


Yes. That decision is a non-emotional issue but it is a decision nevertheless based on your current speed at the time of your crash.



Take your computer example, say you have a computer which is designed to launch nuclear missiles in the event of certain pre-set criteria being met. One day those criteria are met so the missiles are launched. Does the computer 'care' if 100,000 people are killed? Is the computer a murderer? Of course not, but it's human 'emotional' intervention that would prevent it.


Or you could enlarge the criteria where it is says Death of thousands to be avoided.



I was, of course, speaking of human life. That being said, the way we treat trees I'd argue that we must believe their 'lives' to be valueless.


But we also treat human lives as valueless that's why we have wars and kill many millions. So even with our emotions we still find human life valueless. So it's not a surprise that we treat other life as valueless. But trees themselves - are they valueless themselves? I think not...

[Bii]

How so?

2+2=4 This right.

2+2=5 This is wrong.

You can choose the right answer without emotions. But if you say that your emotions dictates that the answer should be 2+2=5 then you are not interested in right or wrong but just how you feel.

I think the use of the term 'right' or 'wrong' is inappropriate here, as these terms imply a moral angle. And using maths is a poor comparison as the 'answers' in maths are absolute, i.e. they are correct/true, or incorrect/ false. Generally when dealing with issues of logic you would work with true or false.

Take a different example, and perhaps a more appropriate one. You are walking down a path and it comes to a junction. It forks left and right. Both paths are the same length and arrive at the same location. In this scenario your choice is left or right. Either choice is possible. Neither is right or wrong.


Or you could enlarge the criteria where it is says Death of thousands to be avoided.

Yes, but that would take an 'emotional' programmer to make that choice. Also begs the question whether the missiles would fire at all, after all, isn't the point of a nuclear attack to kill? My point is that without the emotional interjection, the logic tree would go through it's selections of true and false and, arriving at true it would fire, without the necessity to consider whether it was right or wrong. It would consider whether it was true - have the criteria been met? If so it would fire, if not it wouldn't. Humans without emotions would be just the same - it's just hard to conceive of it because our emotions are so intrinsic to our being.

I suppose what you are arguing for is more 'emotional rationality' rather than an absence of emotion entirely.

[SleepyWitch]

How so?

2+2=4 This right.

2+2=5 This is wrong.



nope, it's not right or wrong. it's defined to be right or wrong. mathematicians use numbers as a tool/ language to describe the world.
they have agreed to treat 2+2=4 as a truth so they don't need to question or revise this assumption every single time they want to calculate something.
it's working assumption that happens to be accepted by many mathematicians. it's a kind of convention. just like we use the word "cat" when we want to refer to a cat. it's a kind of terminology. they agree not to question or redefine it, so they have a basis to work on.

[Lote-Tree]

I think the use of the term 'right' or 'wrong' is inappropriate here, as these terms imply a moral angle. And using maths is a poor comparison as the 'answers' in maths are absolute, i.e. they are correct/true, or incorrect/ false. Generally when dealing with issues of logic you would work with true or false.


But the thread is about getting rid of emotions. So when you get rid of emotions - we can only use logic for decisions?



Take a different example, and perhaps a more appropriate one. You are walking down a path and it comes to a junction. It forks left and right. Both paths are the same length and arrive at the same location. In this scenario your choice is left or right. Either choice is possible. Neither is right or wrong.


Then logically it is irrelevant as to which way you go is there?



Yes, but that would take an 'emotional' programmer to make that choice.


Not really. It is illogical to wipe out species of animals for example. So logical thing would be to minimise deaths?



Humans without emotions would be just the same - it's just hard to conceive of it because our emotions are so intrinsic to our being.


But we can think intellectually without emotions involved?
It is the intellect that frees us from the emotional bondage?



I suppose what you are arguing for is more 'emotional rationality' rather than an absence of emotion entirely.

On serious note - yes. Emotions needs to be controlled by Rationality and guided to mutally beneficial ends... :-)

I guess we will have to wait for consciouss androids to see if an emotiona-less existence is feasible. I guess it will be but perhaps intelligent machines too will develop emotions in time.

[Bii]

Not really. It is illogical to wipe out species of animals for example. So logical thing would be to minimise deaths?

Not if that species was a threat, then it would be logical to wipe them out. Same goes for humans. Threat = true = kill.




But we can think intellectually without emotions involved?
It is the intellect that frees us from the emotional bondage?

I'm not sure it's that easy. I'm not sure it's really possible to draw a line between emotions and intellect as one probably (I say probably!) relies on the other.

Can you have rational, without irrational?
Can you have objective without subjective?



On serious note - yes. Emotions needs to be controlled by Rationality and guided to mutally beneficial ends... :-)

I guess we will have to wait for consciouss androids to see if an emotiona-less existence is feasible. I guess it will be but perhaps intelligent machines too will develop emotions in time.

Absolutely, and what a dilemma that would create :)

[Lote-Tree]

Not if that species was a threat, then it would be logical to wipe them out. Same goes for humans. Threat = true = kill.


Not necessarily. The threat could be easily contained?



Can you have rational, without irrational?


hum...I don't know...need to think on that.



Can you have objective without subjective?


Yes. Scientific Method.

[Bii]

Yes. Scientific Method.

Please explain?...

[Lote-Tree]

Please explain?...

Scientific Method is the way to establish objectivity.

[Bii]

That doesn't really tell me anymore than the last comment. What is Scientific method (precisely), how does this method establish objectivity?

I'm not being pedantic here, I genuinely am not sure what you mean by this :)

[Lote-Tree]

That doesn't really tell me anymore than the last comment. What is Scientific method (precisely), how does this method establish objectivity?

I'm not being pedantic here, I genuinely am not sure what you mean by this :)

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

[Bii]

I'm not convinced on the issue of objectivity, although I'm not quite sure why (which is quite annoying). Perhaps it's something to do with the fact that in some ways, whilst the method may be sound, the interpretation is still subjective. Like statistics, for example, the numbers might be the numbers but you can say whatever you want with them.

[Lote-Tree]

I'm not convinced on the issue of objectivity, although I'm not quite sure why (which is quite annoying).


With scientific method we have created computers and sent probes to distant planets. If that is not good enough for you then what is?

Scientific Method together with deductive logic is the only way we can verify objectivity. Rest is just subjective experiences of the individual.

[kilted exile]

I think objectivity in the scientific method can best be seen in Francis Bacon's Idols of False Knowledge philosophy. Described very briefly here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=198939&postcount=6)

[Bii]

With scientific method we have created computers and sent probes to distant planets. If that is not good enough for you then what is?

Scientific Method together with deductive logic is the only way we can verify objectivity. Rest is just subjective experiences of the individual.

Oh I agree, the scientific method works and as a system it's very effective, but not that it's necessarily because it's objective (or otherwise).

Still not entirely sure what it is that makes me feel (aarrggh - emotional decision making!) uncomfortable with this. I'll give it some more thought and come back to you on that one.

It raises an interesting point though. Without emotions would there be intuition?

[Haven]

Hmm, see I'm coming to this site a little late in the day was going to start straight in with emotion but see we have moved on. So, fine with me a little empiricism to kick off...Well trying to stick with the original question, empricism is okay; the theory of knowledge based on experience. My understanding of this concept is based on the ideology of the 17th century
Natural Philosophers Locke, Hooke, Newton et al. Okay so knowledge based on experience and how does that equate to emotion? And even more importantly how does that engage with:


"Would we be better off without emotions?"

Well having developed over a serious period of time a limbic [mammalian] brain, it would appear that there is no choice over having or not having emotions, because it is all tied into our limbic brain which evidently melds the circuitry of the enteric nervous system and the reptilian brain into our sense of emotion. Emotion it is believed, comes prior to thought, and that is exactly where most people run into great difficulty. Our emotional experience is an immediate and primal response that has very little if anything to do with our ability to reason. Thankfully the neo-cortex, takes the 'edge' off those limbic emotions and allows us to be a liitle more goal oriented, abstract and well communicate verbally. So I think the answer has already been given. If emotion does come before thought, then lets face it, we need those emotions badly. Or it would be "Life, but not as we know it, Scotty". [James T. Kirk, Starship Enterprise, Signing off].

http://www.seishindo.org/articles/four-brains.html

[BlueSkyGB]

If we did not have emotions...how could we tell if it were better?
Aren't our emotions the way we use our subjective judgement ?

[Lote-Tree]

If we did not have emotions...how could we tell if it were better?


We use a objective standard. For example you might say it feels 40 degrees outside and someone else would say it feels 30 degrees outside. Objectively we can measure the temperature with a thermometer. Thus problem resolved. No emotions involved.

[Haven]

Emotion it is believed, comes prior to thought, and that is exactly where most people run into great difficulty.

Thermometer? Don't think so, who would have thought of one let alone made one, if as is believed emotion comes prior to thought? Hmm?

http://www.seishindo.org/articles/four-brains.html

[kathycf]

We use a objective standard. For example you might say it feels 40 degrees outside and someone else would say it feels 30 degrees outside. Objectively we can measure the temperature with a thermometer. Thus problem resolved. No emotions involved.
But that is because temperature is a concept that can be measured. How does one measure "better"?

[GrayFoxDown]

No. Emotions are one of the few human traits that separate us from our computers. What could ever emerge from a unemotional existence that wasn't limited to 2+2=4?...and never Why? What Art would exist in this state?: Poetry limited to a calculation of lines and meters; Music to a calculation of notes and scales; etc.. Without the heart's expression and the soul's depth, what would humanity create or enjoy...worthy of humans?

[Lote-Tree]

But that is because temperature is a concept that can be measured. How does one measure "better"?

Depends what "better" you want to measure?

Are green vegetable better for you?

Yes, it is possible to get objective scale measure for this?

Are computers better at controlling the braking system in a car on a icy road or humans?

Yes, we can get an objective scale measure for this?


No. Emotions are one of the few human traits that separate us from our computers.


But humans at the level of DNA are digital replicators.



What could ever emerge from a unemotional existence that wasn't limited to 2+2=4?...


A peaceful world? a "happy" world - unfettered by cheaos of emotions?



What Art would exist in this state?


Circle would still be a circle - a perfection of geometry?



Poetry limited to a calculation of lines and meters
; Music to a calculation of notes and scales; etc.. Without the heart's expression and the soul's depth, what would humanity create or enjoy...worthy of humans?

I have no idea if poetry can exist without emotions. Perhaps without emotions poetry would be redundant and we will find something else to do :-)

[GrayFoxDown]

Then we'll have a world of cyborgs. While this may seem very intellectually entertaining when confined to science fiction stories and related discussions, I'd rather not be a part of it. I suppose I'd be in a similar situation to that of Miles in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS...a film that once terrified me, and still does as I witness society becoming more and more self-absorbed.

[Lote-Tree]

Then we'll have a world of cyborgs.


I think this will be inevitable. That is the only way we can compete with computers of the future :-)



While this may seem very intellectually entertaining when confined to science fiction stories and related discussions, I'd rather not be a part of it.


To compete with computers I think you will have no choice in that matter :-)



I suppose I'd be in a similar situation to that of Miles in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS...a film that once terrified me, and still does as I witness society becoming more and more self-absorbed.

LOL :-)

Daleks in the Doctor Who serios terrified the hell out of me aged 8!!!

[GrayFoxDown]

Then, if you're right, I'd welcome my inevitable death and oblivion with open arms. With that, I'll close this exchange. Regards.

[kathycf]

Depends what "better" you want to measure?

Are green vegetable better for you?

Yes, it is possible to get objective scale measure for this?

Are computers better at controlling the braking system in a car on a icy road or humans?

Yes, we can get an objective scale measure for this?

Is red better than green?
Is 71 degrees better than 70 degrees?
Are brown eyes better than blue eyes?
Is spinach better than broccoli?
Is Coke better than Pepsi?

[Lote-Tree]

Is red better than green?


Red light has a different frequency than green So which is better depends on the context.



Is 71 degrees better than 70 degrees?


A 1 degree difference temperature makes a enzyme work or not. Depends on the context.



Are brown eyes better than blue eyes?


Brown light and blue light have different frequencies. I believe that blue eyes has some advantage in a snowy climate?



Is spinach better than broccoli?


Again the context? Levels of vitamin c would be different.



Is Coke better than Pepsi?


All these require a context.


Then, if you're right, I'd welcome my inevitable death and oblivion with open arms.


If we can download our consciousness into cyberspace then death would be irrelevant :-)

[kathycf]

I'm sorry, but you seem to want to reduce everything down to some extremely simplistic answer and I am afraid I don't accept that. You keep referring to "context", but subjectivity is really what it comes down to. There are some things that may be measured on an objective scale and there are some that are simply subjective. I think you are grasping at straws a bit here. Vitamin C levels? Pfft. :)

The fact remains that humans are not the only creatures that experience emotions. Other species feel at least anger, contentment and fear. Social bonding also occurs. None of these may be as complex as human emotions, as we could assume that complex emotions require complex brains...However, if an emotionless state was "better" wouldn't every species here already reflect that?

If there was some biological state of not feeling that was advantageous, would it not exist in nature already? The fact that it doesn't suggests to me that the ability to feel emotion is possibly necessary to survival.

[Lote-Tree]

I'm sorry, but you seem to want to reduce everything down to some extremely simplistic answer and I am afraid I don't accept that.


That is the beauty of logic :-)



You keep referring to "context", but subjectivity is really what it comes down to.


Even logic requires a context to work with.



There are some things that may be measured on an objective scale and there are some that are simply subjective. I think you are grasping at straws a bit here. Vitamin C levels? Pfft. :)


I am clutching at logic of straws ;-)



The fact remains that humans are not the only creatures that experience emotions. Other species feel at least anger, contentment and fear.


Yes. They do all these things. But most animals survive on instincts.



However, if an emotionless state was "better" wouldn't every species here already reflect that?


Plants and bacteria - the largest group of living things on this planet live without any emotions. And they thrive quite well.



If there was some biological state of not feeling that was advantageous, would it not exist in nature already?


It does and in abundance.



The fact that it doesn't suggests to me that the ability to feel emotion is possibly necessary to survival.

Emotions not necessary for survival.

[BlueSkyGB]

"Is red better than green?"

Not really...I'm one of those that genetics had the fortune to :p endow with
colorblindness.....red and green look...welll... very much alike in my color spectrum...:lol:
Now blues and yellows and various shades of what can only be described to a non color blind person as multitudes of shades of all the other colors kind of blended.......used to know a website where apparently people could see digitally enhanced photos that replicated what we see...oh well..short term memory or is that considered long term?.....:lol:

oops :)
back to the subject..
I really wouldn't like to have a life without emotions....
even those that are painful...death of loved ones....
I tell people that there are things that I should not have done in the past and things that I should have done,,,
but those moments and emotions have shaped me into the person I am today.

[Lote-Tree]

back to the subject..
I really wouldn't like to have a life without emotions....
even those that are painful...death of loved ones....
I tell people that there are things that I should not have done in the past and things that I should have done,,,
but those moments and emotions have shaped me into the person I am today.

Have you ever felt an intensity of pain of emotions that you wanted it to go away because you can't bear it?

[BlueSkyGB]

Several in fact...
death of my father from a long bout with cancer....is the most vivid....a multitude of emotions...pain, sadness, loss...relief for his freedom from pain...then the guilt of havings those feelings ...then the emotions of a very nasty divorce....time has mellowed those.....:flare:
another a long ago...memory....that I prefer not to discuss in public, sorry.

so yes...I think ..to quote and old song by the Band
Life is a carnival...

Enjoy it while it lasts...
as my tagline/sig says :D

[kathycf]

Plants and bacteria - the largest group of living things on this planet live without any emotions. And they thrive quite well.
Yes, I knew you were going to bring that up. :) Humans are just a weensey bit more complex than plants and bacteria. Insects too, actually. However, your opening post is would we be better off without emotions...unless you are a plant (is a Lote-Tree considered a plant?) then I suggest that the discussion be confined to sentient complex humans and leave plants and bacteria out of it. Humans have for better or worse shaped the planet to fit their needs and would this have been possible without the development of social structures driven by emotions and need. Emotions can and do drive need, all though they are not the only imperative.



Emotions not necessary for survival.
Yes, so you keep saying. You can repeat it 60,000 more times and your argument won't hold any more weight with me than it does now. I'm sorry Lote, you are a bright guy but you are not omnicient and all knowing, and the fact is I don't agree with you and I am not changing my mind based on the arguments you present. They simply aren't compelling enough...because there is no definitive proof and there never will be. All there is, is your opinion and while I think you're cool, your opinion doesn't equal fact. ;)

Humans have always had emotions and will continue to have them. Arguments declaring life would be better without emotions or not are based on sheer speculation....speculation based on the thinking of a complex brain that has always experienced emotion and thus is somewhat biased? How do you know your argument isn't based on emotion...even an emotion you don't care to admit to?

Bluesky, yea...I agree. While I would not want to ever live over events and emotions in my past, they have shaped me into the person I am today, for better or worse. :) (probably a great deal more worse than better!) :lol:

[Lote-Tree]

Several in fact...
death of my father from a long bout with cancer....


My condolences. I lost my brother aged 18 to leaukemia. He was never ill in his life...



is the most vivid....a multitude of emotions...pain, sadness, loss...relief for his freedom from pain...then the guilt of havings those feelings ...then the emotions of a very nasty divorce....time has mellowed those.....:flare:
another a long ago...memory....that I prefer not to discuss in public, sorry.

so yes...I think ..to quote and old song by the Band
Life is a carnival...

Enjoy it while it lasts...
as my tagline/sig says :D

And you still don't think we would have been better off without emotions?

How about getting rid of negative emotions?

Like jealousy? Hatred?

[BlueSkyGB]

Without the mix, whether it be a large perentage or small...all of those together make me what I am...granted I'm not perfect....
far from it:p ....and probably a little crazy to boot.....
I wouldn't subtract any emotion from my life..
The lows have made the highs ..that much sweeter.

[Shalot]

I don't know that we would be better off without emotions. Some emotions keeps us in check don't they?

If I had to go without, I'd like to get rid of some certain memories that cause certain emotions.

[Lote-Tree]

However, your opening post is would we be better off without emotions...unless you are a plant (is a Lote-Tree considered a plant?) then I suggest that the discussion be confined to sentient complex humans and leave plants and bacteria out of it.


OK - my question is to them - would sentient complex humans be better off without emotions?

I say yes - because there would no hatred, jelousy, envy etc that causes some much strife in human relationship with other humans.



Humans have for better or worse shaped the planet to fit their needs and would this have been possible without the development of social structures driven by emotions and need.


This is speculation of course on your behalf because we don't know how we would have evolved without emotions.



Emotions can and do drive need, all though they are not the only imperative.


Emotional derive needs to be controlled by reason.



I'm sorry Lote, you are a bright guy but you are not omnicient and all knowing, and the fact is I don't agree with you and I am not changing my mind based on the arguments you present.


LOL :-) I am not that vain to claim omniscience :-)
Kath I am not trying to change your views. That would be arrogant of anyone to do this! I am just providing a counter argument to yours. It may not be correct or to your liking but an argument nevertheless.



They simply aren't compelling enough...because there is no definitive proof and there never will be. All there is, is your opinion and while I think you're cool, your opinion doesn't equal fact. ;)


I have not stated any facts. This thread is just an speculation from the begining Kath :-)

Without speculation humans would still be living in caves... :-)


Some emotions keeps us in check don't they?


Which emotions would those be?



If I had to go without, I'd like to get rid of some certain memories that cause certain emotions.

I can sympathise with that!

I think getting rid of all negative emotions like jelousy and hatred would be a good thing...

[kathycf]

This is speculation of course on your behalf because we don't know how we would have evolved without emotions.

And that is why I used the word "would"...as that implies speculation. Terribly sorry I forgot the question mark, I figured it *would* have been easy to see that I was also speculating.




Emotional derive needs to be controlled by reason.
And that is why I said there were other imperatives.




It may not be correct or to your liking but an argument nevertheless......I have not stated any facts. This thread is just an speculation from the begining Kath :-)
You sometimes state things as if they are fact....You stated this earlier "Emotions not necessary for survival." That seems a bit definite.






Without speculation humans would still be living in caves... :-)
And I have never said otherwise...


I don't know that we would be better off without emotions. Some emotions keeps us in check don't they?

If I had to go without, I'd like to get rid of some certain memories that cause certain emotions.

Do you mean emotions like guilt or remorse?

It would be nice to get rid of some negative emotions, but how do we know they don't serve some purpose? People say guilt is a negative emotion, yet I would feel guilty if I did something bad...even if I knew I could get away with it...so the guilt serves a purpose? It prods my conscience....Certainly unhealthy guilt is not productive but what of "normal" guilt?

How do we know there isn't a similiar purpose to other negative emotions?

[Lote-Tree]

Terribly sorry I forgot the question mark, I figured it *would* have been easy to see that I was also speculating.


No probs. omnisicence has granted you pardon :-)

Just kiddin :-)



You sometimes state things as if they are fact....You stated this earlier "Emotions not necessary for survival." That seems a bit definite.


In the context of trees for example it is not :-)
In the context of humans we can only speculate ;-)

[Bii]

Yes. They do all these things. But most animals survive on instincts.



Emotions not necessary for survival.

These quotes are at odds, and I entirely disagree with the second point. Emotions are necessary for survival, particularly those nasty negative ones like fear, mistrust, suspicion. Without these emotions what would prevent us from stepping off cliffs? And I know you're going to make some comment about rationality, but show me a rational 2 year old? Even the best parents can't watch their kids 24/7 and rely on kids emotions - i.e. fear of getting told off, desire to please, to give them limits within which they are protected. Without emotion most people wouldn't make it past childhood.

Also, you said earlier on:

"Primal Emotions are instinctive. Others can be consciously evoked eg. compassion."

On which basis by getting rid of 'primal emotions', which you still define as emotion, we would have no instinct. So at least we need these 'primal emotions', and therefore couldn't exist without emotion.

So we're still back to the question of whether we'd be better off without emotion. I still feel that we wouldn't be. I'll accept sadness if I can have joy and, lets face it, most of the time we are neither one thing or the other, most of the time we are just being and this being is punctuated by periods of something else, happiness, sadness, anger, desire, you name it. It'd be no fun without it.

[Lote-Tree]

These quotes are at odds, and I entirely disagree with the second point. Emotions are necessary for survival, particularly those nasty negative ones like fear, mistrust, suspicion.


The second was in the context of Trees and bacteria and other lifeforms that have no emotions.



So we're still back to the question of whether we'd be better off without emotion. I still feel that we wouldn't be. I'll accept sadness if I can have joy and, lets face it, most of the time we are neither one thing or the other, most of the time we are just being and this being is punctuated by periods of something else, happiness, sadness, anger, desire, you name it. It'd be no fun without it.

But imagine - there would not be any jealousy, hate, anger etc...we will be free from chaos of emotions :-)

[Bii]

But imagine - there would not be any jealousy, hate, anger etc...we will be free from chaos of emotions :-)

Yes, and how boring it would be ;)

[Lote-Tree]

Yes, and how boring it would be ;)

Will there be a concept of boredom without emotions?

Do trees get bored? :-)

[Bii]

Will there be a concept of boredom without emotions?

Do trees get bored? :-)

Probably not, but perhaps that's the point. Without emotion it would just be existence, not life (before you shoot me down, I mean that figuratively!).

As for the trees, you'd have to ask one. Let me know what you find out.

Do you have a particular love of trees Lote? You refer to them alot!

[Lote-Tree]

Do you have a particular love of trees Lote? You refer to them alot!

LOL :-)



O profound,
Silent tree, by restraining valour
With patience, you revealed creative
Power in its peaceful form.
Thus we come
To your shade to learn the art of peace,
To hear the word of silence; weighed down
With anxiety, we come to rest
In you tranquil blue-green shade, to take
Into our souls life rich, life ever
Juvenescent, life true to earth, life
Omni-victorious. I am certain
My thoughts have borne me to your essence-
Where the same fire as the sun’s ritual
Fire of creation quietly assumes
In your cool green form.
O sun-drinker,
The fire with which - by milking hundreds
Of centuries of days sunlight –
You have filled your core, man has received
As your gift, making him world-mighty,
Greatly honoured, rival to the gods:
His shining strength, kindled by your flame,
Is the wonder of the universe
As it cuts through daunting obstacles.
Man, whose life is in you, who is soothed
By your cool shade, strengthened by your power.
Adorned by your garland –
O tree, friend
Of man, dazed by your leafy flutesong
I speak today for him as I make
This verse-homage,
As I dedicate this offering
To you.
-Rabindranath Tagore

[kathycf]

Will there be a concept of boredom without emotions?

Do trees get bored? :-)
But again, trees aren't sentient...as far as we know. So it is not quite the same thing to speculate whether a non-sentient creature would be bored since boredom by necessity must be a function of higher brain functioning. Trees don't have brains, last I heard. Boredom is an emotion yes, so if all people knew was a state of being without emotion than quite probably the concept of "boredom" would not exist.

But once again, I am still considering the idea that emotions, even negative ones...serve some unknown purpose that we aren't aware of yet. Psychology tries to understand human thought and behavior, but it is a relatively new field of study and there is a lot about the human brain that is still unknown.

[quasimodo1]

Anyone who thinks we would be "better off" without emotions: Tell me what you think of or if you have seen the film..."Equilibrium" with Christian Bale and Taye Diggs. This is the subject of this film. quasimodo1

To Lote-Tree: Did you know that trees emit feramones? They do, they are subtle but sufficient chemical markers that a tree exhales, usually through the leaves (but sometimes the sap); these feramones let the tree "communicate" with other trees for purposes imparting signals that inform other trees that it is being attacked by a bug, insect, parasite or even negative growing conditions local to that tree. Interesting? quasimodo1

[Shalot]

Speaking of pheromones: This morning on NPR, Zorba Paster was talking about a study that was being done on pheromones and homosexuality. The objective is to find out whether homosexuality is a learned behaviour or if there is a biological basis for it. They studied males and females responses to male and female pheromones using MRIs

no conclusive results on that one yet.

[quasimodo1]

Very Interesting. I think it is learned behavior but that is fifteen years of catholic school speaking. Pheramones...thanks. When you pass fifty, do you still put those things out. I think not. Like the song; experienced it performed by amateurs in saloons and bars. eh? quasimodo1

[kathycf]

Another thing I would like to put out there:

Are humans essentially social creatures?

Do social bonds help or hinder survival?

How are social bonds created without emotion? Not necessarily from a modern perspective, but consider how early humans would have bonded together without emotion. It seems likely within this context that emotions such as love, like, dislike would have been necessary to create bonds. What would have been the motivating factor for primitive people to care for their children, if there was no emotion such as love? And please don't use an example such as animals who abandon their young shortly after being born, or never see them after laying some eggs. We are talking about infant humans who are helpless and dependent.

[Fen]

Social bonds definitely help survival it provides a safety net in times of trouble.

I think that if there was no love parents would still look after their children. Mainly as a sort of preservation instinct so that their own genes would be passed on and to ensure the survival of the species.

[Bakiryu]

I think life would be better without emotions. Feeling pain or sadness is usually shunned by society. There should be no emotions, so nobody suffered.

[NikolaiI]

So we would still have physical pain but just no emotional pain?

[TheFifthElement]

I think life would be better without emotions. Feeling pain or sadness is usually shunned by society. There should be no emotions, so nobody suffered.

But without pain, and the wonderful opposite that is JOY would life be worth living?

IT WAS NECESSARY TO SHOUT JOY!

[Lote-Tree]

But without pain, and the wonderful opposite that is JOY would life be worth living?


Many live an joyless existence. So it is possible to live like this...

[TheFifthElement]

Many live an joyless existence. So it is possible to live like this...

It is possible to live without joy, but it is, by definition, a joyless existence ;) . My point was, that joy, amongst the many other positive emotions, are what make life worth living. Even apparently joyless people have at some point experienced joy, and at some point will experience joy. It's fleeting, but so is life. Grab it while you can!

I think a lot of people put duty before pleasure, which is why there are so many unhappy people. I say :

would we be better off without duty?...

[Lote-Tree]

It is possible to live without joy, but it is, by definition, a joyless existence ;) . My point was, that joy, amongst the many other positive emotions, are what make life worth living.


Perhaps but "worth" is subjective isn't it? Is it joy only makes thing worthwhile?



would we be better off without duty?...

A Duty! Don't tell me about Duty!! I can write whole War and Peace on Duty :D

[TheFifthElement]

Perhaps but "worth" is subjective isn't it? Is it joy only makes thing worthwhile?


But 'better off' is subjective too, so asking if we'd be 'better off' without emotions is applying a subjective test. But it's not just joy that makes life worth living, but rather the ability to experience joy. Perhaps that's what makes people so miserable, the fact that they have known what it is to feel joy (as a child lots of the time involves simple joy), but to not seem to be able to experience that again. But then to do so we have to become children, and take pleasure in the simple things. Sure, a ferrari is nice, but so is the sunset, or standing outside in a downpour of rain.

It's the old addage, it's better to have loved and lost.. what you propose is not to have loved at all. I can't accept that, it just feels wrong ;)



A Duty! Don't tell me about Duty!! I can write whole War and Peace on Duty :D

it's decided then, DOWN WITH DUTY. Duty is the cause of all ills.

[Hyacinth42]

There was this random study (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-08-06-brain-study_x.htm), in which they showed that we usuall use emotion in decision making. And, they believed that "people who lack emotions because of brain injuries often have difficulty making decisions at all". Also (not in that study), the part of the brain that deals with emotion deals with memory. In other words, we usually make decisions based on experiences that we remember through emotion. No emotion, and the whole system breaks down, and therefore, no emotion is bad ;)

Besides, what would be the point in life/living if we didn't have emotions?

[NikolaiI]

Without emotions I think things would be worse. They say tension or spiritual tension is needed so you have something to make you practice. If we didn't have emotions we wouldn't have our inner conflicts which make us live...or perhaps psychopathy would be rampant. Maybe not.

[AuntShecky]

Good question, Lote-Tree!

In general, most of us would be better off if we thought with our minds rather than with our "hearts." The high divorce rate in my country attests to that. On a larger scale, more evil has been done in the world because of "feelings" rather than by real thought. Furthermore, many mental illness are caused by or are symptoms of misdirected emotions. (I don't mean the mental illnesses due to chemical imbalance.)
Much "pain" in the world is emotional pain; "My feelings have been hurt."
On the other hand, emotions are what distinguishes us from machines.
The emotions we could use LESS of are anger, self-righteousness, and outrage.
Embarrassment is something we're supposed to "grow out of" once we leave our adolescence. Many blameless innocent people feel needless guilt (possibly from religious upbringing); yet those who SHOULD feel "shame," such as certain political figures, corporation boards, CEOS, don't seem to be ashamed of themselves at all.
The emotions we could use MORE of: empathy, compassion, the kind of "love" that's often referred to as agape. If you think that a sense of humor is emotional rather than intellectual, the world could use much greater quantity of it.
There's an old quote -- maybe from Horace Walpole(?):
"The world is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel."
If I had to choose one or th'other, I'd rather cast my lot with the former -- how 'bout you?
Auntie

[Lote-Tree]

Good question, Lote-Tree!

In general, most of us would be better off if we thought with our minds rather than with our "hearts." The high divorce rate in my country attests to that. On a larger scale, more evil has been done in the world because of "feelings" rather than by real thought. Furthermore, many mental illness are caused by or are symptoms of misdirected emotions. (I don't mean the mental illnesses due to chemical imbalance.)
Much "pain" in the world is emotional pain; "My feelings have been hurt."
On the other hand, emotions are what distinguishes us from machines.
The emotions we could use LESS of are anger, self-righteousness, and outrage.
Embarrassment is something we're supposed to "grow out of" once we leave our adolescence. Many blameless innocent people feel needless guilt (possibly from religious upbringing); yet those who SHOULD feel "shame," such as certain political figures, corporation boards, CEOS, don't seem to be ashamed of themselves at all.
The emotions we could use MORE of: empathy, compassion, the kind of "love" that's often referred to as agape. If you think that a sense of humor is emotional rather than intellectual, the world could use much greater quantity of it.
There's an old quote -- maybe from Horace Walpole(?):
"The world is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel."
If I had to choose one or th'other, I'd rather cast my lot with the former -- how 'bout you?
Auntie

Aunty you have captured more less my intention behind the question :D Bueno!

But tell me do you think we would still have Great Art and Literature without Emotions?

[quasimodo1]

To AuntShecky: Here, Here! to that posting. As a reformed roman-catholic, it has become adamantly imperative to avoid being moved, removed or motivated by the "fear,hate and guilt" aspects of that and other organized religions. I will have to be more attentive to your postings now. Rhetorical question: Can you believe that "fear-of-god" was/is considered a virtue? quasimodo1

[TheFifthElement]

There's an old quote -- maybe from Horace Walpole(?):
"The world is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel."
If I had to choose one or th'other, I'd rather cast my lot with the former -- how 'bout you?
Auntie


Hmm, an interesting quote with an obvious flaw. Without emotions there would be no comedy. Perhaps it would be more accurately phrased :

The world is to those who think, and a tragedy to those who feel

On balance I think I'd still prefer tragedy, which at least is something, than the void of is alone.

[AuntShecky]

To Fifth Element: To quote a former President of the U.S. "It all depends on what 'is' is."
To Quasimodo: I'm gratified that you are going to "Pay more attention" to what your ol' Auntie says, but do you mean you WEREN'T paying attention previously?

[quasimodo1]

To AuntShecky: Somewhat guilty as charged. It's more like I wasn't paying as much attention. Anyway, who says my attention is so hot; just have a knack for analysis courtesy of the St. Joe Nuns, the Christian Brothers, the Marists and the Jesuits. That's part success story, part trauma. Actually, your posts were intrigueing from the start; it's just this tunnel vision that comes over me. quasi

[BienvenuJDC]

We would be cold robots...
No LOVE
No COMPASSION
No PASSION
No HUMILITY
No FEELING Whatsoever...

[JuniperWoolf]

I remember reading about a guy who had damage to his amygdala, so he actually couldn't feel emotions. He was alright, he just had a lot of trouble coming to decisions about stuff because he didn't feel one way or the other about anything. His wife left him too, but he didn't really care (and she probably would have done that anyway even if he did have emotions, what with the divorce rate being what it is). I was pretty impressed actually, he was much less inclined towards violence and criminality than the average person. He just didn't care enough to have that sort of reaction.

[Hurricane]

Well, in some ways if we didn't have emotions, it'd be great. Everybody would make perfectly rational decision. Sure, there would be no happiness, but there would be no sadness, either.
But at the same time, sometimes decisions need to be a little irrational. Charity and selflessness are irrational. Emotions are part of who we are as humans, and we can't sacrifice that for a little more efficiency.

[JuniperWoolf]

Charity and selflessness are irrational.

I don't think that charity and selflessness are irrational at all. That which benefits society benefits our inner circle (our family and ourselves), because humans are so social (social co-operation is the reason why our squishy, clawless, furless species has survived for as long as it has). If society's resources are balanced and no one is in want, it means that people aren't as likely to murder us and our families in order to obtain the resources that they and their families need to survive (and our families have our dna inside of them, so we'd want to keep them around; the propagation of our genetic material is basically every living thing's life purpose). You don't need emotions to come to that conclusion.

[Hurricane]

I don't think that charity and selflessness are irrational at all. That which benefits society benefits our inner circle (our family and ourselves), because humans are so social (social co-operation is the reason why our squishy, clawless, furless species has survived for as long as it has). If society's resources are balanced and no one is in want, it means that people aren't as likely to murder us and our families in order to obtain the resources that they and their families need to survive (and our families have our dna inside of them, so we'd want to keep them around; the propagation of our genetic material is basically every living thing's life purpose). You don't need emotions to come to that conclusion.

I agree that's true to a certain extent. But at the same time, there are people out there who give, truly selflessly, even though there would have been no consequence for not acting. There's no rational reason to give up a profitable medical practice to move to Africa and treat people suffering from AIDs or go halfway across the world to build houses for Habitat for Humanity.
A few more people dying of AIDs or going homeless doesn't really effect them physically (if anything, it would theoretically benefit because there'd be less competition for resources), they do it because they think it's the right thing to do or the suffering of others hits them on an emotional level.

[Nietzsche]

Not really. In some aspects yes, but, without suffering we'd not seek out happiness. Without emotions, we'd not be able to feel life events to make us ponder if life is better off without emotions. Read some Arthur Schopenhauer.

[soundofmusic]

I only have one thing to say :prrr::icon_bs::ciappa::ciappa::mad5::toetap05:

[cacian]

What? Emotions? I read that Emoticons for a minute.
Emotions they are the foundation of everything humans and alive without them we would be mere machines sorry.
My emotion is what makes a human and I like being a human.

[Rainyhawaii]

Actually, emotions are not what make humans humans. What makes a us humans are that we have opposing thumbs and logical thought. Therefore shouldn't you be arguing that if we only had logical thought you'd be more human? I guess the counter argument could be that: if you had more opposing thumbs would that make you more human as well? But it's all just an opinion at this point. Frankly I see the 'if we didn't have emotions then we wouldn't be humans' response as and emotional response, not a logical one. Animals have emotions, instincts, and the ability/will to keep their species alive (procreation). What separates us from animals? Logical thought. All that being said, I'm now going to contradict it. If we didn't have any emotions we couldn't appreciate any of the beauties of the world; that includes art, music, literature, majestic landscapes, and emotions themselves. This question eventually boils down to: Wouldn't it be better to live without darkness and/or light? Well, the simple answer is that, it wouldn't matter; because if it were so, we wouldn't know the difference.

[Honey Miel]

Your post is flawless :D

[Honey Miel]

Well for me, I don't need joy. Comfort is what I strive for. When I'm comfortable (without any joy) I have plenty enough :) Just talking about myself though.

[Honey Miel]

Emotion: I feel 2+2 = 5

Rationality= 2+2 = 4



Primal Emotions are instinctive. Others can be consciously evoked eg. compassion.



Morality based on pure emotions is not good idea. Morality kept in check by rationality is best bet.



Really? Is it that simple?



Really?

So if I give you an injection that knocks your ability to feel anything.
Would you still murder?


I think the answer is probably not. Since without envy, greed, ego, its harder to find reasons to kills people. I don't say it would never happen, just that it would happen less in a rational world.

[Honey Miel]

Without emotions can there be 'better'?

Doesn't the concept of 'better' have an emotional aspect to it?

I'd question whether the species would survive without fear.

LOL very good, you got me there. :D

[Honey Miel]

I'm one of the rare people that lives with very few emotions. I've never actually met somebody with so few emotions as me. So even not being totally devoid of emotions, I rarely feel any. I'm possibly a good study case on life without emotions. So here is a list of some facts of my life compared with emotional beings.

1- My life is indeed way simpler than my friends, family, and coworker. Mainly in the decision making field, its seem way easier for me to make decisions and to act according to them. (most people I've seen in my life have a very hard time to keep their wich and decisions which is and interestingly strange behavior to me)
2- I'm super predictable, so people around me tend to be secured by that predictability, but I admit people around me get bored pretty fast cause I'm so predictable.
3- From the outside of my life people tend to tell me I must have a pretty boring life. But since I don't feel boredom.... well ... how could I know?!?

About if the world would be easier without emotions the answer is beyond any doubt: Yes
About if the world would be better without emotions .... well ... depends if you like predictability. If you love to be surprised and if you love change... then emotions is better. If you like predictability, security, and repetitiveness, then a world without emotions would be better.

And as food for thought: Without emotions there is no envy, and no desire for power and control (over money and people) = food and resources shared evenly in the world = No Famine. Does some boredom traded for no famine in the hole word wouldn't be worth it? Good luck answering that one LOL :D

[North Star]

I'm one of the rare people that lives with very few emotions. I've never actually met somebody with so few emotions as me. So even not being totally devoid of emotions, I rarely feel any. I'm possibly a good study case on life without emotions. So here is a list of some facts of my life compared with emotional beings.

1- My life is indeed way simpler than my friends, family, and coworker. Mainly in the decision making field, its seem way easier for me to make decisions and to act according to them. (most people I've seen in my life have a very hard time to keep their wich and decisions which is and interestingly strange behavior to me)
2- I'm super predictable, so people around me tend to be secured by that predictability, but I admit people around me get bored pretty fast cause I'm so predictable.
3- From the outside of my life people tend to tell me I must have a pretty boring life. But since I don't feel boredom.... well ... how could I know?!?

About if the world would be easier without emotions the answer is beyond any doubt: Yes
About if the world would be better without emotions .... well ... depends if you like predictability. If you love to be surprised and if you love change... then emotions is better. If you like predictability, security, and repetitiveness, then a world without emotions would be better.

And as food for thought: Without emotions there is no envy, and no desire for power and control (over money and people) = food and resources shared evenly in the world = No Famine. Does some boredom traded for no famine in the hole word wouldn't be worth it? Good luck answering that one LOL :D
If there were no emotions, we'd never have the motivation to get up and gather or hunt for food, let alone discover science, create art, or help anyone. So your solution to famine is about as good as a nuclear war would be..

[Tyrion Cheddar]

Not having emotions? I'm not sure how I feel about that. Get it? AH HA HA HA!! <thud>