How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
I don't think anyone can do philosophy and detach their emotions. So accepting this as a premise has led to my question.
PhilX
PhilX
-
- Posts: 5087
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
No need to discard one's emotions. One may be emotional, but the expression of emotion has no place in a philosophical discussion. Philosophy is based on inquiry, which is an intellectual process, not an emotive one. Thoughts about, say, freckles might be germane to a critical analysis of freckles, while feelings about freckles are simply a distraction. Critical analysis is a function of thought, unrelated to how one feels about those thoughts. A philosopher might examine emotion per se in depth, however thoughts about emotion are just that -- thoughts, not feelings. One may be very emotional, or very emotionless, and still be philosophical. Of course, while pursuing an inquiry, one might passionately intrigued. On the other hand, if one finds critical thinking to be tedious or frustrating, the accompanying emotion might be an unhappy one. In either case, emotion is irrelevant, offering no support to philosophical argument.
All this begs the question, how freckled can you be and still be left-handed.
All this begs the question, how freckled can you be and still be left-handed.
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
delete
Last edited by Troll on Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
I just give some remarks which are somewhat idiosyncratic, personal and almost Prussian, so I apologize for not directly addressing the question in the most elucidating manner.
The whole issue in fact has no real cogency in the current world (except in the superficial sense that universities have standards of behavior and decorum, which, however, is a powerful misleading influence on the public). What was classically contrasted was wisdom, in logos, speech, or, what is the same, logic (as rules of speech established by reason or speech), and the body. Meaning that if a situation pressures one, from “outside” (i.e., from phusis), one is not rational. One is hit by something, say love of a mother for a child. One will not admit things that a wise person would, according to the classical notion. One is “interested” to use the modern terminology. Logic in the Medieval Christian style is now used wholly for political reasons, i.e., to remain dogmatically withdrawn for reasons of self protection of a group and inconvincible in discussion. Logic has become Symbolic logic, i.e., math and at the same time the older Medieval Christian instrumentum (and the conception of ratiocination [should also be addressed]), which was always a mere tool for collective inquiry into the truth, has become a instrument of propaganda and ideology.
Such talk of “question beginning” means nothing other than disagreeing with someone. The Dummies, i.e, those who have no reason, often use these tricks.
The ground of the man, opinion, hominem, has ceased to be the major ground of discussion. Mathamatics, Symbolic logic, doesn't become more true when emotion is added. That has become the standard for the fact of the sciences. Philosophy no longer exists in any serious sense. One must say, in this respect, it is easy to misunderstand the classical issue, of pathe, being hit by something, with the issue of emotion in the modern sense, since pathe and the notion of pathos as appeal to the (opinions of the) mob, not to emotion, can always lead one to think this. This is just a crude sketch of a long question...
One would want to address: Aristotelian syllogism and its origin in the Platonic Academy diologic, and the transition to formal christological logic in the medieval schools which can not be properly understood without picturing the way it was used by the persons who developed it.
The whole issue in fact has no real cogency in the current world (except in the superficial sense that universities have standards of behavior and decorum, which, however, is a powerful misleading influence on the public). What was classically contrasted was wisdom, in logos, speech, or, what is the same, logic (as rules of speech established by reason or speech), and the body. Meaning that if a situation pressures one, from “outside” (i.e., from phusis), one is not rational. One is hit by something, say love of a mother for a child. One will not admit things that a wise person would, according to the classical notion. One is “interested” to use the modern terminology. Logic in the Medieval Christian style is now used wholly for political reasons, i.e., to remain dogmatically withdrawn for reasons of self protection of a group and inconvincible in discussion. Logic has become Symbolic logic, i.e., math and at the same time the older Medieval Christian instrumentum (and the conception of ratiocination [should also be addressed]), which was always a mere tool for collective inquiry into the truth, has become a instrument of propaganda and ideology.
Such talk of “question beginning” means nothing other than disagreeing with someone. The Dummies, i.e, those who have no reason, often use these tricks.
The ground of the man, opinion, hominem, has ceased to be the major ground of discussion. Mathamatics, Symbolic logic, doesn't become more true when emotion is added. That has become the standard for the fact of the sciences. Philosophy no longer exists in any serious sense. One must say, in this respect, it is easy to misunderstand the classical issue, of pathe, being hit by something, with the issue of emotion in the modern sense, since pathe and the notion of pathos as appeal to the (opinions of the) mob, not to emotion, can always lead one to think this. This is just a crude sketch of a long question...
One would want to address: Aristotelian syllogism and its origin in the Platonic Academy diologic, and the transition to formal christological logic in the medieval schools which can not be properly understood without picturing the way it was used by the persons who developed it.
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
Well, emotions are real and ideally we are interested in reality. Further, emotions provide motivation and are required to conduct, not only philosophical thinking, but anything. Those with disorders or injury that inhibit emotion tend to, as a consequence, motivation.
I have not yet given thought to the kinds of emotions evolved, and how one parses the helpful and unhelpful ones.
I have not yet given thought to the kinds of emotions evolved, and how one parses the helpful and unhelpful ones.
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
Emotion may be observed as the summation of rational faculties, ie the senses, into intuition. In these respects emotion is a form of reasoning in itself and not only provides the foundations for objective observation but can be objective in the respect is summates sensory experience. In a separate regard considering sensory experience is primarily subjective, emotion as intuition retains a dualistic subjective quality.Greta wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:39 am Well, emotions are real and ideally we are interested in reality. Further, emotions provide motivation and are required to conduct, not only philosophical thinking, but anything. Those with disorders or injury that inhibit emotion tend to, as a consequence, motivation.
I have not yet given thought to the kinds of emotions evolved, and how one parses the helpful and unhelpful ones.
Viewing emotion as intuition, or a sixth sense, observe the foundation for all self-evident truths (axioms) as primarily a dualism between subjective and objective perceptions as phenomena in themselves. In these respects the dualistic understanding of the axiom provides the foundation for knowledge as a resulting "tension" between poles that actualizes us against nothingness.
....if that makes any sense at all.
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
Troll wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:16 am I just give some remarks which are somewhat idiosyncratic, personal and almost Prussian, so I apologize for not directly addressing the question in the most elucidating manner.
The whole issue in fact has no real cogency in the current world (except in the superficial sense that universities have standards of behavior and decorum, which, however, is a powerful misleading influence on the public). What was classically contrasted was wisdom, in logos, speech, or, what is the same, logic (as rules of speech established by reason or speech), and the body. Meaning that if a situation pressures one, from “outside” (i.e., from phusis), one is not rational. One is hit by something, say love of a mother for a child. One will not admit things that a wise person would, according to the classical notion. One is “interested” to use the modern terminology. Logic in the Medieval Christian style is now used wholly for political reasons, i.e., to remain dogmatically withdrawn for reasons of self protection of a group and inconvincible in discussion. Logic has become Symbolic logic, i.e., math and at the same time the older Medieval Christian instrumentum (and the conception of ratiocination [should also be addressed]), which was always a mere tool for collective inquiry into the truth, has become a instrument of propaganda and ideology.
Such talk of “question beginning” means nothing other than disagreeing with someone. The Dummies, i.e, those who have no reason, often use these tricks.
The ground of the man, opinion, hominem, has ceased to be the major ground of discussion. Mathamatics, Symbolic logic, doesn't become more true when emotion is added.
Ramanujen's superior progression in math, however, may have been dependent upon his emotional investment in it. Tying reason to emotion creates a symbiotic unity where one does progress the other.
In a separate respect we may view cases of autism, or savant syndrome, as the full integration of the emotions and reason that cannot coexist in the current fracturing world we live in. If a man, who observed reason as a form of balance conducive to an ethical code in itself, lived in the world we live in today would most probably go mad...which is what we seeing in an increasing scale with the modern male youth (through autism, etc.) in which they cannot integrate fully with society....this is under the premise men are more incline to intellectually rationalizing their environment.
Throw in poor diets and an unstable social system, both as extensions of modern ethics, and serious mental and physical health problems can, and are, occur(ing) in the modern youth.
That has become the standard for the fact of the sciences. Philosophy no longer exists in any serious sense. One must say, in this respect, it is easy to misunderstand the classical issue, of pathe, being hit by something, with the issue of emotion in the modern sense, since pathe and the notion of pathos as appeal to the (opinions of the) mob, not to emotion, can always lead one to think this. This is just a crude sketch of a long question...
One would want to address: Aristotelian syllogism and its origin in the Platonic Academy diologic, and the transition to formal christological logic in the medieval schools which can not be properly understood without picturing the way it was used by the persons who developed it.
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
"how emotional"... how do you measure emotionality? "I can be very emotional" or "I can be very, very,very, very emotional" and still be philosophical.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:19 pm I don't think anyone can do philosophy and detach their emotions. So accepting this as a premise has led to my question.
PhilX
What are you actually trying to elicit? This is like asking, how big is big, and how small is small.
How long is a string.
-
- Posts: 5087
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
Your statements are absolutely correct. I would just add that one's arguments need not be emotional in philosophy.Greta wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:39 am Well, emotions are real and ideally we are interested in reality. Further, emotions provide motivation and are required to conduct, not only philosophical thinking, but anything. Those with disorders or injury that inhibit emotion tend to, as a consequence, motivation.
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
One must start by pointing out that if one says philosophy in the vernacular it means almost anything. Having a cup of coffee with no milk is a philosophy. Or, playing silly games and solving baby puzzles on a forum for private amusement and to say something interesting or from an "arm chair". If it has a serious meaning, then when we look at that, we see it has to do with truth. For instance, discovering what the best way of life is. That sort of philosophy, the Western tradition, is dead. Replaced by ideology and its practical instrumentum, propaganda.
Math doesn’t become more true through interest. Where political speech does, because we want to know if someone is resolved to a purpose and that they have anxious care concerning the purposed path. This is largely why math has become the standard, the mathematical physics. The problem is not that it is not true, but that the truth is not adequate to human life on the whole.
Math is not “interested”, the proof is that the class background of the mathematician doesn’t change the validity of the mathematical work. Though, it does change the attitude towards mathematical method. As in the differing between checking the figures, i.e., doing calculations, and going by intuition brought out in the Ramanujan case.
The Peterson Harris debate gets into this region:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdpyzwOOYY
Math doesn’t become more true through interest. Where political speech does, because we want to know if someone is resolved to a purpose and that they have anxious care concerning the purposed path. This is largely why math has become the standard, the mathematical physics. The problem is not that it is not true, but that the truth is not adequate to human life on the whole.
Math is not “interested”, the proof is that the class background of the mathematician doesn’t change the validity of the mathematical work. Though, it does change the attitude towards mathematical method. As in the differing between checking the figures, i.e., doing calculations, and going by intuition brought out in the Ramanujan case.
The Peterson Harris debate gets into this region:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdpyzwOOYY
-
- Posts: 5087
- Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
Well-put, 1. Could not be said any better. I suggest the measure be the number of "very"s used-1- wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:44 pm"how emotional"... how do you measure emotionality? "I can be very emotional" or "I can be very, very,very, very emotional" and still be philosophical.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:19 pm I don't think anyone can do philosophy and detach their emotions. So accepting this as a premise has led to my question.
PhilX
What are you actually trying to elicit? This is like asking, how big is big, and how small is small.
How long is a string.
Last edited by commonsense on Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
How about allcaps?commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:58 pmI suggest the measure be the number of "very"s used.-1- wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:44 pm"how emotional"... how do you measure emotionality? "I can be very emotional" or "I can be very, very,very, very emotional" and still be philosophical.Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:19 pm I don't think anyone can do philosophy and detach their emotions. So accepting this as a premise has led to my question.
PhilX
What are you actually trying to elicit? This is like asking, how big is big, and how small is small.
How long is a string.
PhilX
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
Emotions are like subroutines consisting of a suite of behaviours. If you are in sudden danger, rather than analysing the situation and devising optimal responses, you shift to a fight-or-flight state which carries a whole suite of responses including heart and blood flow, hormones, the writhe response and so on. AI won't need this because, rather than rely on pre-determined generalised "blunt instrument" responses they will be fast enough to calculate optimal responses in the same time.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:27 pmEmotion may be observed as the summation of rational faculties, ie the senses, into intuition. In these respects emotion is a form of reasoning in itself and not only provides the foundations for objective observation but can be objective in the respect is summates sensory experience. ....if that makes any sense at all.Greta wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:39 am Well, emotions are real and ideally we are interested in reality. Further, emotions provide motivation and are required to conduct, not only philosophical thinking, but anything. Those with disorders or injury that inhibit emotion tend to, as a consequence, motivation.
Yes, ideally emotions will drive our inquiries rather than overly shape the answers we find.commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:42 pmYour statements are absolutely correct. I would just add that one's arguments need not be emotional in philosophy.Greta wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:39 amWell, emotions are real and ideally we are interested in reality. Further, emotions provide motivation and are required to conduct, not only philosophical thinking, but anything. Those with disorders or injury that inhibit emotion tend to, as a consequence, motivation.
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
So far, then, I win.commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:58 pmWell-put, 1. Could not be said any better. I suggest the measure be the number of "very"s used-1- wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:44 pm
"how emotional"... how do you measure emotionality? "I can be very emotional" or "I can be very, very,very, very emotional" and still be philosophical.
What are you actually trying to elicit? This is like asking, how big is big, and how small is small.
How long is a string.
See if anyone can top the number of my "very"s.
-
- Posts: 5621
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am
Re: How emotional can you be in philosophy and still be philosophical?
How about allcaps?-1- wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:42 amSo far, then, I win.commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:58 pmWell-put, 1. Could not be said any better. I suggest the measure be the number of "very"s used-1- wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:44 pm
"how emotional"... how do you measure emotionality? "I can be very emotional" or "I can be very, very,very, very emotional" and still be philosophical.
What are you actually trying to elicit? This is like asking, how big is big, and how small is small.
How long is a string.
See if anyone can top the number of my "very"s.
PhilX