Perhaps a better way to look at the 'appropriate' description of an emotion is to interpret it as meaning that an 'inappropriate' emotion is one that it is better not to have, and that it is worth working to eliminate.

Any emotion (perhaps with a very small number of exceptions) can be appropriate in the right context. This world contains far too much fear, greed and anger, most of which we would be better to work to eliminate, but there can be rare circumstances when those emotions are helpful.

So what society tells you about your emotions is irrelevant. In contrast, what a skilled counsellor tells you will usually be well worth paying attention to.

Take the example of the exam. A little bit of anxiety about an exam is helpful, as it motivates one to study and to make sure one gets to the exam on time and with the proper equipment. But a large amount of anxiety is harmful because it can prevent one from concentrating, maybe even make one ill.

With the exam results, a certain amount of disappointment from the student who gets a B despite expecting an A is appropriate, as it will motivate them to work out what they did wrong and strive to do better next time. But a large amount of disappointment is 'catastrophising' and will cause an unhelpfully bitter and gloomy approach to life - maybe even to giving up on the course altogether.

Even grief and rage can be helpful emotions in the right context. Grief is part of the necessarily painful process of transitioning to a new life without the one one has loved and lost.

The word 'appropriate' works for me, but I can see that it has the possibility of conveying the idea of being judged by others, which is absolutely not the point of CBT. If that baggage causes problems, you could try using the words 'helpful' and 'harmful' instead, to identify which emotions to accept and which ones to work to eliminate.

As someone with a CBT background, you should immediately recognize that you're professing a very binary or black and white type of thinking here, where one must always be exactly at the norm to feel sane.

Philosophy is a twisted mess so far as emotion is concerned. It hasn't been able to define what happiness is (yet). Also it considers most emotions (anger, sorrow, pity, hate, etc) as impediments rather than conducive factors in their quest (whatever that is).

I very likely have Aspergers and that is associated with worrying and catastrophizing and fixating etc. (Awaiting assessment but score highly and have lot of the traits)

However at the same time I was bullied badly in childhood and brought up in a hell and damnation religion.

So I had very real reasons to feel anxious in childhood (and the religion was very black and white). Part of my problem with the religion is that I tried to (or had to) take it seriously so if someone said "Billions of people are going to to hell" I took that seriously and that is part of the reason I left because people in the church made all these grotesque statements but did not respond appropriately.

The problem I have an adult is just feeling a general anxiety or dread that I think comes from childhood.

Having had such a long experience of abuse and being exposed to religious fanaticism etc is real evidence these things exist even if they are not happening now. So the fear seems rational. How can i alter or delete memories I wonder.

Perhaps a better way to look at the 'appropriate' description of an emotion is to interpret it as meaning that an 'inappropriate' emotion is one that it is better not to have, and that it is worth working to eliminate — andrewk

You could just eliminate all negative emotions (I am not opposed to that).

The problem is however that emotions seem to tell us what is likely to be right or wrong. So it would be like eliminating pain in the way congenital pain defect does. But people with pain defect are likely to seriously injure themselves and die younger because they can't tell what harm they are doing to their bodies.


Maybe anxiety and other negative emotions are telling us something really is wrong and the change might need happen somewhere else other than in the individual.

The conundrum is how we know if something is appropriate if we rely on emotions for motivation but they do not lawfully link with events.

In terms of the subjective value of exam results. Someone's own network of experiences,values and beliefs can make their emotional response coherent when objectively it doesn't appear that way. There are so many experiences as memories and beliefs an individual can have to navigate and not just what is immediately happening. (What influence should past experiences have on emotions?)

I suffer from chronic anxiety and am nearing the end of twelve sessions of CBT. — Andrew4Handel

Have you asked these questions of your Therapist? If not, I would recommend that you do. If so, and you're not satisfied with his/her answers, I would recommend seeking a second opinion from another healthcare professional (rather than from an online forum). Advice is usually worth what it costs.

Because you are supposedly under the care of a therapist, you say you are in ill health, and I don't know you, I'm not inclined to address these questions, even on a speculative basis (all the while wishing you good health in future).

The conundrum is how we know if something is appropriate if we rely on emotions for motivation but they do not lawfully link with events. — Andrew4Handel

Emotions are effects on the organism caused by one's environment, actions, or thoughts. I suppose some emotions can be evaluated as "inappropriate" in case they cause unnecessary trouble, or are very painful, for instance. That's how we would know.

I don't think my therapist wants to engage in a philosophical discussion about the nature of emotions and she tries to stop me going down this type of route. It was helpful when she discussed how the amygdala and hippocampus may interact and that these areas can be altered.

I can see how past experiences probably shape current responses (but I haven't seen a brain scan to prove it in me).

CBT seems okay in the case of mildly or wildly irrational beliefs but when it comes to more complex mental states formed over a long period it seems much weaker.

What I am concerned with here is the whole paradigm of mental states being appropriate or inappropriate etc.

For example I grew up being told about hell
and it seems to me that if you believed in a hell and that you or lots of other people could end up there anxiety seems most appropriate (if not terror) but then if you get upset and or have a nervous breakdown you are seen as mad. I am concerned that society itself is chronically dysfunctional but a societal failure to behave emotionally appropriately to beliefs is making vulnerable outsiders carry the burden of anxiety.

Emotions are effects on the organism caused by one's environment, actions, or thoughts. — jkop

Fight or flight response is a widely cited paradigm. Animals seem to function under stress and they have shown that animals in captivity can be no more stressed or even less stressed than animals in the wild.

I am not certain what emotions we can attribute to animals but I think in humans they have become
(unhelpfully? entangled with intelligent (higher) cognitions

Philosophy is a twisted mess so far as emotion is concerned. — TheMadFool

Yes. I feel the analysis of emotions has been confusing and lacking in definitions.

There is increasing evidence that emotions are necessary for rationality and motivation which I think is problematic for notions of rationality (as in opposition to emotion). And therefore I think studying emotions is crucial for social and psychological analysis as it makes them key players in dynamics as opposed to being secondary symptoms or instinctual responses to stimuli.

I am very Freudian about emotions and I think they subconsciously and unconsciously motivate people whilst people give different justifications for their behaviour or values.

For what it's worth I'd point out that when it comes to emotions and life in general, the Buddhist middle path notion seems apt.

One must strike a balance between extremes - according to the Buddha it's the happiest place to be.

I am not sure how much of my anxiety is attached to or arises from thoughts. — Andrew4Handel

Our experiences in life (for better and for worse) bring us to the place we are now, whatever that is.

Humans have many intellectual facilities, and our emotions and intellectual functions are literally plugged into each other. There are neural connections between the pre-frontal cortex that does the heavy lifting of thinking and the limbic system that manages emotion (and other functions like long-term memory). There is heavy traffic back and forth between these two areas.

Thinking and emotions are not two separate functions; they proceed together. They interact all the time.

We all learn responses to experiences that we might wish we had not learned. "Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a short-term, goal-oriented psychotherapy treatment that takes a hands-on, practical approach to problem-solving. Its goal is to change patterns of thinking or behavior that are behind people's difficulties, and so change the way they feel."

12 weeks worth of psychotherapy with CBT or any other therapy isn't going to result in miracles. Take what you learned and continue applying it in your life as time goes on. One routine that some people find helpful is imagining your self as you'd like to be in specific situations. For instance, if you feel anxious when you go into a crowded store (this is just an example) try a little day dreaming. Imagine yourself going into a crowded store and feeling calm. Do this several times a day. When you are about to go into a grocery store, remember the daydream and (as well as you can) act as if you are calm and relaxed. (This isn't magic either, but it can help.)

William James (died in 1910) was a doctor and pragmatic philosopher who contributed a lot to the field of psychology. One of his insights was: "The way in which we act affects the way we feel. If we act fearfully, we will feel more fearful. If we act as if we are happy, we will tend to feel a little happier."

So, along with self-guided daydreaming, try a little self-guided acting. Act-as-if... you felt the way you wanted to feel.

Will this actually help? I don't know -- but it's free, safe, and effective when used as directed.

"Billions of people are going to to hell" — Andrew4Handel

Some religious people seem to be more interested in the number of people they can condemn to hell than the number of people they can send to heaven. I don't know how people manage to twist themselves into this sort of crooked religion.

Sorry you had that experience. Millions of people have had pretty negative scenes in church. Same goes for bullying in school.

One of the things we have to do is accept that these things happened, acknowledge that they affect us even now, and that we can learn to live better, happier, healthier lives as we go along.

What I am concerned with here is the whole paradigm of mental states being appropriate or inappropriate etc. — Andrew4Handel

Doing my best to be charitable to what on the face of it seems a nonsense, I interpret this to mean that one's feelings might not be 'appropriate' to present circumstances, but rather a reawakened response to earlier traumatic experiences. So the veteran with PTSD responds to ambient noise or sudden movements as if he is still on the battlefield; he feels the stress, the aggression, the fear, that was appropriate, when the danger is long passed.

In this sense, is is quite possible that your anxiety has its appropriate place in your childhood, and when you consider things, you have nothing seriously to worry about now.

What I don't understand is how people can claim people are going to hell but not be (drastically) emotionally affected by this thought. It makes me question how committed they actually are to this claim. And why do people think hell is a reasonable proposition in the first place?

I said to my parents after I left the church I grew up in something like, if you think people are going to hell why aren't you out in the streets yelling at people and knocking frantically at doors (rather than just repeating useless religious rituals)?

There is evidence for depressive realism where moderately depressed people make better judgements than happy people. So it seems like happiness is more irrational than negative emotions. Also anger and sadness can cause social change for the better such as outrage against slavery etc.

I feel that there must be some rational link between some emotions and judgements. Otherwise our values seem to stem from brute feelings rather than reason. And reason alone does not tell us what we ought to do.

If you have 7 apples and 3 friends, mathematically you know they can't be shared equally but the discrepancy will be no big deal. But I think merely pointing out numerically based inequalities doesn't have emotional force. And this is probably why single cases of suffering can have a bigger effect than mass suffering on the public conscience. It is like people values become to abstract and detached from real peoples lived experience just by hearing figures.

For what it's worth I'd point out that when it comes to emotions and life in general, the Buddhist middle path notion seems apt.

One must strike a balance between extremes - according to the Buddha it's the happiest place to be. — TheMadFool

I like the sound of this and I'll look into it thanks.

The extremes seem like popular places. I am agnostic about a lot of things but I don't feel there is much of this perspective in the media. I think emotions are utilised to sway opinion and as a form of censorship in a divisive way.... Or maybe emotions are just aroused and run out of control.

Doing my best to be charitable to what on the face of it seems a nonsense, I interpret this to mean that one's feelings might not be 'appropriate' to present circumstances, — unenlightened

What don't you understand here? Are you saying that there is no notion of appropriate mental states?

Mental states that might be challenged would include, beliefs, emotional reactions, false memories and memories per se, values, prejudices, constructs and theories and so on.

If you have 7 apples and 3 friends, mathematically you know they can't be shared equally but the discrepancy will be no big deal. But I think merely pointing out numerically based inequalities doesn't have emotional force. — Andrew4Handel

Of course you can share the apples equally. There is you and your three friends. 4 people total. Cut each apple into four pieces, each get 7 pieces. Dividing the 7 apples into 28 pieces of numerical equality doesn't have much emotional force either, but at least one can stop dithering over too many friends or not enough apples.

I went to a philosophy meet up and we were discussing Artificial intelligence and I was asking how A.I. could make moral judgements and similar decisions.

The topic of self driving cars was discussed at length. Would the car steer into 3 elderly persons to avoid killing a toddler? What kind of judgements could A.I. make and what would be its motivations?

Buddha — TheMadFool

As Buddha lay dying, his disciples gathered around him, lamenting that his body was decaying, he was dying, and that he would soon no longer be with them. He said, "Decay and death are inherent to all compounding beings. Therefore, press on with diligence."

This has always struck me as good advice. There is nothing we can do about decay, death, and the sorrow of losing loved ones. Therefore, we have to get on with living.

Like all good advice, this is easier said then done. That will be $100. Pay the lady at the window on your way out the door.

For instance, if you feel anxious when you go into a crowded store (this is just an example) try a little day dreaming. Imagine yourself going into a crowded store and feeling calm. — Bitter Crank

I will try this thanks because I suffer from this problem with crowded stores.

Being philosophically minded I find I can over critique these methods when I am trying to us them. I tend to feel my anxieties are rational. But I am not opposed to trying things, I just struggle to get into a positive headspace or body state.

It is a vicious cycle sometimes and you resent having to try so hard to function lol.

The topic of self driving cars was discussed at length. Would the car steer into 3 elderly persons to avoid killing a toddler? What kind of judgements could A.I. make and what would be its motivations? — Andrew4Handel

Good question. This is actually going to happen at some point, not very far into the future. The AI in the car won't be capable of making a moral decision. It may run over both the 3 old folks and the toddler, and it won't care--it can't care. What matters is the morality of the AI producer, the AI-driven car owner, and the people who write and enforce laws.

The designers of the AI have to decide how their creation is going to operate and make logical decisions. If the logic instructions say, "IF running over somebody can not be avoided, THEN run over the fewest number" the toddler get's killed. If the logic instructions say, "IF running over somebody can not be avoided, THEN run over those who have lived the longest" THEN the old folks get killed. If the instructions say, "IF running over somebody can not be avoided, THEN instant self destruction" and the owner get's killed. If the instructions say, "IF running over somebody can not be avoided, then terminate senior company officers instantly" and those responsible for the AI die.

It seems like the designers should pay the ultimately price, then the owner of the vehicle. I don't see why anybody should get run over by an AI, and I don't see why the designers shouldn't suffer the consequences if someone is run over by an AI.

Being philosophically minded I find I can over critique these methods when I am trying to us them. I tend to feel my anxieties are rational. But I am not opposed to trying things, I just struggle to get into a positive headspace or body state — Andrew4Handel

Of course you can over-critique any solution offered. So can I. Quibble, quibble, quibble. IF you can make a technique work for you -- even if you can see minor flaws in it -- then try it. Some people wear crucifixes to ward off vampires. My guess is that crucifixes made in China stopped working on vampires years ago, but if it helps people get through the day (and the night even more so) then it's worth trying.

Personally, I eat lots of garlic and never open strange caskets in dark basements.

and I don't see why the designers shouldn't suffer the consequences if someone is run over by an AI. — Bitter Crank

I think the problem is intention. Apparently people have already been killed by self driving cars. But I think the problem is attributing a genuine intention behind the accident.

it reminds of the film series "Cube" from Canada where people are being tortured inside a cube shaped maze. They try to find out who is behind the set up but it turns out no one is and it is just out of control bureaucracy.

What don't you understand here? — Andrew4Handel

I can quite see that beliefs and memories can be false, and thus 'inappropriate', but at first glance, how i feel about things is not capable of being false. If I don't like Star Wars, it might be unusual, but to call it inappropriate seems like a category error. My belief that it is the work of the devil can be challenged, and my memory that the doctor is sexist in it can be challenged, and that might change how I feel, but if I have my facts straight, it does not seem that my feelings are the sort of thing that can be 'wrong'.

The problems is whether or not the quibbles or responses to a suggestion are rational. I suppose this is the dilemma of seeing whether a response is rational or emotional and how important the response is.

Should someone cut of contact with a family member who has hurt them because of the emotional hurt or should they be pragmatic and keep ties?

but at first glance, how i feel about things is not capable of being false. — unenlightened

It might be that you mistake a bush for a bear in the dark and have a surge of anxiety so the feeling is inappropriate because it was caused by a misjudgement.

If the emotion is claimed to be caused by a judgement, as is one theory, then the validity of the emotion would be linked to the validity of the judgement.

The hope for CBT I guess is that your emotions will fall more in line with reality. But that is why I am questioning here what might be an appropriate emotional respone to a judgement.

For example the fear of death. Some people say you shouldn't fear it because there is nothing to fear as you will cease to exist and can't therefore cannot experience the badness of death others might say don't fear it because there is a good afterlife awaiting us. The fear might fluctuate based on your current beliefs. I think death is a problem because we don't know what happens until we are dying so anything else is speculation. We are fearing a future unknown. I suffer from that fear of the unknown and wondering what might happen from an array of possibilities.

I don't think emotions can necessarily be severed from judgements in all cases, so that they have nothing but bodily causes. Perceiving something as a threat requires external stimuli and an interpretation. Fireworks might frighten someone who may perceive them as gunfire.

"IF running over somebody can not be avoided, THEN run over the fewest number" — Bitter Crank

This is where I see human judgement as being influenced by emotion. I think utilitarianism suffers from its statistical analysis where the individual is subsumed in calculations and at the danger of an individual's value being extinguished.
The classic thought experiment is whether or not we should kill one healthy person to give his or her organs to 5 people who urgently need organ transplants but almost no one thinks this is appropriate.

Should someone cut of contact with a family member who as hurt them because of the emotional hurt or should they be pragmatic and keep ties? — Andrew4Handel

How is approaching the situation of being hurt by a family member pragmatic if the practical outcome is to get hurt? Relative to the circumstances, it is emotional to take a pragmatic approach and keep ties since it appears unreasonable to believe that as they are family then somehow they are allowed to behave in an unwarranted manner comparable to others unrelated to you; it is also irrational to assume that rational reciprocity is unnecessary and only you require the elevated capacity of dealing with whatever it is that is hurting you.

I would agree there are emotional reasons for keeping ties with family. The pragmatism is in weighing up the costs and benefits. I suppose the emotional reasons are predominant. That is unfortunate because it is an emotional minefield. It seems family ties are the most emotionally driven.

A safety behaviour is to take the route of least hassle. I suppose it is a form of apathy. I am not sure what pragmatism is when applied to a scenario.