Would we be better of without EMOTIONS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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?...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheFifthElement

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

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 ;)

Quote:

---

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.

There was this random study (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...n-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?

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurricane

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.