Rationality destroys ethical authenticity.

Edward

This discussion presupposes my belief that value is entirely relative.

To the individual that as a tendency to constantly analyse, I feel that moral motivation, or motivation in general, becomes a battle of mind against heart.

To an animal (of lower order consciousness) there is no deliberation about action, they act upon instinct, or emotion. The average human considers more subtle emotional drives but does not hold back in the heat of powerful feeling.

What happens (and this is partly coming from my own experience) when everything is viewed from a cautious, skeptical angle? Emotion can be viewed, as with thoughts, in what is more recently becoming popular: mindfulness. We are not our feelings, although they are a big part of being human, they can be observed. In my experience, this over analysis can cause detachment, for better or worse, and when combined with an existential approach, apathy.

There's nothing thrilling about analysing love, or humour, or excitement. There's a need for uninhabited, emotional reaction if we're going to make human and compassionate decisions. To me, the authenticity of feeling is dampened by thought.

I guess, if this was condensed into a single question:

How does one reconcile being human and emotional with being in a relative and free world, while feeling authentic and self-realised?

I like sushi

Like this

Edward

↪I like sushi

You mean by discussing it?

I like sushi

↪Edward

By not dying ;)

Edward

↪I like sushi

Point taken.

A specific question, how do I get angry (like, I'ma protest this shit now angry) about something that doesn't immediately arouse anger? Do you think arousal levels are fixed?

Edward

Actually, what I mean is, while there is a biological environment of arousal, does arousal not also relate to what is perceived and understood about a situation? So, an easily aroused person could also have an extremely analytical perception of life, resulting in low arousal of a high arousal brain.

Valentinus

To me, the authenticity of feeling is dampened by thought. — Edward

Don't they need each other?
Being clueless about what is happening usually involves a deficit in either or both experiences.
If what marks a capable organism is a way to protect themselves by operating within certain horizons, that is not to say that the mediation is without a cost.
There is no strategy that is good for all ends. That is not a good reason to let go of the steering wheel and just let everything play out without making selections.

Joshs

↪Edward

Your starting point in thinking about the relation of feeling to rationality is an outdated one.

All rationality is inherently affective in that rationality only makes sense relative to a particular perpectival scheme, and perspectives are value systems.

While more traditional approaches in philosophy and psychology treated affective phenomena as at best peripheral to, and typically disruptive of, rational processes, embodied cognitive theories take pains to present emotion and thought as an indissociable interaction. According to current accounts, cognitive and affective processes are closely interdependent, with affect, emotion and sensation functioning in multiple ways and at multiple levels to situate or attune the context of our conceptual dealings with the world . According to the newer thinking, affective tonality is never absent from cognition. "Moods are no longer a subjective window-dressing on privileged theoretical perspectives but a background that constitutes the sense of all intentionalities, whether theoretical or practical.

I like sushi

Actually, what I mean is, while there is a biological environment of arousal, does arousal not also relate to what is perceived and understood about a situation? So, an easily aroused person could also have an extremely analytical perception of life, resulting in low arousal of a high arousal brain. — Edward

That does make the slightest bit of sense to me. Sorry.

Edward

↪I like sushi

Arousal being stimulation from experience (not sexual if that's what you imagined).

So intense situational circumstances naturally arouse strong emotive response in people. However our literal, intellectual understanding of a situation informs how we might emotionally react.

Im suggesting that, while some people might be biologically highly emotional, a certain intellectual awareness might dampen emotional response.

I realise that you didn't even make a statement, this is just a tangent but that's it, explained.

Edward

↪"Valentinus

There is no strategy that is good for all ends. That is not a good reason to let go of the steering wheel and just let everything play out without making selections.

Agreed. However, it doesn't answer the question of being morally authentic when you don't have a baseline to choose from.

Edward

↪Joshs

perspectives are value systems.

I suppose my point is, if your perspective is one of existential absurdity then how does one reconcile this with an authentic moral system.

Moods are no longer a subjective window-dressing on privileged theoretical perspectives but a background that constitutes the sense of all intentionalities, whether theoretical or practical.

What if our "background that constitutes the sense of all intentionalities" drives us to theoretically dismantling our mood?

Terrapin Station

I guess, if this was condensed into a single question:

How does one reconcile being human and emotional with being in a relative and free world, while feeling authentic and self-realised? — Edward

I still don't really understand this, even with the condensed question. Maybe if you were to give a more concrete example of a dilemma that's related to this?

Edward

↪Terrapin Station

In even more direct terms, "how does camus' sisyphus believe in himself?"

A concrete dilemma:

How does a person motivate themselves to protest against animal cruelty when the initial instinctive emotional reaction subsides and they're acting upon rationality, but rationally they know ethics to be absurd/relative/meaningless without emotional conviction.

Terrapin Station

↪Edward

My off-the-cuff reaction to that is, "If you're not feeling it any longer, why do it? Take a break for awhile." But maybe there's a good reason to keep doing something even though your heart is no longer in it?

Edward

↪Terrapin Station

I agree that there's reason to continue without being constantly emotionally engaged.

My point is, or at least my question: does a realisation of the absurd not constantly dampen our instinct to feel? Our thoughts inform our feelings and if our thoughts negate the inclination towards meaning then what is the result? Apathy.

Joshs

What if our "background that constitutes the sense of all intentionalities" drives us to theoretically dismantling our mood? — Edward

Theoretically dismantling one mood doesn't leave us without any mood. There is always affectivity as a background comportment or attitude toward the world. An attitude of neutral, calm focus is still being in a mood. The world always matters to us, is significant for us, strikes us, is relevant for us, , affects us in some way.

perspectives are value systems.

I suppose my point is, if your perspective is one of existential absurdity then how does one reconcile this with an authentic moral system. — Edward

A perspectival account of values like Nietzsche's wouldn't be 'absurd' or nihilistic to him. On the contrary, he would consider an 'authentic moral system' absurd. He would consider his ontology of the becoming of value systems to be a liberating, authentic approach to ethics.

tim wood

This discussion presupposes my belief that value is entirely relative. — Edward

A clear opening statement. In terms of argument I'd say I'm obliged to respect it. Question: do you mean all value is entirely relative?

ChatteringMonkey

There's a need for uninhabited, emotional reaction if we're going to make human and compassionate decisions. — Edward

Here's a question, do you think that emotional reactions are necessarily unhabited without rational thought? Or put in another way, is rational thought the only way emotional reactions can become 'inhabited'?

Edward

↪tim wood

Theoretically dismantling one mood doesn't leave us without any mood. There is always affectivity as a background comportment or attitude toward the world. An attitude of neutral, calm focus is still being in a mood. The world always matters to us, is significant for us, strikes us, is relevant for us, , affects us in some way.

100% agree.

My issue is with a calm focused mood. I think, with philosophy this can too easily be a depressed mood. It's life affirming to be riled up and not entirely thought out.

He would consider his ontology of the becoming of value systems to be a liberating, authentic approach to ethics.

I'm not well read on nietzsche. How exactly do people claim to obtain fulfillment from creating ones own value? I understand it as a principle but what is an example of self made value and fulfilment? It always seems vague.

Edward

↪tim wood

Yes.

Terrapin Station

My point is, or at least my question: does a realisation of the absurd not constantly dampen our instinct to feel? Our thoughts inform our feelings and if our thoughts negate the inclination towards meaning then what is the result? Apathy. — Edward

That Camusian sense of "absurd" doesn't do anything for me. I never felt any drive or inclination to see meaning or value as something objective. So the fact that it's subjective doesn't suggest any problem to me.

Edward

↪ChatteringMonkey

Sorry, I don't know what you mean exactly and by the word unhabited and do you mean uninhabited?

ChatteringMonkey

↪Edward

Yes sorry that's what i mean. I was paraphrasing your sentence, and messed up somehow :-)

tim wood

↪Edward

This is going well. Relative to what? If nothing, then what it is, is. If relative to something, or to a group of somethings, then what about those somethings?

In fact, if you'll take it on, what, exactly, is meant in these contexts by "relative." No law against producing your own definition, here.

What I perceive is the abyss in which all value, whatever that means, is lost. Can you keep us out of it, or are always already jumping in?

ChatteringMonkey

And to give some more explanation to my question, I want to examine the assumption that feelings are 'authentic' without rational thought. Are there other factors shaping 'the heart', feelings and intuitions? What counts as authentic? If animals are the measure, are there other things that seperate us from them other then rational thought?

Edward

↪ChatteringMonkey

The only reason I see them as authentic is that they're what defines our value and gives us motive. They surely don't have much relevance to the world without thought but too much thought and it's different.

Urm... Not really I suppose. Claws and tails? :)

Edward

↪tim wood

Yeah, there is an abyss of sorts. We can find relative value in what we have despite this.

I've already had this discussion with you. All value is relative because it's meaningless to try and apply objectivity. You admitted it yourself.

In the same way that The Beatles aren't objectively The best band, drinking isn't objectively wrong.

ChatteringMonkey

↪Edward

Yes they define our value and motivation, but could there be anything that defines them? Or are they some force we are born with and nothing can influence it, other than maybe too much rational thought?

Edward

Well, anything that affects our body could effect our emotions, sure. Drink, drugs, fitness, etc.

ChatteringMonkey

Okay, anything else?

Claws and tails… and what about culture, tradition, upbringing? Do they also form emotional responses? And if so, does this still count as authentic, uninhabited?

Rationality destroys ethical authenticity.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions