Emotions had survival value when our ancestors were less intelligent. However, it isusually better to use one’s mind during a situation that provokes a strong emotion.
This is particularly true for anger. One rarely advances one’s interests by acting on anger. When in a situation that makes one angry, one should think about what the situation is, what one’s options are, and how best to proceed.
This is even true in a violent situation. Muhammed Ali and Sugar Ray Lenord sometimes won boxing matches by making their opponents so angry they could not think straight.
Some emotions aren’t obsolete because we’ve biologically “evolved past” their usefulness. Some emotions are obsolete because our culture/society has changed significantly over the last 10,000 years such that not all emotions are as beneficial.
Anger used to be (and in many cases still is) a very effective deterrent precisely because the person isn’t thinking straight.
No Der Trihs, you are wrong. A “physical sensation” causing them to do something IS an emotion. People can get addicted to substances yes, and they get emotionally attached to them.
A person who is only doing something for themselves is acting on emotion. Frankly you seem kind of snobby to me and your babble is rubbishy, I doubt anything I said would help you, I’m done with this discussion.
Because emotions came first. Look at so-called “lower” forms of life. Any creature “close” to us acts almost entirely on emotion. Emotions are our instincts. They are what drove us before logic.
Why do we still have them? Because instincts still process much more quickly than logical thought. There are plenty of situations where you need to just act without thinking. Logic takes time to evaluate all possibilities, while instincts happen automatically. Logic needs complete information, which we very often don’t have.
And, finally, emotions are what make us want to be alive in the first place. Why is self preservation logical? How do I derive logically that it is better for me to exist than for me not to exist? And if you take it as a precept, then how do I know when not to apply it?
Plus, before you’ve learned logic, what would you do? I mean, kids need emotions because, again, they lack knowledge. And adults never quite get away from using it.
Is it? I would classify “pleasure” and “pain” as physical sensations, but not as emotions. “Happiness” is an emotion, and pleasure can make a person happy; but experiencing pleasure might also trigger emotions of guilt, embarrassment, or sadness, if the person didn’t think they deserved it. One would expect physical pain to trigger fear in most people, but it might produce happiness in someone who believed they deserved punishment.
I have to give it more thought, but for the moment I find myself agreeing with Der Trihs. Emotions choose our goals. Logic tells us how to achieve them. Logic without emotion will tell you which choices to make to reach a given goal, but won’t tell you which goals are worth reaching for.
But what about the instinct for self-preservation? (Not flight/fight or other short-term reflexes.) I never considered that an emotion. The desire to go on living - I’ve always believed it innate and not tied to a specific emotion.
Is it impossible to choose goals without emotions? Can you elaborate on that?