Please declare what is your emotional relationship with the evacuation of your bowel? — Marcus de Brun

It's quite simple really. Not having a bowel movement when you need to have one is not comfortable. So you experience revulsion towards abstaining, and therefore you go and have your bowel movement. It is an emotion that compels you to do it. Reasoning is based on emotions. Without emotions, you would take no actions whatsoever. So you take a bowel movement because you want to feel good, you don't want to get sepsis or some other form of stomach infection, etc. All those are ultimately anchored in emotions.

Please declare what is your emotional relationship with the evacuation of your bowel? — Marcus de Brun

If I may... Dr. Freud would say that there is at least an unconscious influence. But I do agree with your point in general. :up:

This is wrong. There can be no logic without emotion. Logic without emotion is dead, it doesn't do anything, and cannot decide anything. — Agustino

My iMac does get weepy and emotional at certain times of the month. Sometimes I can’t touch it at all without a scene. Is it an Apple thing? I’ve always wondered why... :wink:

Computers are entirely logical and yet devoid of emotion, they make lots of decisions every day, upon which we depend. — Marcus de Brun

Programmed by human beings. We program them based on our emotions, so they do what we want.

Do you know the paradox of Buridan's Ass? That's what happens when there is no emotion.

Do you know the paradox of Buridan's Ass? That's what happens when there is no emotion. — Agustino

This is most interesting as the discourse is venturing into or becoming that which is the subject of the discourse itself. Fixed immovable beliefs that have a deeper emotional basis.

We have departed from reason and presently appear to be talking about that which emerges from Buridan's ass.

M

If I may... Dr. Freud would say that there is at least an unconscious influence. — 0 thru 9

Agreed.

Instinctual imperatives for the most part are sub-conscious. However they can be brought to the level of consciousness through endogenous-insight (intelligence), and (or good psychoanalysis) and then be subject to logic and reason. IE independently or with assistance, sub-conscious instinct can be brought to the level of consciousness and subjected to reasoned analysis.

My point is that this process (insight) must occur prior to the possibility of a change in ones opinion or view. When this does not occur it is quite possible that subconscious instinct will direct reason and cause one to cling to irrational or illogical beliefs despite evidence or logic to the contrary.

Sometimes we disagree with people simply because we don't like them or find them to be threatening in some way. Even people as repulsive as Trump have made reasonable statements that my initial 'feeling' is to disagree with simply because they are being made by a very unintelligent man, even fools are sometimes right.

My reasoning is clearly threatening or disliked by some. Rather than ask what is really under threat, the reason itself is attacked from illogical positions. Effectively the reason or the logic of the reasoning is not under siege, but rather deeper instincts (known or unknown) provide the coordinates for the discussion and the positions within the context of the discussion itself.

M

You know this, you've studied psychology. The average mass of mankind isn't very enlightened, despite living in democracies today. — Agustino

Sure, but people in advanced democracies are generally very adverse to violence against one another unless its sanctioned either by a specific authority, e.g. Milgram, or crowd, in-group, Stanford Prison etc., which is not a situation that most people find themselves in very often. The general public is much more prone to be manipulated to be passive and complacent than aggressive and violent I think.

The general public is much more prone to be manipulated to be passive and complacent than aggressive and violent I think. — Baden

I would agree that. Trained to await the next instruction of how to feel about a particular news event or issue. Or what to purchase next. What’s “hot” or “in fashion”. As for aggression, there is usually a plan for that. Be it a “Day of Rage” in the Mid-East, Two-Minutes Hate in Orwell’s 1984, or the celebration of a sports championship in Philadelphia. :wink:

Instinctual imperatives for the most part are sub-conscious. However they can be brought to the level of consciousness through endogenous-insight (intelligence), and (or good psychoanalysis) and then be subject to logic and reason. IE independently or with assistance, sub-conscious instinct can be brought to the level of consciousness and subjected to reasoned analysis.

My point is that this process (insight) must occur prior to the possibility of a change in ones opinion or view. When this does not occur it is quite possible that subconscious instinct will direct reason and cause one to cling to irrational or illogical beliefs despite evidence or logic to the contrary. — Marcus de Brun

:up: I would generally agree with those statements. With the additional comment that (in my opinion) the subconscious can be seen, analyzed, directed, and controlled roughly in the same way a horse can be tamed and ridden successfully. It can be done of course. But there is always a possible wild card in the deck. Some moment when the horse gets spooked, or decides to stop to munch on some leaves despite your commands. Similar to the unpredictable selection of dreams the unconscious decides to screen for our entertainment or edification or goodness knows what.

With the additional comment that (in my opinion) the subconscious can be seen, analyzed, directed, and controlled roughly in the same way a horse can be tamed and ridden successfully. It can be done of course. But there is always a possible wild card in the deck. — 0 thru 9

Agreed,

The likelihood of the wild card is dependent (but not entirely so) upon the 'ability' of the trainer and the passions of the horse.

Given that we are possibly in agreement more than disagreement, we must ask is being agreeable more pleasurable than the fire and fury of disagreement?

M

The general public is much more prone to be manipulated to be passive and complacent than aggressive and violent I think. — Baden

Whilst I agree with the general assertion here I think it is technically incorrect, in respect of violence.

Consumption particularly by white westerners is an example of an externally influenced or engineered activity.

Most white western consumption in respect of needs beyond the philosophically valid: food warmth sustenance, education etc... are programmed or inculcated into the herd via the psychology of the herd itself and external manipulations of herd psychology vis media and corporate entities.

The consumptive act is an act of great violence and yet the violence, vis the consequence of consumption is not 'owned' by the consumer. Both the consumption, and the avoidance of ownership of the consequence, have been removed from the reality of the consumer by external forces. The violence that is consequenced by consumption is therefore removed by the magic of the contemporary church of capitalism.

Future generations who will inherit the consequence of the consumptive act will doubtless recognize it to have been of a greater violence than any totalitarian regime of the past.

The herd, and those who manipulate the herd are the purest form of real and potential evil.

M

Well, yes, capitalism is inherently violent and exploitative, although that hasn't really been the focus here, which has been the individual propensity to violence due to ideological disagreement. Also, it's not just particularly white westerners, but particularly everyone in western countries who consume significantly more in resources than those in developing nations.

Agreed,

The likelihood of the wild card is dependent (but not entirely so) upon the 'ability' of the trainer and the passions of the horse. — Marcus de Brun

Also agreed!

Given that we are possibly in agreement more than disagreement, we must ask is being agreeable more pleasurable than the fire and fury of disagreement? — Marcus de Brun

Hmmm... good question! So for the sake of unpredictable variety, I am going to disagree and move for “re-buttal” ala Homer Simpson.
<drops pants> :blush:

Agreed, and apologies,
my point was a little off topic.
I am always a bit sensitive when capitalism appears to be getting off the hook.

M

Consumption particularly by white westerners is an example of an externally influenced or engineered activity.

Most white western consumption in respect of needs beyond the philosophically valid: food warmth sustenance, education etc... are programmed or inculcated into the herd via the psychology of the herd itself and external manipulations of herd psychology vis media and corporate entities.

The consumptive act is an act of great violence and yet the violence, vis the consequence of consumption is not 'owned' by the consumer. Both the consumption, and the avoidance of ownership of the consequence, have been removed from the reality of the consumer by external forces. The violence that is consequenced by consumption is therefore removed by the magic of the contemporary church of capitalism. — Marcus de Brun

This is something I agree with, but I've never seen anyone else express such views. The poisonous influence of capitalism has become so familiar that we no longer question it. Just like we say that a river "runs", and never realise this is a metaphor. [Rivers don't have legs, so cannot run in the literal sense.] Or we talk of the Crucifixion (if we happen to be Christians), without appreciating the true horror of the image we are offering.

What is fashion? Is it art? Is it culture? Or is it something intended to get us to buy more new stuff when the old stuff still has plenty of life left in it?

"Your red coat is still beautiful!"

"Yes, but yellow is this season's colour, so I will throw it away and buy a yellow one."

This is obscene, and yet most people don't see anything here to worry them. This is how we humans have destroyed our own world. The world itself will survive, of course, and some forms of life will surely (?) survive too. But it seems unlikely that humans will, and they will be baffled. Baffled because they (even as they become extinct) have no idea how it was caused, or that it was them (i.e. us) that caused it. :roll:

So thank you, Marcus de Brun, for posting this. :up:

my point was a little off topic. — Marcus de Brun

Damn! So was my response to you, then. :blush:

I am always a bit sensitive when capitalism appears to be getting off the hook. — Marcus de Brun

Yes! Me too. :up: :grin:

Discussion for the sake of persuasion has always been the least interesting and least significant part of participation in a forum like this. The interest has always instead been looking for other perspectives or other angles from which to evaluate one's own POV. The challenge is in trying to formulate arguments to address the unexpected and the unforseen, to expand and explore implications that one may not have come up with by yourself. Persuasion is just the frorth on the wave that is participation here. — StreetlightX

That's very poetic, but frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. I care more about getting it right than exploring a dead end. The less of the latter, the better in my opinion.

It's possible to get it right and still not be persuasive you know.

how do you know you're right on ethical, metaphysical or political issues? What is right in that context? Seems to me the best we can hope for is consistency.

I care more about getting it right than exploring a dead end. — Sapientia

Mm, I never said anything about 'getting it right' so dunno what you're on about.

It's possible to get it right and still not be persuasive you know. — Baden

Yes, I know.

Mm, I never said anything about 'getting it right' so dunno what you're on about. — StreetlightX

Yes, I know what you did and did not say. You said something about an interest in other perspectives. What I'm on about is a matter of priorities. I don't know about you, but diving deep into an exploration of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is not at the top of my list of priorities. I'm on about trimming the fat.

How do you know you're right on ethical, metaphysical or political issues? What is right in that context? Seems to me the best we can hope for is consistency. — Benkei

Forget the "how" for a moment. There are some things we just know, right? Do you have a conscience? Do you have a body? That's a good place to start.

Even those two issues are debated by people. We understand the concepts and can talk about them due to a shared social environment but consciousness doesn't exist and you don't have a physical body.

Even those two issues are debated by people. — Benkei

Yes, and that tells us something about human nature and philosophy, but what it tells us is a bit like being told that you've got a stain on your shirt or that you've left your flies undone.

We understand the concepts and can talk about them due to a shared social environment but consciousness doesn't exist and you don't have a physical body. — Benkei

Yes it does, and yes I do. You're wrong. And your flies are undone.

It doesn't matter that you know you're right as long as you believe you are (in order to be authentic). You can be skeptical about knowledge claims including your own and still take a position, and legitimately consider it right.

In no specific order: all have had a profound effect on my life, many through sharing friendships as @jorndoe suggests.
@Mayor of Simpleton taught me family outside of born kin
@Tobias changed/taught me proportionality
@Benkei helped me compartmentalize 9/11
@Banno changed my view/ taught me that the physically disabled have sexual needs just like those who are not disabled.
@Hanover has taught me gentle truths through jest
@Postmodern Beatnik taught me how to put in a "stop gap" between reading /hearing an idea and me allowing an emotional reaction to be assigned to what I read/heard.
@unenlightened truly my mentor, my Sage, too many lessons to list. I will just call it life coaching. :heart:
@Sir2u has taught me to not take life so seriously and how to respect unknown lines in the sand.
@Bitter Crank taught me that life does cease for all of us no matter how much the other is loved and will be missed.
@Sapientia has taught me to be humble in expressing unpopular positions but also reminds me that there are hills I am willing to die on.

To Kamerynn, 180, Wosret and Mongrel :heart: you are significant threads in the tapastety that makes up my character even though your no longer in my daily life.

Oh and I vote yes. :razz:

Have You Ever Persuaded Someone Holding An Opposite Worldview From You On TPF? — Agustino

Yes; or rather, I have been persuaded by other people, who showed me a flaw in my reasoning. But I sure as heck would not have admitted it to them! :shade:

Great post. Don't despair Agustino.
The primary function of reason and arguments is not to persuade, but to seek truth. Proof:

P1: We call a thing 'good' if it achieves its function.
P2: An argument is called perfect (fully good) if its conclusion is obtained with certainty, that is, we are certain to have found truth.
C1: Therefore the function of an argument is to find truth.

P3: Despite an argument being perfect, some recipients may still be unconvinced. That may be so because they are pig-headed; looking to be right, not to find truth.
C2: Therefore the function of an argument is not to persuade.

Persuasion is only a secondary or bonus effect of reason and arguments. Having said that, if your argument is flawless, and the recipient's intent is to seek truth primarily (and there is no misunderstanding), then persuasion will necessarily follow.

And besides, other than sales and marketing people, who cares about persuading those who don't seek truth anyways? :wink:

And besides, other than sales and marketing people, who cares about persuading those who don't seek truth anyways? :wink: — Samuel Lacrampe

Everyone, because persuasion is effective in politics. Are Trump and his supporters interested in truth? Doesn't appear so. In fact, accepting and supporting the lies has become a sign of solidarity. Only winning matters.