Why is there so little in Western philosophy that deals with our emotions? — ChatteringMonkey
Now, what will be your next step? :) — Damir Ibrisimovic
Philosophers generally do not acknowledge the enormous sway emotions have over how and what we think. They like to picture themselves as rational beings, unswayed by irrational emotion. Fools. — Bitter Crank
I think now that psychology is advancing much further, it will eventually discover a way to discuss emotions in objective and perhaps even logical terms. — BrianW
We are biological beings, and part of our brain is the limbic system that controls emotions and instincts — ChatteringMonkey
I think good philosophy should also provide some answers. And it does that too... just not in this case it seems. — ChatteringMonkey
The majority of philosophers are known for their philosophical systems, which serve as worldviews, 'answers'. — aporiap
How to deal with emotions? — ChatteringMonkey
so you can come up some answers of your own... — ChatteringMonkey
They’re not any sort of absolute authority. It’s perfectly acceptable, and even considered a good and beneficial practice, to question these worldviews.
To accept them without question by mere authority or solidarity with the ‘group view’, especially if they appear untrue, would be more like religion.
Well, reason as slave to the passions is basically meaning that we are charged with pleasing the limbic system. That's what life's about! You don't control how you feel, or how perception is marked by signification, nor how memory is consolidated, and motivations established, but you do know what causes what, and how to figure stuff out... you know, if you aren't too afraid to admit it. — All sight
I'm not sure if objective knowledge from a third perspective of emotions will necessarily tell us much about how to deal with emotions. — ChatteringMonkey
Well, I think that neurologically we have "free won't", or inhibition. We can do a lot of rationalizing to explain our behavior, but it is mostly inexplicable. When it is premeditated, and intentional, this is usually considered dubious, and inferior to spontaneity. So that, the majority of our "conscious-deliberation" is about what not to do, not what to do. We never run out of thinking of stuff we could be doing, and things we want, but we do refrain from a lot of it. The better one feels, the more impulsive, and spontaneous. Right down to food energy levels. "Neat", or non-exercise acitivty thermogenesis, is just the random impulsive activities one makes, and they increase with higher calorie intake and decrease with lower caloric intake. Sugar also makes one do all kinds of big and often repetitive purposeless or obsessive behaviors.
I also think that the higher energy, more elevated someone is the less they are able to restrain, or inhibit themselves. That's why we have "crimes of passion", and we all know how intense emotions are extremely difficult to restrain. So that, I think that not only do we just have "free won't", but we also purposely maintain low energy levels because we're too afraid to allow ourselves to lose control, so must maintain levels of energy we can control. — All sight
It's true the philosophical process involves in it a value of critical judgement and skepticism but I don't think that stands in contrast to religion — aporiap
What do you think, is it an oversight in Western philosophy, or just not what philosophy is about?
4d — ChatteringMonkey
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.