the lure of passions...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reason without Passion is Paralysis, Passion without Reason is Blind/Evil.
Point is both passion and reason must work in complementarity towards the optimality of one's well being.

Damasio's research in neuroscience has shown that emotions play a central role in social cognition and decision-making.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Damasio

[Age]

"Is there anything worse than a person who is "passionate" about something?"

From a previous thread.

A mother who is not passionate about raising her child correctly, nor with good intentions, some would say is worse that a mother who is passionate about raising her child correctly, and with good intentions.

[Harbal]

A mother who is not passionate about raising her child correctly, nor with good intentions, some would say is worse that a mother who is passionate about raising her child correctly, and with good intentions.

Yes, devotion to your children's welfare is commendable, and if their welfare is threatened then a passionate response from a parent to protect it would be appropriate. I don't get the impression that that is the sort of passion that this thread is about, although I could be wrong about that because no one has been very specific about their passion.

People who are passionate about their football team, or who claim to be passionate about art, or something like that, can be quite annoying, though.

[Walker]

People who are passionate about their football team, or who claim to be passionate about art, or something like that, can be quite annoying, though.

People who are passionate about Christianity can be quite annoying to non-Christians. Keep in mind though, that non-Christians would rather be annoyed by Christians, than killed by Christians for being a non-Christian. However, that's just a thought experiment because it's not a tenet of Christianity to kill you for being a non-Christian.

[Harbal]

People who are passionate about Christianity can be quite annoying to non-Christians. Keep in mind though, that non-Christians would rather be annoyed by Christians, than killed by Christians for being a non-Christian. However, that's just a thought experiment because it's not a tenet of Christianity to kill you for being a non-Christian.

A passionate aversion to being killed is forgivable, whatever your religion.

[Walker]

People who are passionate about Christianity can be quite annoying to non-Christians. Keep in mind though, that non-Christians would rather be annoyed by Christians, than killed by Christians for being a non-Christian. However, that's just a thought experiment because it's not a tenet of Christianity to kill you for being a non-Christian.

A passionate aversion to being killed is forgivable, whatever your religion.

And, it is preferable to petty annoyances, which may not be so easily forgiven due to their pettiness.

[Harbal]

And, it is preferable to petty annoyances, which may not be so easily forgiven due to their pettiness.

I ask for no forgiveness, it would seem disingenuous when I intend to carry on being annoyed.

[Walker]

And, it is preferable to petty annoyances, which may not be so easily forgiven due to their pettiness.

I ask for no forgiveness, it would seem disingenuous when I intend to carry on being annoyed.

That would account for the penchant for pettifoggery so oft' displayed.

[Harbal]

That would account for the penchant for pettifoggery so oft' displayed.

Thank you, Walker, that will be all for now.

[uwot]

...and what are you passionate about?

Passion is not a well defined word, even in a single user like Hume. What the different meanings of passion generally have in common is that they are some sort of motivation to act or think. So the short answer is that I am passionate about whatever happens to be the focus of my attention at any given moment. Some of my constants are that morality is based on the intended consequences for others. Another is that the only reliable way to understand the world is to look at it. I can give reasons why I am right to think that way, but if I'm up against someone who believes that morality is based on some god's will, or that logic is a reliable way to make scientific discoveries, I have as much chance of persuading them as I have of nailing jelly to the wall.

[Harbal]

Passion is not a well defined word, even in a single user like Hume. What the different meanings of passion generally have in common is that they are some sort of motivation to act or think. So the short answer is that I am passionate about whatever happens to be the focus of my attention at any given moment. Some of my constants are that morality is based on the intended consequences for others. Another is that the only reliable way to understand the world is to look at it. I can give reasons why I am right to think that way, but if I'm up against someone who believes that morality is based on some god's will, or that logic is a reliable way to make scientific discoveries, I have as much chance of persuading them as I have of nailing jelly to the wall.

So, when passion is being talked about among philosophers, they are not defining it as an intense emotional persuit, which is what I understand by the word "passion". What you are describing seems more restrained, and less reckless. Is the word "passion" a more exciting way of saying, "I am rather serious about this matter"?

[uwot]

So, when passion is being talked about among philosophers, they are not defining it as an intense emotional pursuit...

It all depends on the philosophers doing the talking, and what other philosopher they happen to be talking about. Any philosopher worth their salt will know better than to commit to one particular definition.

...which is what I understand by the word "passion".

Yep, that's one definition. Once the context is established, even philosophers can have fairly coherent conversations.

What you are describing seems more restrained, and less reckless. Is the word "passion" a more exciting way of saying, "I am rather serious about this matter"?

Well, what I understand Hume to mean by "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions" is that passions are dispositions - they're not things that we choose, they're more about how our brains are wired. It's very difficult to reason your way into believing in god, for example. If you look at the arguments for god, they are only persuasive to the people who already believe in god. So it's not so much that "I am rather serious about this matter", it's more that I am stuck with it, and will use reason to justify myself.

[Harbal]

Well, what I understand Hume to mean by "Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions" is that passions are dispositions - they're not things that we choose, they're more about how our brains are wired.

This makes passions sound like personal interests that are held with more than a casual enthusiasm, more than strong emotional drives. Perhaps the word passion didn't necessarily imply the same degree of emotional power that is usually associated with it these days. Words do change in meaning over time. I often think that must be particularly so with things like the Bible, where not only the passage of time has obscured meaning, but also errors in translation and interpretation are bound to have taken us even further away from the original meanings.

It's very difficult to reason your way into believing in god, for example. If you look at the arguments for god, they are only persuasive to the people who already believe in god. So it's not so much that "I am rather serious about this matter", it's more that I am stuck with it, and will use reason to justify myself.

Christianity, at least, seems to take a belt and braces approach. If you can't be reasoned into it, there is always the possibility that you might be convinced of the great value of faith without reason, which is the thing that most impresses God.

[uwot]

This makes passions sound like personal interests that are held with more than a casual enthusiasm, more than strong emotional drives. Perhaps the word passion didn't necessarily imply the same degree of emotional power that is usually associated with it these days.

It's a very long time since I read Hume, so I went to this article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emot ... 8Hume.html The long and short of it is that Hume used 'passion' to mean all sorts of things. Here's a taste*:
"’Passions’ are impressions of reflection, yet as in Hutcheson, they seem to be relatively low-order perceptions: they are responses to pleasurable or painful perceptions – and sometimes even innate impulses and instincts – not meta-perceptions."
*more of a warning than a taste.

Words do change in meaning over time.

Hume does use 'passion' to mean strong emotional drives as well. It's very confusing, and to be frank, Hume is one of the more lucid philosophers. You really have to appreciate the context - and of course how you interpret a philosopher depends on your own passions.

I often think that must be particularly so with things like the Bible, where not only the passage of time has obscured meaning, but also errors in translation and interpretation are bound to have taken us even further away from the original meanings.

Yes; what a coincidence that the word of god is as open to change and interpretation as the word of man.

Christianity, at least, seems to take a belt and braces approach. If you can't be reasoned into it, there is always the possibility that you might be convinced of the great value of faith without reason, which is the thing that most impresses God.

Anything is possible, I suppose. I suspect that the value a Christian puts on their faith is inversely proportional to the amount of reasoning they have done. Some people, with the aid of utterly delinquent logic, can persuade themselves that belief in god is entirely rational, in a way that not believing in something for which there is only circumstantial evidence, isn't.

[Harbal]

Yes; what a coincidence that the word of god is as open to change and interpretation as the word of man.

And if the original texts were examined, I suspect his handwriting would also be remarkably similar to that of men.