Intellectual debate: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Danneskjold]

Kevin,

Jeff, Shayne said in his posted response to Ivan "nothing's more vicious than an unsubstantiated attack." I thought he was saying that Ivan's remarks were unsubstanciated and constituted an "attack," ergo vicious to a degree that equals or exceeds all other viciousness.

Your use of the word vicious made it seem like Shayne thought he was being personally attacked. Just a misunderstanding.

The reason is that the only certain knowledge we have of human nature is ourselves and our perceptions of other human beings. The only way that he can know that a particular person is "never" blinded by emotion, is to have working knowledge of their every moment. Hard to do, unless you're the person in question.

He didn't say "it is possible" that a man might reach a point where he is never blinded by emotions, he said, "The truth is that *some* people are often blinded, some are rarely blinded, and some are never blinded." He knows this. I wonder how.

I disagree, you would have to ask Shayne himself about this one, but I think that you can look at a person, judge his actions, and say that they don't let their emotions cloud their judgement (notice that when I say cloud judgement I mean impair, not saying that all emotions do is cloud judgement) in the same way that you can look at Shayne and use reasoning to judge by his actions what is going on in his head. Or the same way you can do that with any other person.

Also, his argument can be based on the idea that humans can achieve perfection. The connection is that if it can be achieved then someone can't say that it hasn't been. This is why one might reject the collective argument that "everybody" does something.

Shayne, stop me if I'm misrepresenting you on this one.

[sjw]

The reason is that the only certain knowledge we have of human nature is ourselves and our perceptions of other human beings. The only way that he can know that a particular person is "never" blinded by emotion, is to have working knowledge of their every moment. Hard to do, unless you're the person in question.

He didn't say "it is possible" that a man might reach a point where he is never blinded by emotions, he said, "The truth is that *some* people are often blinded, some are rarely blinded, and some are never blinded." He knows this. I wonder how.

Since we have free will. Emotions don't force themselves on you. You permit it to happen. But you're right, it is based on introspection. I introspect that I have free will, and then infer that other people have it too (not just because I do, but because I do, and I see their external behavior that is explained by them having it).

This is just the talent thread all over again. At the root is determinism vs. volition. The talent people think our talents are determined by our genes; I think you choose what to become good at. The emotionalists think that we can be blinded by emotion; I think that we choose to be blinded or not.

What's amazing is that this site is called "Objectivist" Living site, when most of the members here don't believe in basic Objectivist precepts. I'm the odd man out because I happen to agree with Ayn Rand. Incredible.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At the root is determinism vs. volition. The talent people think our talents are determined by our genes; I think you choose what to become good at. The emotionalists think that we can be blinded by emotion; I think that we choose to be blinded or not.

Shayne,

Just when I get the urge to examine this and take up the discussion again, you come out with this kind of stuff. If you wish to mischaracterise what others say, fine. Who wants to keep saying, "I don't hold that"? "I did not state that?" "I don't believe that?" over and over and over? I don't so I stop. Until this gets resolved, there is no point.

There's a third option you consistently leave out. It has been stated enough times to not have to repeat it. And you are intelligent enough to understand it.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

"The emotionalists think that we can be blinded by emotion; I think that we choose to be blinded or not."

Shayne, for the record--I think people choose to be blinded by emotion. It is the old "I want it--therefore it is!" Some people even give a slick coating of intellectuality to it and become expert at rationalizations. Free-will? You better believe it. I do. I see it in action everyday. Look at what is being chosen. [Damn that cynic in me!]

-Victor

Edited January 20, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What's wrong with free will? Of course we have free will.

One thing I see chosen consistently on OL is that people choose to think with their own minds to the best of their understanding. Not group-think and not bromides (to restore some old jargon). And they are not afraid to express it.

If that ain't free will, what is?

Michael

[sjw]

There's a third option you consistently leave out. It has been stated enough times to not have to repeat it. And you are intelligent enough to understand it.

Either you are in control of what you say and do or you aren't. There is no third option. I honestly have no idea what you think the third option is, but I know it has to amount to one or the other.

You seem to think I'm missing this third option on purpose. I assure you, I have no idea. It's possible you said something that didn't make sense to me, and I tried to get you to clarify, and you refused, and therefore the notion you were trying to get across did not get across. It's possible that that's why I don't know what you're referring to. I'm not a mind reader.

[sjw]

Shayne, for the record--I think people choose to be blinded by emotion. It is the old "I want it--therefore it is!" Some people even give a slick coating of intellectuality to it and become expert at rationalizations. Free-will? You better believe it. I do. I see it in action everyday. Look at what is being chosen. [Damn that cynic in me!]

So what you're saying then, is that you accept free-will long enough to insult, and then drop it just as fast? Because the idea of free-will does not square with the idea that we have no choice but to be blinded by emotion.

[Dragonfly]

The title of this thread is rather misleading, this has little to do with an "intellectual debate", I got the impression that I'd strayed into Solo territory with all this sniping and bitching, instead of on OL.

[Ellen Stuttle]

How utterly vexing. I did a quick skim through this thread, hoping to find that something of interest to me had developed. Instead, what do I find? More of the sort of thing which seems to emerge on almost every thread whereon Shayne participates (not without exception, but typically): a debate about who's misrepresenting whom and what the motives of posters are and...what? What IS the subject here?

I get to this comment by Shayne, and I despair:

The talent people think our talents are determined by our genes; [....]

Shayne, WHO on the talent thread said that? Quote anyone who said anything so simplistic, aside from Victor's misworded comment in his initial post, which, as I recall, he subsequently corrected.

(The initial comment was:

"Why is it that some people are born with the ability to draw or play a musical instrument?"

He later modified this as I recall. Also, as I recall, you yourself granted that there are differences in initial capacities. It's like...what's the point, if myths about what others have said recycle?)

Ellen

___

[sjw]

Ellen, that's a misrepresentation of what Victor said, and I never saw him retract it (though I saw Michael try to retract it for him). But even if he did retract it, he didn't until the very end.

But what are you saying here? That I should be patient and wait for Michael to retract here too? That it's my fault for calling "nonsense" because I didn't wait long enough for a retraction?

[sjw]

The talent people think our talents are determined by our genes; [....]

Shayne, WHO on the talent thread said that? Quote anyone who said anything so simplistic, aside from Victor's misworded comment in his initial post, which, as I recall, he subsequently corrected.

What was said was that no matter how hard some people try, they'll never be able to draw well (or do math well, etc). This was attributed to inborn "talent". So how exactly did I misrepresent? I essentialized, I don't see the misrepresentation. Rather, I see a you adding more fuel to an irrelevant fire, while blaming me for it. Irony.

The thing of relevance here is whether we have a choice or not to be blinded by our emotions. Yet that is the one thing that no one here but me wants to discuss.

[Kat]

The thing of relevance here is whether we have a choice or not to be blinded by our emotions. Yet that is the one thing that no one here but me wants to discuss.

Of course people have a choice not to be blinded by emotions. It's called self-control.

Kat

[sjw]

Of course people have a choice not to be blinded by emotions.

Yes, of course. And some people choose to be blinded often, some rarely, some never. Right?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Of course people have a choice not to be blinded by emotions. It's called self-control.

Kitten,

The primary word is context. There are times when we are completely overwhelmed by emotions and there are many reasons for it, not just choice. It is not wise to ignore that there are times like that and then watch helplessly as damage unfolds in our lives at those times.

We need to recognize what is within the province of philosophy and what is biology (or chemistry). Drug companies certainly understand.

For normal everyday living, the rational attitude is to choose to control behavior based on reason first, then emotions. Thus your comment about self-control is correct. Nobody can live a rational life using his emotions to acquire his knowledge. To use an emotion in the place of a fact is wrong. I especially agree that to choose to use emotions that way it is evil because, cognitively, an emotion is an indication of value of something already identified, not a tool of identification itself. (And then there are all those emotions from hormonal changes and things like that where no cognitive value whatsoever is present.)

But there are times in life when we cannot choose what we think. We become overwhelmed. At these exceptional times, the best attitude is to plan for them so the emotional surges can run their course in a healthy manner. It is a mistake to consider these times as some kind of moral weakness. They are simply part of the way our brains are built. Also, for cases of emotional imbalance due to chemical imbalances, corrective medication is good. It is likewise a mistake to consider a chemical imbalance as a moral weakness. The whole field of psychology/psychiatry is based on dealing with this.

When we evaluate the behavior of ourselves or another, it is necessary to be just if we want to be rational. So it is necessary to evaluate whether uncontrolled or irrational behavior is due to an organic (biological) factor or a chosen one. If the factor is organic, remedial steps are called for. If it is chosen, the behavior needs to be condemned. It is a bad choice and there is no reason to condone it.

Learning to recognize which is which is a major part of acquiring wisdom.

Paul Mawdsley once wrote about the difference between using good/evil as a standard of evaluating behavior and using healthy/unhealthy. One presumes that healthy is always the good, but when we judge by philosophical principles alone, it is easy to lose site of this (but, technically speaking, "healthy is the good" is a principle in itself).

One of the gravest mistakes is to think that biology can be replaced by rational thinking. This can cause some real damage to happiness. Biology and rational thinking must go hand-in-hand.

Like the lady said, a mind-body dichotomy is a false dichotomy.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

I have to disagree with you here Michael.

You say that in normal every day life it is best to control (not necessarily suppression) emotions, but sometimes emotions are overwhelming and you can't control them. Well why can't you? Is it that your emotions are stronger than your rationality? If so isn't this a weakness? Our brains are built to have emotions, but we control those in order to continue to think rationally. So what it seems like you are saying is that it is only possible to control the amount emotions effect you to a point. Since some people can control their emotions better than other people then it would show that they are stronger than some in that area. If they are stronger in that area, then other people must be weaker. This would mean that not having the ability to control emotions when they are very strong is a weakness (since we have agreed that it is better to be able to control them in one way or another).

Now, that all may not be a tremendous weakness, especially in those strong enough to withstand a lot of emotional weight. I just wouldn't say that it's inevitable or that it's not a weakness to let emotion have control. Sometimes you need a release, but even that should be done rationally.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You say that in normal every day life it is best to control (not necessarily suppression) emotions, but sometimes emotions are overwhelming and you can't control them. Well why can't you? Is it that your emotions are stronger than your rationality? If so isn't this a weakness?

Jeff,

Philosophy is used to govern everyday life, not exceptional situations where no choice is possible.

But to take your initial comments in order. I don't just say sometimes emotions overwhelm us, that's just the way it is. You can ignore that reality if you choose. The price is high and there is no gain.

Why can't we control emotions in those situations? For the same reason we cannot control whether we are born with two legs or whether we are going to die. That's simply reality.

Are the emotions stronger than rationality? At those times of life, they are. For a rational person, this should be limited to those exceptional times (depression, grief, etc., or even positive emotions at times).

Is this a weakness? If you are asking if it is a moral weakness, no it isn't. It is a biological weakness, I suppose.

Also, are you claiming that chemicals cannot control our emotions? I mentioned them and you said you disagree.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Michael,

Why can't we control emotions in those situations? For the same reason we cannot control whether we are born with two legs or whether we are going to die. That's simply reality.

What this seems to boil down to is that we have no control over our emotions once they get past a certain point. Or, basically, that no matter how strong we are mentally it will always be overtaken by our strongest emotions?

Are the emotions stronger than rationality? At those times of life, they are. For a rational person, this should be limited to those exceptional times (depression, grief, etc., or even positive emotions at times).

Why is it that we are forced to have emotions control us in those exceptional times? Why couldn't we control our emotions during those times?

[Mikee]

Emotions:

Q: What is an emotion?

A: A spontaneous response to a perception often accompanied by physiological changes.

Q: How are emotions programmed?

A: As children we learn emotions by socialization: observing the reactions of others to situations and by experience. Some rudimentary emotions are innate, i.e. sexual attraction, fear of falling, etc.

Q: What is unique about humans with regard to emotions?

A: Adult humans have the ability to reason. Emotions can be observed for appropriateness to a situation and the response overridden or modified. With practice irrational and inappropriate emotions can be reprogrammed.

Discussion:

The character (will) and intelligence (ability to reason) of a person governs their ability to control their emotions.

Question: How much of our emotion baggage is innate (part of our individual nature) and how much is "socialized"? By socialized I mean instilled into us to adapt us to the needs of "society".

I think to override the "socialized" part of our emotional baggage may be in many cases a good thing. In any case, no emotion is exempt from rational analysis as to appropriateness. Definitely if an emotional reaction has negative effect on your personal thriving it needs to be examined and modified.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What this seems to boil down to is that we have no control over our emotions once they get past a certain point. Or, basically, that no matter how strong we are mentally it will always be overtaken by our strongest emotions?

Jeff,

This is a fact of life. No matter how healthy we are, we will always be overtaken by death. The thing is that this only happens once in a lifetime. With overpowering emotions, these times are not many. (Think about Rand's depression after writing Atlas Shrugged. It paralyzed her. Was she being morally weak during that time? I don't think so.)

Why is it that we are forced to have emotions control us in those exceptional times? Why couldn't we control our emotions during those times?

This leads to repression and then life becomes hell on earth.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

This is a fact of life. No matter how healthy we are, we will always be overtaken by death. The thing is that this only happens once in a lifetime. With overpowering emotions, these times are not many. (Think about Rand's depression after writing Atlas Shrugged. It paralyzed her. Was she being morally weak during that time? I don't think so.)

So, what you're saying is that it is impossible to become rational enough to not be overtaken by strong emotions. That right?

This leads to repression and then life becomes hell on earth.

Just for the record, when I say "control emotions" I mean that as don't let them control you. I just don't know a better way to phrase it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

I basically agree with you, but I have a difference with respect to your definition:

Q: What is an emotion?

A: A spontaneous response to a perception often accompanied by physiological changes.

Would you say that the irritation and emotional swings present when a woman is menstruating are due to "spontaneous response to a perception"? Or is the issue hormonal?

As you can see, I have a problem with the traditional Objectivist identification of what emotions are. I think Objectivist ideas about reason are much more correct.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So, what you're saying is that it is impossible to become rational enough to not be overtaken by strong emotions. That right?

Jeff,

Put it this way. Fill a pipe full of crack cocaine and smoke it. Then see of you are "rational enough to not be overtaken by strong emotions." (Especially paranoia.)

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Red Herring.

That has nothing to do with whether or not it is possible.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[Danneskjold]

Q: What is unique about humans with regard to emotions?

A: Adult humans have the ability to reason. Emotions can be observed for appropriateness to a situation and the response overridden or modified. With practice irrational and inappropriate emotions can be reprogrammed.

So why would this not apply to stronger emotions?

[Mikee]

Michael,

"Would you say that the irritation and emotional swings present when a woman is menstruating are due to "spontaneous response to a perception"? Or is the issue hormonal?"

Our internal environment is part of our perceptual input so your example fits the definition.

As for this:

"Fill a pipe full of crack cocaine and smoke it. Then see of you are "rational enough to not be overtaken by strong emotions." (Especially paranoia.)"

That is akin to saying "pick a fight with the present heavy weight world champion and see if you can be rational enough to not be overcome by unconsciousness."

If you purposely choose to place yourself in a situation out of your control then "in control or not" is not a debatable issue. Your ability to reason is what's debatable.

I agree, red herring.