could you please explain more. I think you are perhaps referring to a person’s judgement of their emotions? — 0 thru 9
As far as your question about what cognition would be like if emotions were removed is important because it raises the issue of artificial intelligence and robots. It is connected to the issue of sentience, because it is central to having an organic body. A computer doesn't cry, is not sensitive about what anyone says about it and doesn't experience sexual attraction — Jack Cummins
Many people who favour artificial intelligence see the absence of emotions as an advantage, for making rational or clinical judgments. Nevertheless, the contrasting argument is how this may lead to an absence of empathy and the ability to feel compassion — Jack Cummins
I want to be biased - in favour of kindness in favour of care, and small birds, and this and that, tasty food, good music. I want to be angry when children die needlessly, I want to cry at all the terrible things humans do, and cry again for joy at all the beautiful things they do. I don't want to be some super chat robot. — unenlightened
I guess one way in which I could phrase a specific question would be what are emotions made of? — Jack Cummins
Are these not just modes of touch? The sensations are all physically derived. If not, how do you separate 'touch' from these? — AmadeusD
Personally I view emotions as akin to the other senses. In my count, there are 7 senses: the 5 traditional senses, the bodily sensations (pain, pleasure, heat, thirst, etc), and emotions. Notice that each is a phenomenal dimension orthogonal to all the others: content in one is incommunicable in terms of content in another. — hypericin
Something I've noticed is that there is almost no reference to 'emotions' in classical texts, whereas there are very frequent references to 'the passions'. You will know if you read Stoic literature, that 'the passions' are something to be subdued, and that 'subduing the passions' is one of the marks of wisdom. I don't think they're praising callousness or mere indifference to suffering, but the ability to rise above feelings, emotions and moods. 'Constancy of temperament' was a highly prized virtue in the classics (reflected in the name 'Constance'). — Wayfarer
Yes it is interesting that ancient texts refer to passions as opposed to emotions. It may be because the chemical basis was not fully understood. Even more recently, Robert Burton's 'The Anatomy of Melancholy' considered melancholy as connected with humors. — Jack Cummins
Yes, this is what a modern such as Spinoza means by affects – 'passions', or passive reaction – which is the focus in two sections of his Ethics: III. — 180 Proof
Actually, I wish to get hold of a copy of Damasio's 'Looking for Spinoza'. — Jack Cummins
Yes, I am inclined to think that mastery of emotions can be learned but is a rare achievement, such as the consciousness of monks and for spiritual masters. For most of us, behaviour is hard enough to control fully, which may be due to emotions, and mastery of the actual emotions is so much more difficult. — Jack Cummins
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.