I will reply to your comment line by line.

Well, our world does have emotion, and me, as well as others on this discussion being humans, have emotion, and it would be practically impossible that no one brings there emotions to the table at some point. And I am fine with that, as long as people dont refuse to listen to logic because of it.
Personally, I do believe that emotions are instinctual responses to stimulus that help us survive as a species, and as a social group.
"Emotions become more of a digest, and a guide. If I feel angry at a situation, instead of just reacting, I think about it."
Well said.
However, you didnt pay attention to your own words.
You are telling us how grown ups can make rational decision by controlling/reducing emotions and how young people often can't.
Isn't that proof that if emotions didn't exist, then even the younger population would give some thought towards a situation without jumping to a wrong conclusion and do something horrible because of their emotions?
Why should we use emotions to guide us towards logical conclusions, if we can just use logic to do so?

I often discuss stuff with my brother who is a bit younger than me, but still makes excellent points and is very smart.
He made the same point about reflexes, and so, I already have answer to your point.
You and him assumed that reflexes, i.e. the ability of doing something without thinking was developed only because of emotions.
And i tell you, that it is a misconception.
He gave me the example of this query, and so, i will use it here as well.
Imagine a car is moving at a very high speed and is about to hit you, you only have enough time to either move away instantly and be safe or think about the situation and be lead to death.
He used this example thinking reflexes can only be developed in a situation where emotions exist.
I 100% agree that in our world, reflexes where in fact developed because of emotions.
However, assuming that logic can't make its own version of reflexes isn't a good assumption.
It is logical that death is not preferrable in most conditions.
As a result, in a world void of emotions, reflexes will be created.
Another point to note is that, accidents are often a case of people not obeying traffic rules, which is in itself an illogical thing to do, so in a world void of emotions, accidents would be atleast 99% more unlikely to happen.
If you are familiar with any sort of creative work, like video and photo editing, or programming ,or 2d and 3d designing, you will know that there are multiple ways to get the same result.
Reflexes are such a case.
Existence of emotions isnt the only way for reflexes to exist.

Now, talking about depression.
You say that even after having depression, you know that some days, you just gotta persevere through.
Some days, its just about existing and not about being happy or sad at every little thing. And as someone who has had experience in this situation, I know what it feels like, even though maybe what I have been through or what someone I care has been through wouldnt have been as bad as your or someone else's situation
But i presume, you will agree, that when you were facing this situation, you must have thought about doing anything, no matter how bad, to get rid of it. Some people do it by commiting suicide, but some like us, dont have the courage do it and hope that somehow it sorts out itself.
So, if I were to ask you this same question back then, i can guarantee or atleast make a good guess, that you will have agreed with me, and wanted a world without pain and suffering, even if it meant that you cant be happy either. Anything to ease the pain going through your heart, stabbing it a million times over and over.
Also, you yourself are stating that, some days are not exciting or happy to live through, yet you do.
So, why cant you do the same in a world void of emotions? Live it just because you have to as the only other choice is death.

Now, lets talk about violence.
This paragraph is simply just wrong, as you are only talking about one side of the coin.
You talked about how one emotion-less person can conclude that another emotion-less person doesnt not deserve to live.
But you didnt specify how it would happen, i.e. how someone will conclude such a thing.
If we look at it logically, in a world void of emotions, there would be no preferences.
No one would have a favourite color or a favourite taste or any sort of favouritism towards anything.
Meaning, everyone would share the same likes, same dislikes and uniqueness would cease to become a factor.
If there is no uniqueness and people are practically the same person, there would be nothing to disagree about and thus, nothing to conclude if someone is worth living or not, as by doing it they aren't just concluding such a thing about one person, but about the entire population.
So, with these in mind, we can assume that your statement has been proven wrong or atleast will not be considered as an absolute right, not unless my side of the statement can be proved otherwise.
Now, towards the next statement.
You say that violence is a good way to get things you need.
And there are already a lot of things disproving this statement.
For one, violence often requires more energy and time than just talking it out and using logic.
In a world void of emotions, people wouldnt do stuff that can decrease their energy and time unless its worth it.
Now for the seconds point, i would like to state what you said again, 'Violence is still an effective tool for getting things that you need.'
The only things someone would need in a world void of emotions is knowledge.
So, there would be no violence for land, money or any other sort of control of power, and there would be no reason for someone to keep knowledge for themselves and not share it, as it is a sign of greed.
So, I guess this statement has been disproved as well.

Now lets look at this - "I think it would severely hinder development from a child to an adult."
Like i have metioned before, if anything, it would help children to mature faster and spend more time gaining practical knowledge instead of learning how to control emotions and often supress them.

Also, from my message where i pointed out some topics of disccussion, i would like to bring out the 4th point again, as you might have missed that.
"4) Even if we consider that violence is possible without emotions, we still have ways to work with it. Just as we have a police force in our world, there would be a police force in a world void of emotions. There will be certain rules that descibe that any sort of killing or harming other is strictly not allowed."
So, we can be certain, that in a world void of emotions, there would still be law or atleast that there would be no need for one as there will be a guarantee that the rules will never be broken.

I know that you are trying to formulate arguments in a serious way, but I am puzzled about how you think we could ever reach the point of a world without emotions. I do believe that rationality is important, but I don't see how people going beyond emotions would work because they are based in the body itself. My own view is the best possibility is for people to have a fuller understanding of emotions.

Unfortunately, yes.
As beautiful as empathy is, it often requires a person to do something illogical.
So, it wouldn't exist in such a world.
Also, it wouldnt be requires either.
For example:- You see a person who is homeless, so you buy him food for a day.
This is a very kind act, and in the real life, i would certainly tell others to do the same.
However, in a world void of emotions, a person would try his/her/theirs best to earn money utilizing any skill they have, and wouldnt become homeless in the first place, or atleast wont be for a long time.
And suppose they become homeless and not have food for some time because of bad luck, they will nfortunately, just have to die.
Its not like this is a new thing though, as luck is as equal a factor in the real life as well.
Sometimes, people just get so unlucky that nothing can help them.

Both worlds have different ways to face bad luck,
In real life, people will help each other persevere, but also create a lot of situations where people will become homeless such as corruption.
In a world void of emotions, people will face it by not having such emotion-related things like corruption, and also, work together to find out how to reduce it, as the more people go homeless, the more bad it will be for existence of humanity as a whole.

That is where you understood me wrong sir.
I do not believe we could ever reach the point of a world without emotions.
I do not believe there will ever be a time, where people would be 100% happy or satisfied or peaceful with their lives.
I am just a mere human who tries to hide the pain of this world through a medium.
And this just happens to be my poison. (Poison meaning choice)
I just happen to love hypotheticals, no matter how impossible they seem, and make the most of it using logic.

If we were to logically think about how to improve real-life, i 99% agree with you.
(1% being my own personal beliefs)
I do believe if we want to make our current world a better place, which would still have suffering here and there still, would be to not eradicate or supress emotions, but to learn to understand them.
Learn to love yourself and others for what they are, not what you want them to be.
Learn to help others and teach them to help more.
We can form strength as unity but this strength will never be enough to 100% get rid of suffering.

I love this life (and also sometimes hate it), and I am thankful for it.
But, if i ever were given a choice, i wouldnt hesitate to ask for a world void of suffering, even if it is meant to be a world void of emotions.

In a world void of emotions, people will face it by not having such emotion-related things like corruption, and also, work together to find out how to reduce it, as the more people go homeless, the more bad it will be for existence of humanity as a whole. — Kinglord1090

Without empathy, people would be largely indifferent to suffering, so there isn't a reason why they would work together to reduce it.

Suppose you still like the idea of eliminating emotions, because you stated it relieves suffering. Your idea wouldn't exist in the world it would create.

I just want to remind everyone that, if i could choose a world void of suffering, which still has happiness, i would choose it.
We are not here to talk about the best case scenario.
We are here to talk about one of the worst, if not the absolute worst case scenario.

emotions facilitate cooperation.

this is their evolutionary purpose.

without them cooperation will not be as full, which will ultimately harm reproduction and survival

"Without empathy, people would be largely indifferent to suffering,"
Yes, that makes sense.

"so there isn't a reason why they would work together to reduce it."
This does not make sense.
You arent putting 2 and 2 together here, to get 4.
You are putting 2 and 1 together and assuming it makes 4.
You are assuming that empathy alone is/could be the reason for working together to reduce suffering.
I believe this to be incorrect.
Suffering leads to slowed development.
In a world void of emotions, development and research is everything.
So, in order to maximize development, suffering will have to be reduced.

I talked about this before in a different reply, so i will put the necessary words here, however, feel free to read the complete comment for more info.
"These 2 goals are- (can also be intepreted as 3)
1) Collect information and knowledge about the world.
2) Reproduce and pass on this information to the offsprings."
These 2 are the main goals for any living creature.
As a result, anything that can cause a block in this will be taken care of, even without emotions.
This has often been done with the help of evolution in real-life, as creatures before did not have emotions or logic which was as high level as of a human's.
For example:- Creatures used to live in water, however as living on land had more chances to gain knowledge and also reproduction, with the help of evolution, they stepped onto land, not because of curiosity, or because they were suffering, but because their life goals were more important to them.

With this info in mind, i guess its safe to say that even in a world void of emotions, it will be necessary to keep suffering as reduced as possible.

But, i like cold harsh truth and hypotheticals.
So, lets assume a different world, where people dont care about other people.
Emotions can still be a thing, exceot empathy, and logic can reside as well.
However, if there was to be a world where people dont care about other people, the cold harsh truth is that, people would not care about other's suffering, just as a lion doesnt care if a deer has to die for it to eat, and just as most humans in real-life dont care how animals feel as long as they taste great.
Please, note that this paragraph contains a hypothetical different from the current discussion and the words and opinions i stated in this, shouldnt be taken to justify something else for the actual discussion.

Again, like i said before,
Please do not assume stuff based on half truth.

Emotions aren't the only thing that facilitate co-operaion.
There are other factors at play as well.

Also, assuming that co-operation is required for survival (right now) is also an incorrect assumption.
Yes, it was highly necessary for survival in our past.
But, that was because humanity had no way of fighting lion and mammoths alone.
If we hadnt co-operated then, humanity could have had become extinct as a whole.
That doesnt justify that co-operation is still required.

The facts are that -
Co-operation is often required to fight a common enemy.
As long as there is a common enemy, there will be co-operation.
Emotions only play the role to facilitate them faster.

For example:-
There are 3 kingdoms.
Kingdom A and B are small kingdoms and have been fighting for land from each other.
Kingdom C is a fairly big kingdom which has a lot of military force, and can easily defeat the kingdoms one at a time, but not together.
Kingdom C announces to fight against both the kingdoms one by one, not realising that it cant defeat them if they work together.
Kingdom A and B have been enemies for centuries, and if emotions were the only factor for co-operation, then they would never agree to co-operate.
And this is not just a baseless assumption.
We can see that in history, this is how many countries lost.
Even now, (I am from India), India would never agree to work along with Pakistan no matter how big the problem gets. (The open minded, like myself will. But India, is full of people who care more about their so-called 'patriotism' then survival)
However, if we look at it through logic, we can easily assume that co-operation will happen.
And that Kingdoms A and B will be fight C together, and then continue their personal fights at a later time, if still deemed necessary.

This example beautifully shows how logic can facilitate co-operation when emotions say otherwise.

i never said emotions are needed for cooperation, or that cooperation is needed for survival.

i said they help facilitate it and without them cooperation wont be as full

you dont need cooperation to survive. you can go on welfare and pirate media all day like me. but the only reason someone can live like a parasite is because of the higher cooperation of others creating enough abundance to allow that to happen

"Without empathy, people would be largely indifferent to suffering,"
Yes, that makes sense. — Kinglord1090

You are assuming that empathy alone is/could be the reason for working together to reduce suffering.
I believe this to be incorrect.
Suffering leads to slowed development.
In a world void of emotions, development and research is everything.
So, in order to maximize development, suffering will have to be reduced. — Kinglord1090

So, your position is that even though emotional interest in suffering is greatly reduced; the drive to optimize will motivate people to relieve it. I'm not sure I agree, but it is a coherent idea. Predicting the effect of altering major variables in a macro structure is uncertain in principle. Consider that evolution itself is a process of optimization. If emotions were not in our interest, then shouldn't they simply fade on their own? It's arguable people might lose the capacity for dialectic thought if emotions are eliminated.

We are composed of basically two minds that argue. One handles the survival emotions and the other the connection to the world emotions. Eliminating emotions would nullify half of the nervous system and seemingly undermine the conflict that drives human intelligence.

Well, if you are just saying that emotions help facilitate co-operation in real-life, you are absolutely correct.
But that doesnt justify your claim that without them co-operation wont be as full.

Like, I have said or meant to say before, emotions are an incomplete version of logic itself.
As a result, they can help people develop faster.
However, this comes at a price.
Emotions also leads to stoppage or decrease development in many cases.
This is why even most people here agree that emotions should be controlled and that people should have logic as well along with emotions.
So that, humanity can have the speed of development gained with emotions as well as accuracy gained from logic.

My argument on this is that, if we get rid of emotions, we might not have development at such a great speed, but we will have good accuracy of what should happen.

For your last argument, i cant really say something against it, as you are already doing that for yourself.
You are literally just saying that you can pirate something, i.e. break rules just because others allow you to do that.
I am pretty sure that no one wants a world where there are no rules or where breaking is ok.
By your logic, its ok to kill someone as long as no one tried their best protecting them.
Thats just not an argument anymore.

emotions are more important than logic

and power is more important then emotions

if you have power you dont need anything else. you dont need truth, logic, morality, friends, nothing. you can use your power to get everything. nothing is more important than power.

second comes emotions. an idiot with close foamily and friends will succeed better then a genius without.

So, your position is that even though emotional interest in suffering is greatly reduced; the drive to optimize will motivate people to relieve it. I'm not sure I agree, but it is a coherent idea. — Cheshire

Yes, that is my position.
It is ok if you don't agree with it.
This is just a hypothetical, and it's fine if we have different opinions on something.
I am fine as long as you agree that it is logical, as thinking about it logically is all i care about.
I am not here to change someone's views and opinions, only to listen to them and share mine.

Predicting the effect of altering major variables in a macro structure is uncertain in principle. — Cheshire

But isn't that the point of hypotheticals?
Imagining a situatuion and altering major variables with its macro structure and then trying to predict/imagine the effect using logic and moral explanations.

Consider that evolution itself is a process of optimization. If emotions were not in our interest, then shouldn't simply fade on their own? — Cheshire

Evolutions is a process of optimization, for it werent we would still have un-opposoble thumbs and tails.
Emotions are not in our interest, and thus it is reducing and fading away.
We have proof for it.
https://religionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Religiosity-Graph1.png
Sure, you can make the argument that religion and emotions aren't the same, but you cant disagree that religion consists 99% of emotions.
Fear of death, fear of not being cared about, guilt, faith, all these are related to religion.
So, if religion isn't taking care of them, what is?
Simple answer, logic.
Humans used to believe all natural occurences like thunder, volcanic eruptions, rain, seasons, stars, moon, etc were made and/or controlled by God or a similar higher being because they didn't have logic or more precisely, knowledge of these things.
As soon as science and logic began to explain these phenomenons, these emotions of fear against them decreased and in turn, religiousness and belief in God reduced within the people.
So, we do have evidence for emotions fading away as we don't require it anymore.

It's arguable people might lose the capacity for dialectic thought if emotions are eliminated. — Cheshire

Yes, that is a good point.
However, like I said before, I believe, for the capacity of dialectic thought that humanity will lose, it will also gain accuracy so as to not need so much capacity.

Eliminating emotions would nullify half of the nervous system and seemingly undermine the conflict that drives human intelligence. — Cheshire

Wouldn't nullifying half of the nervous system mean there would be more space for logic itself.
For example, if we had a hard disk which contained 50gb of emotions and 50gb of logic, and we deleted emotions, we will now have 50gb more space for more logic to be added.
Also, again, like I have said above, I believe for every type of emotional stuff we decrease within the human mind, we will be able to get more accurate solutions to problems using logic.

I am sorry, but if you cant show evidence or explain your claims, it cant mean anything to people who respect philosophy.

emotions are more important than logic — MikeListeral

So, we should just mindlessly go around killing people and not use logic?
Since, clearly thats what you are trying to say.

and power is more important then emotions — MikeListeral

Ok, so, if I come to kill you and take your money, its ok to do so?
Since, power is the most important, shouldn't me and everyone else try to kill each other in order to be the most powerful and end up dooming humanity?

second comes emotions. an idiot with close foamily and — MikeListeral

an idiot with close foamily and friends will succeed better then a genius without. — MikeListeral

Oh yes, of course, the power of friendship is stronger than an atomic bomb.

Power cant mean anything unless logic and/or emotions deem them to be.
If people stop caring about money, the richest person in the world would be equal to a homeless person.

I wanna thank everyone for participating and being active so far.
I have enjoyed a lot and learned a lot from these discussions.
Many of the replies here have opened my eyes and helped shape some of my views on certain topics, those topics being related to real-life philosophy and not this hypothetical.
I still strongly believe that a world void of emotions would be pretty peaceful and that emotions are unnecessary to achieve the same goals as the ones in this hypothetical.
Feel free to continue on this discussion, or not, if you dont want to.
Its completely fine if you choose either.
If no comments are posted for a few days, I will un-officially end this discussion by giving it a conclusion.
However, anyone interested will still be able to comment and clear any doubts/queries they might have.

This discussion has been on the top page of the website ever since it was created, that is, for a duration of 3 days, because it has been getting a lot of traction, probably because of it being kind of a sensitive topic as well as sounding illogical (ironically) at first.
It has gained 135 comments + 1 (This one) in just 3 days.
It is really an amazing feat, and I am very impressed by myself as well as everyone here.
So, good job everyone.

Keep doing what you do, and who knows, maybe I will come up with an even more illogical sounding logical argument in the future, and i hope most of you will be there to witness it.

If people stop caring about money, the richest person in the world would be equal to a homeless person. — Kinglord1090

you dont need money if you have power

you can just take whatever you want

So, you are not gonna deny the other claims that it is ok to kill someone for power?

Like i said before, power isnt something that exists as one thing.
Power refers to either money, political power, strength, or some such attribute.
If people stop believing or needing the attribute, the power will dissolve as well.

This is why democracy exists.
If every person in the country is given the same amount of control over the government, then a higher power cannot exist, and thus, no dictatorship shall prevail.
This is literally just a fact, so if you try to talk your way against it, you would be talking your way out of reason.

it is ok to kill someone for power? — Kinglord1090

if killing someone brings me more power in the short and long term then i will do it

because power is the most important thing

i will sacrifice emotions and logic both for power

and it wont matter if its ok or not ok. because i will have more power.

this is the importance of power.

Ok, and by the same logic, if anyone wants to kill you for power, its totally fine.

Ok, and by the same logic, if anyone wants to kill you for power, its totally fine. — Kinglord1090

happens everyday and everywhere in this entire universe

so get used to it.

Ok.
You can have your belief and I can have mine.

You can have your belief and I can have mine. — Kinglord1090

sounds like a typical statement a powerless person makes to appease a more powerful person

haha

too scared to fight

now you see the omnipotence of power

and omni-importance

Well, since you aren't helping with the discussion, I guess I don't need to reply to your messages anymore.

go wrestle a grizzly bear and u will quickly find out that power is more important then intelligence

covid is stupid and it killed millions of intelligent beings

I am going to take example from life that existed before us, ones which existed without emotions, namely micro-organisms.
Ever since they are created, they only have 2 goals, these goals are the 2 most fundamental goals of life which can also be intepreted as the only logical meaning to life.
These 2 goals are- (can also be intepreted as 3)
1) Collect information and knowledge about the world.
2) Reproduce and pass on this information to the offsprings.
The reason these goals exist is because of mortality — Kinglord1090

There is a psychologist who argues that humans are motivated by knowledge. That is, we strive to make sense of our world, that each of us is like a naive scientist, and we are constantly devising hypothesizes and putting those hypotheses to the test. Let me bring this back to our hypothetical of a world
without emotions. I think we can agree that in this hypothetical people would still possess all the other mental capabilities: memory and learning , perceptual and cognitive abilities , and as you said, the sense of physical pain. We also would be goal-oriented, but we would be motives toward knowledge goals rather than emotions ones. Let me now elaborate on this model: as part our our desire to know, to predict events in our world and anticipate what will happen next, we would be driven toward friendship and social relations, because the world is a more interesting , intellectually challenging place when we interact with others , share information and ideas with others.

Now, since we would find others to be valuable to us in furthering our goals of understanding our world , we would be motivated to protect our friendships. We would als suffer from the loss of those friendships. Of course , it wouldn’t be an ‘emotional’ loss , but it would still be the experience of loss. So we would have all sorts and varieties of experiences of loss and gain of access to knowledge. This psychologist describes a few of these scenarios. For instance , he describes the anticipation of events that lie outside the range our our construct system He also describes the experience of being dislodged from ones core role. That is , we always have an understanding of what role we play with respect to other people in our lives , and there are times when our ideas and understanding change enough that our role changes with respect to these persons. We may become confused about where we stand , or disappointed that we aren’t fulfilling our obligations to them. Then there is the scenario where someone lets us down, falls short of our expectations of them and we react by trying to get them to do what we believe they should have done in the first place.

The reason I’m describing these scenarios to you is that these are the psychologist’s definitions of emotion. The three scenarios depict anxiety, guilt and hostility. He radically rethinks the usual definition of emotion as some sort of juice or energy. Instead, emotion to him is simply the scenarios that we find ourselves in where our access to knowledge is threatened, where we find ourselves in chaotic and puzzling circumstances that don’t make sense to us. I think you would probably want to argue that emotion as you see it is this juice or energy that comes over us and interferes with our ability to achieve understanding, but this psychologist’s view is that striving rationally to achieve gain of knowledge and prevent loss of understanding , and anticipation of situations that may pose a threat to such goals , is precisely what emotion is.

Dear ole Pascal correctly noted, "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart", which is supported by science (for all ya science worshipers).

But it's more like common sense.

I am fine as long as you agree that it is logical, as thinking about it logically is all i care about. — Kinglord1090

I agree it's logical. You've placed optimization as a reason for ending suffering in an world without human emotions. One could debate the matter.

But isn't that the point of hypotheticals? Imagining a situatuion and altering major variables with its macro structure and then trying to predict/imagine the effect using logic and moral explanations. — Kinglord1090

Actually not so much in this context; hypotheticals are used to illustrate a type of thing one might actually come across. By selecting one of such a massive scale there are plenty of directions that could be imagined, but ultimately it will be difficult to maintain a point of view with any justified confidence. It's the right idea just a very broad application in a semantically sensitive environment.

So, if religion isn't taking care of them, what is? Simple answer, logic. — Kinglord1090

In actuality theology employs the same logical process but starts with some major assumptions. I don't think it's entirely accurate to portray religion as an activity of pure emotion. Drug addiction, perhaps.

Wouldn't nullifying half of the nervous system mean there would be more space for logic itself.
For example, if we had a hard disk which contained 50gb of emotions and 50gb of logic, and we deleted emotions, we will now have 50gb more space for more logic to be added. — Kinglord1090

Let me think about it.

What do you mean why is it logical to preserve resources?
The more resources we have, the better we will perform, and the btter we perform the better we will be able to help humanity.
Helping humanity has nothing to do with emotions, btw.
As humans, we only have 2 goals in life, and both goals are scientifically proven to be void of emotions. — Kinglord1090

It is our emotions that compel us to help humanity. Why would it be logical for us to help humanity as opposed to just our self in a post emotion world?

And no, in a world void of emotions, there would be no need for killing per say, disabled people.
Because they no one will be against them, nor with them.
If even after being diabled, they find a way to earn money, (without breaking any rules), people wouldnt care. — Kinglord1090

Would we leave the disabled that cannot work to die, or give them financial assistance? If the latter, what logical reason is there for doing so?