Would we be better of without EMOTIONS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

Without feeling life still goes on?

---

Biologically yes. of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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? *

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bii

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bii

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kandaurov

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

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.

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

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.

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...;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kathycf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bii

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.