None of them were racist, btw. — frank

How could they be racist when they didn’t have the biological concept of race?

when you look at your average behavior, it doesn’t involve rational choice and isn’t deliberative. — Xtrix

General Gendlin would say it’s ‘implicative’, which is a more intricate notion and ordered notion than rational deliberation.

If you haven’t read it, you might enjoy Lisa Feldman Barrett’s ‘How Emotions are Made’.

↪Joshs You are confusing the issue .

Your boss barks at you, "think about tomorrows meeting!". You can obey if you choose, because you have at least has a high degree of voluntary control over your thoughts.

Your boss barks, "now be happy!". While you might be so already, you generally cannot choose to obey this command, since emotional state is generally involuntary. — hypericin

CBT, cogntive behavioral therapy, is based on the theory that emotions are the result of cognitve
attributions that we make. To change our emotions , we must change those assessments. But such a change will only be effective if the new assessment more accurately corresponds to our situation than the old assessment . To find this out, we have to test out the new assessment to see if it is valid. happiness and sadness , as opposed to a momentary feeling , are stable moods which reflect the way we are thinking about our situation. So the reason emotion is resistant to change is the same reason that our cognitive assessments are resistant to
change.

So you can choose to think or not think i about tomorrow’s meeting, but you can’t choose your attitude toward the meeting , that is, your assessment of the import and value of the meeting.

But even in saying this much about the choice to think something, we are already presupposing that one is motivated to think a thought. We say that to be voluntary, a thought must come when we want it to come.
But wanting something implies desire, which is an affective process. We want , we need, we desire , we strive , which tells us what to choose. So what we choose is at the mercy of , is controlled and dictated by, what we desire. If your boss says “choose to desire to think about tomorrow’s meeting” , you could no more
comply with this demand that you could choose to be happy on command.

Freud recognized this fact about rationality being at the behest of drives and feelings.

I should also add that the boss telling you to think about tomorrow’s meeting is like him telling you to ignore the pink elephant in the room. The instant he mentions the meeting, you automatically produce an image of the meeting, before you have a chance to resist. This is how language works. The language we share with a community chooses for us every time we interact with others, just as our desires choose for us from below. This doesn’t mean we are completely determined from culture and the body , it just means that these five us our direction and expectations. Voluntary thought doesn’t appear in a vacuum , it is always motivated.

This is utterly at odds with everyday experience. We can say to ourselves, "I will now think about tomorrow's meeting", and then think about tomorrow's meeting. We generally cannot say "I will now be happy" and be happy. — hypericin

Not as much as you might think. We don’t normally say to ourselves “I will now think about tomorrow’s meeting” unless we are sending ourselves a mental memo. Normally , the thought about the meeting pops into our head before we formally ‘decide’ to think about it. We only say we ‘ chose’ to decide after the fact. The thought thinks itself into our head. And this is t the whole story. Thoughts never just occur neutrally. They occur with some attitude. I think about tomorrow’s meeting with trepidation or nervousness , or with excitement. The attitude come over me wrapped up i the thought that comes to me.

As Nietzsche said:

“ As far as the superstitions of the logicians are concerned: I will not stop emphasizing a tiny little fact that these superstitious men are loath to admit: that a thought comes when “it” wants, and not when “I” want. It is, therefore, a falsification of the facts to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “think.” It thinks”

what we call emotion. is no more or less voluntary than thinking. A thought occurs TO is, we FIND OURSELVES thinking a thought. Only on reflecting back on what we thought do we declare it to be what we ‘wanted’ to think or a thought which surprised us. We tend to think of emotions in terms of being surprised or overcome( overwrought, overjoyed, overwhelmed, etc) but emotions are just more intense forms of the affectivity which is always part and parcel of thinking. Most of the time , our affective tone stays in the background as a more or less subtly modulating feeling(a feeling of boredom, interest , calmness, everydayness), but it is never purely voluntary, and neither is it ever purely alien to thought. Training for the increased ‘voluntariness’ of negative emotion is like training to be surprised.

It is definitely not intelligent to reach a racist conclusion. I said "weak-minded", which means that the person arriving at a racist conclusion is weak-minded, stupid, not using the intellect or rationality correctly. — Christoffer

Until about 150 years ago many, if not most, philosophers and scientists in Europe and the U.S. accepted as fact what we would now label as racist ideas. Was it because they were weak-minded, stupid and not rational? Or was it because ideas about many aspects of human nature evolve over long periods of time?

you’re no fun

The parties are no longer out to prove each other is correct rather deviated at the same logical point. So, objective or less bias whichever you prefer. — Cheshire

So a triangulation on an inter-subjectively negotiated point of intersection? Sounds very hermeneutic.

Subjective proof is pretty cheap in the world. Have you ever considered an objective argument where the goal is to discover what other fact or matter must also be in disagreement. It forces the process through a lateral flow of logic toward agreement regarding a disagreement. — Cheshire

Objective proof is an illusion, since the object must be interpreted via language and there is no intersubjective translation manual, so say Quine, Putnam, Sellers and Davidson and Rorty. For most limited practical
purposes within scientific and technical domains, such issues are hidden, and we can proceeds as though the object were identical for all to potentially see. but they become major obstacles in the social sciences and philosophy, where the subjective basis of all ‘objects’ becomes apparent .

I've neither stated nor implied a cause or mechanism for violence. — 180 Proof

You’re welcome to do so here. What do you mean by ‘natural’ when you say violence is natural and define us by species name?

Are you suggesting we prove the opposition doesn't understand what we are talking about well enough to assert we are wrong? Is this the course being navigated — Cheshire

Yes, we prove it to ourselves. Then we can stop wasting our time focusing on surface details of our model ( which is like arguing biblical verses without knowing through what perspective of faith the other is reading the bible ) and try and make its deeper plumbing understandable to the other.

H. sapien violence is natural (thus, the species-wide adaptation of eusocial risk-sharing). Racism, however, is ideological (and maladaptive in the long-term). — 180 Proof

Your thinking is awfully reductive. Either violence is a product of genes or of socially imposed forms. That doesn’t seem to be any room in your thinking for an interpretive interaction between person and world.
That makes your thinking violent , and not because of a one-way imposition from nature or nurture. It’s violent to the extent that it gives you no way to understand others’ thinking from their vantage in an empathetic way, only as a potentially malevolent arbitrary shaping , to which you will find you have no choice but to respond to with hostility.

We should never have split off emotions from intellect. They were never separate to begin with. Some psychologists and philosophers have done away with the distinction completely.

”That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone."
~Hillel the Elder — 180 Proof

Often that which is hateful to you defines the very essence of that which defines the thinking that goes beyond you.

Just about every innovation in social ideas was despised as immoral, dangerous, regressive , by the old guard.

Sometimes we are conflicted and at odds with oneself. Pl — Fooloso4

Being conflicted and at odds with oneself is another way of describing the idea that experience is becoming. Conventional ways of thinking about agency, subjectivity and the self make change derivative of self-present entities and objects.An object appears to a thinking, experiencing subject whose ‘self’ can be differentiated from what it experiences. Nietzsche spearheaded a revolution in thinking that places difference, change and becoming as prior to presence. This is the essence of Will to Power. Being at odds with oneself simply IS what the self is.

Even if the position is incoherent, it should at least have a faux-coherency that they can express. There is going to be a reason they believe, even if it's not good, you should be able to see how they got tricked and why the trick has a convincing allure. If they won't bother to be flexible enough to grasp where the other is coming from, then they lose, and the audience or moderator can vote on this. Of course a close minded person won't admit it — Yohan

I’m not talking about when the other person’s position really is incoherent. I’m saying when we disagree with someone’s point of view, it is often because the worldview grounding that position is incomprehensible to us. We then have no choice e to see it as either an outdated version of our own position or incoherent.

Good lord, why does everyone miss the absolutely most central feature of differences in scientific theories, political positions , ethical schemes? You make a colossal mistake in not recognizing that grasping where the other is coming from is the single most difficult thing to do. 99% of the threads on this form concerning racism, gender politics, rationality vs irrationality , logic vs emotion , morality in general and scientific progress would not exist if people realized the monumental difficulty of seeing the world from another person’s perspective rather than impugning the other’s motives ( they’re lazy, deliberately misreading my position , ‘not bothering to be flexible’, ‘close-minded’, racist, emotional, irrational, indoctrinated , lying , etc ). The reason foe the enormous difficulty in achieving this empathy is that worldviews are extremely complex and therefore only can change slowly. Most don’t even have a way to recognize that they operate on the basis. of worldviews. Popper himself didn’t realize it , and empirical scientist , being realists for the most part, still tend to think of evidence as ‘out there’ rather than an interpretative product of worldviews.

To to be clear, I’m not talking about disputes over relatively minor features of a scientific model. These can certainly b lead to both sides coming to see the other side’s argument. But as soon as we find ourselves in the terrain of abstract ideas , political principles , religious and philosophical concepts , in almost all cases incomprehension of the others views will predominate but be masked by accusations of bad or lazy intent.

I do think there is a better way to argue and Karl Popper defined it as an attitude that “I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth.” — Cheshire

I’d throw out Popper in favor of Kuhn, abandon the idea that we’re aiming to mirror an independent truth , and instead view both positions as valid but pragmatically useful in different ways. To choose one over the other is to make trade-offs in usefulness. The steel man approach may be useful in showing that one side is unable to comprehend the other’s position well enough to pragmatically compare it with their own.

soul of subjective multiplicity,

But this isnt a functional unity, and it isnt an inside as opposed to an outside. In sum, it is very different from Sarte’s notion of subjectivity and agency.

What do you mean by independent? In what way are they dependent on my subjectivity?
— Joshs

"ONE thinks" — Fooloso4

ONE what? Where is the unity in order to talk about a singularity? In what sense is a subjective multiplicity a unity? Didnt you just quote Nietzsche saying we need to get beyond the ‘one’?

perhaps some day we shall accustom ourselves, even from the logician's point of view, to get along without the little "one" (to which the worthy old "ego" has refined itself).(BGE 17) — Fooloso4

This solves the problem of the seeming mystery of a thought that comes when it wishes rather than when I wish. It is not that the thought has some kind of independent existence and comes to me from elsewhere, but simply that there is not something within me, an “I” or “ego” or “little ‘one’” that is the agent of my thoughts. This is not a denial of agency, it is a denial of something within me, some substance or soul-atom that is the agent. — Fooloso4

There would have to be agency for Nietzsche in the sense of a subjectivity, since Will to power is grounded in subjectivity. The question for me is what sort of agency or subjectivity is this? How does it differ from Kant’s , for instance? You say thoughts don’t have independent existence for Nietzsche. What do you mean by independent? In what way are they dependent on my subjectivity? If we follow the postmodern readings of Nietzsche ( Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault , Deleuze) , subjectivity for Nietzsche is a difference of forces. This means that subjectivity is always outside of itself. Not outside in the sense of being ‘caused’ by empirical objects in the world , but outside in the postmodern sense of a subjectivity whose very essence is in that it is produced by an outside.

If anyone is interested I'd like to have a steel man competition with a materialist, myself being an idealist. — Yohan

Steel manning won’t prove the other wrong because they may interpret their inability to understand your position as a result of faulty reasoning on your part.. They can say your position is incoherent.
I’m neither a materialist nor an idealist, but I’m game.

Our intellect and intelligence are the shields against this irrational construct since we can understand that it is irrational and fight the urge to surrender to it. — Christoffer

Actually, it is precisely our intellect and intelligence that is behind what we call racism. If the problem were simple irrationality it would be a it easier to solve it. But when people do their best to act as ‘rationally’ as possible and still end up behaving in ways that others call racist it should teach us that the cause of racism isnt irrationality, it is the limits that are imposed on intelligence in any given era.

Nietzsche repeats Pindar's urging to:

Become who you are. — Fooloso4

But who are ‘we’ according to Nietzsche?

“What gives me the right to speak about an I, and, for that matter, about an I as cause, and, finally, about an I as the cause of thoughts?””

“…a thought comes when “it” wants, and not when “I” want. It is, therefore, a falsification of the facts to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “think.” It thinks: but to say the “it” is just that famous old “I” – well that is just an assumption or opinion, to put it mildly, and by no means an “immediate certainty.” In fact, there is already too much packed into the “it thinks”: even the “it” contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself.“

“On the one hand, we are, under the circumstances, both the one who commands and the one who obeys, and as the obedient one we are familiar with the feelings of compulsion, force, pressure, resistance, and motion that generally start right after the act of willing. On the other hand, however, we are in the habit of ignoring and deceiving ourselves about this duality by means of the synthetic concept of the “I.” “

Psychology does have its scientific corners where real science is done. As a "science" of personality, not-so-much, or not at all. — tim wood

Some of the most important work in personality theory (Gendlin, Rogers , Kelly) offers a powerful critique of the concept of ‘real’ science , otherwise known as physics envy. It will likely take a few more generations before mainstream psychology realizes that rather than psychology trying to emulate the approach to science taken, physics, it is physics that needs to learn from what personality theory has discovered about the foundations of empiricism in subjective experience.

As Piaget wrote:

“…physics is far from complete, having so far been unable to integrate biology and a fortiori the behavioural sciences within itself. Hence, at present, we reason in dififerent and artificially simplified domains, physics being up to now only the science of non-living, non-conscious things. When physics becomes more 'general’- to use C.-E. Guye's striking expression-and discovers what goes on in the matter of a living body or even in one using reason, the epistemological enrichment of the object by the subject, which we assume here as a hypothesis, will appear perhaps as a simple relativistic law ot perspective or of co- ordination of referentials, showing that for the subject the object could not be other than it appears to him, but also that from the Object’s point of view the subject could not be different.”

It’s as easy as looking in the mirror, so it’s strange that such an idea is fraught with mystery. A regular old ID card will say more about the self than any philosopher. — NOS4A2

Ever notice how that image in the mirror is constantly changing? How that id card photo never quite captures what you or others think you look like ? How you dig up old writing of your and hardly recognize the person who wrote them ? Sounds like there’s a mystery there somewhere.

Misgendering is cruel and unusual — K Turner

It may be cruel but hardly unusual. It is still the norm in many places. Until only a decade ago it was the new pronouns that were unusual. I wouldn’t be surprised if i. another few decades a fresh set of pronouns become ‘correct’ and the ones you are using are considered cruel and unusual.

Sometimes a little pressure and ostracism goes a long way: How long would it take you to notice the issue if people started referring to you as a different pronoun when you misgendered someone? People learn quickly when the feedback is quick and direct. First offenses may be forgivable, but beyond that it's becoming egregious. — K Turner

That would work if there were a strong consensus in favor of the new pronouns, but this is not the case society-wide yet. It is currently concentrated in academia , some larger corporations and among younger populations. Conservative and rural communities are not applying any peer pressure or ‘ ostracism’ in this direction. Most likely the opposite is the case. Neither is the senior population likely to go along quickly.

Is there a legitimate, philosophical reason for one to use the incorrect pronouns? ( — Bradaction

How do you distinguish between philosophy and politics?
Would you say that we use philosophical worldviews to guide our political choices?

Intentional mis gendering and the usage of incorrect pronouns is assumed as a weapon by those who wish to showcase that they don't believe in the existence of GenderQueer people — Bradaction

Haven’t you answered you own question? There are many who don’t understand the philosophical-empirical underpinnings of gender as a separate category from sex. Thus, they justify their political decisions on the basis of this philosophical limitation.

referring to people by their correct pronouns is simple, and easy to do, it should be done — Bradaction

In order to answer the question of how to get people to use correct pronouns, you first have to deal with how to get people to understand the concept of psychological gender. Even when you achieve this , it will still
be a slow process to get the language to evolve. Edicts, pressure , cajoling and threats arent enough. Language changes on the basis of pragmatic usefulness. As people see for themselves the various advantages of changing pronouns , they will go along.

Before you can have an intention, you have to organize information. — Pop

Isnt organization anticipative? And if so, doesn’t that make it intentionally oriented?
Therex are mathematical definitions of information , like Shannon’s. Is that what you have in mind in your use of the word?

However, motion is possible, therefore motion is discontinuous as the OP suggests — Michael

Time is traditionally closely connected with motion. Does this mean that time is discontinuous too?

Why do micro-organisms do all the things you just mentioned, i.e. move towards light or maximize their functioning?
The answer is that they do it because - 1) they want to gain knowledge and 2) they want to reproduce and pass on this knowledge. — Kinglord1090

More fundamental than 1) and 2), they do these things before what an organism is is an interaction with its environment. It is in the nature of self-organizing systems to continue to maintain their style
of interaction with their environment , and in order to continue to function as the organism
they are, they must be able to modify and adapt their style of functioning to the novelties of their environment. Otherwise they disintegrate and die. So the organism’s aim isn’t merely to survive, it’s aim is to maintain it’s particular style of interactions. It is driven to protect and preserve its kind of order throughout all the changes and adaptations it must make in a changing environment.

try to understand it from my level, meaning from the same definitions that I am using.

For example:- You wouldnt go upto an Amish person and ask them if they have seen a cybertruck nearby would you? You would ask them if they have seen a weird metallic car which looks like a kid's drawing. — Kinglord1090

You have just hit on the key skill that is needed to produce peace in the world, being able to see the world from the other’s way of thinking, and being able to see the logic in it from their point of view. It is not emotions that prevent people from being able to do this , it is the fact that it is the most difficult breaks there is, and most people fail badly at it. You can eliminate every ounce of emotion in the world and it won’t make a dent in miscommunications and breakdowns in understanding. It wont change the fact that people will still accuse
others of ‘laziness’ and irrationality when they have difficulty living up to our expectations of them.

Micro-oganism gained knowledge and passd it onto thier offsprings without needing motivations.
Only because of their such action were we able to evolve from them to humans.
This proves that motivations arent required for achieving something. — Kinglord1090

micro-organisms do have motivation. They have bodily goals and aims, and interact with their environment in such a way as to maximize the attainment of those aims. A single called animal will be motivated to move toward the light , for example, because it maximizes the organism’s functioning. This isnt a simple reflex , because the animal can adjust and adapt this behavior to changes in the environment. All living creatures are self-organizing. That means they don’t just respond to their environment reflexively, machine -like. They change their environment to suit their needs, They are motivated. Human emotions and logic originate in these functions of learning and motivation in the simplest animals

I am assuming that you are trying to say that robots dont have 'free will' or the power of 'choice' like humans do, for which I only have one answer.
The answer is that humans dont have these either.
All of our decisions are based on some factor or the other. — Kinglord1090

Yes, but are you thinking that the world is one gigantic deterministic causal machine, and these are the factors you are talking about? Do you believe the idea that Stephen Hawking believed in, that if and when we finally arrive at a theory of everything in physics we could in principle merely run the world off a computer program?

The alternative to this way of thinking comes from
biology and the idea that time is irreversible. The living world only moves in one direction , toward the creation of novel possibilities that can’t be deduced from a deterministic formula. Life is truly creative , bringing forth patterns that never existed before and can’t be predicted on the basis of any prior scheme. Human rationality is like that too.

you still didnt follow the most important rule of the post.
Stop thinking about it in an emotional point of view. — Kinglord1090

I am not thinking about it in an emotional point of view, I am thinking it in a logical , rational point of view.
I think the issue here is, before you are ready to talk about the difference between logic and emotion, you have to get straight what logic is.
I think your notion of logic is an old , outdated one. Are you aware of Godel’s work on logical proof , or Wittgenstein , Putnam, Quine and Sellar’a claim that logic has to be understood as an aspect of language?
Basically , they’re pointing out the frame problem in A.I. That any logical scheme that a machine uses must be interpreted by a human , and that interpretation will get its sense by reference to a larger scheme, or frame. Think of how words in a dictionary are defined by reference to all the other words in the dictionary. A logical scheme that we program into a computer is like a word in a dictionary. The computer doesn’t ‘know’ the meaning of its scheme , only we do, because it’s meaning is defined by us in relation to a whole network of purposes.

When you say there would be peace and no suffering in a world without emotions , you’re saying it would be like a single logical scheme. We would all tap into and live on the basis is of that single universal
scheme. The problem with that idea is that , just like the xomuter doesnt ‘know’ the meaning of its logic , if all of humanity were running what would essentially be a single universal logical program to live our lives , there would be no meaning to be aware of. We would not in fact be alive , but only the program itself would remain to function automatically.

But the world of experience never doubles back on itself. No momwnt of experience ever duplicates the content of a previous moment. Humans have to devise constructs with a very different kind of logic than a computer uses. The logic of living systems like us requires that we device schemes that anticipate patterns and regularities in the world , but also constantly adapt to the changing logic of that world. Every time we construct a pattern to apply to the world, the very successful of our pattern changes our relation to the world. This means that we have to make our logical schemes so that they are not hermetically sealed. The rules of the game are always shifting , and successful human rationality means the rules of our schemes must adjust to these changes in the world. We will always have to prepare for periods of time when we are plunged into the darkness and fog of incoherent understanding, of a failure of our logical scheme of the moment. This ever present risk of breakdown and inadequacy in our construing of the world is what leads to violence , discord , wars and injustice, not ‘emotions’. When you call other people emotional, illogical, irrational , you are expressing a breakdown in your own logical schemes , their failure to adapt to the differences in others ways of thinking rationally.

in a world void of emotions, people who are able-bodied will work till death, and the non-able-bodied will accept death.
They wont feel bad about it, as they dont have emotions. — Kinglord1090

Describe for me what the experience of being motivated is like in the absence of emotions. To be motivated is to make distinctions on the basis of which to make a decision or choice between two or more options. Whichever choice we make , we make it because we prefer it over the alternative. What is this experience of preferring like without emotions? One would presumably always prefer one option over another because one finds it more rational, more logical. You could say one is impelled toward the logical over the illogical. We look in one direction and see a fog of chaos and disorder. We look in another direction and see predictability , order and harmony. It’s not much of a choice really. We simply can’t continue, can’t function according to our goals in a fog of chaos and disorder. So we don’t really even choose order and log over the alternative. We fall into it. The world is only recognizable to the extent that it is predictable. So we really have no choice but to make the world more recognizable , ordered, predictable lest we lose the world and ourselves entirely. Notice that I haven’t mentioned ‘feeling ‘ at all here. But we are talking about conscious awareness of experience. We are talking about meanings when we talk about order and disorder , chaos and predictability.

Question ; how much does it add to our experience to say that we ‘feel’ chaos and disorder as opposed to having a rational awareness of it ?

in a world void of emotions, no one would commit crimes.
The simplest way I can put it is that, one themselves will understand that living a life without gaining knowledge and leeching off of resources is wrong, and they themselves would — Kinglord1090

So you think that criminality equals emotionality? That the motivation for theft is the satisfaction of an emotion rather than the pursuit of a rational purpose? You can’t think of any situation in which someone would decide that it is necessary from a rational point of view to commit a theft?
Is it possible that you are failing to understand the logic that someone else is using from their point of view?
My favorite psychologist calls this hostility, the attempt to force someone else’s thinking into your logical categories because you can’t understand their own logic. They are ‘emotional’ and ‘irrational’ in your mind because their form of rationality. is at odds with what you are familiar with. I think the issue here is you believe that there is a one-size-fits-all logic to the world and any. eh wipe that deviates from this single frame is illogical to you.

So, the way the scientists worked around it is by adding a piece of code which imitates curiosity.
With this code in place, the A.I. no longer needed an indication to motivate it, the concept of being able to gain knowledge itself became its motivation — Kinglord1090

it shows how even giving fake emotions can sometimes lead to unwanted things. If we consider the A.I.'s curiosity to be an emotion, we can also make the assumption that emotions are coded in the same way in humans like it has been done in A.I.'s.
In both cases, emotions play a very important role and help facilitate logic faster, however it either needs some correction or we have to lose accuracy/efficiency. — Kinglord1090

You seem to be forgetting one thing. We can talk about coding for logic and coding fro curiosity-emotion as two entirely separate things. But we don’t have any way of knowing what a machine is doing when it is programmed solely for logic except by interpreting the machine’s behavior in relation to what we want it to do, and what we want it to do is framed by our own goals. Goals, aims, desires and needs are built into our understanding of what our machines are. They are just an intent heap of parts without a purpose that they serve for us. What they do cannot be simply separated from why we want them to do what they do.
It’s the same thing with our understanding of a logical proposition. The logic is driven by the axioms , but the axioms themselves are framed by more encompassing axioms and principles It s a hall of mirrors, an infinite regress of meanings defines by more encompassing meanings.

You made a very point point till the part you said that humans in such a world would still develop emotions.
I have said this before in a different reply, but for this hypothetical to work, we have to assume that emotions never existed, and never will — Kinglord1090

I didn’t say that humans in such a world would still develop emotions. I said that according to this psychologist , to be motivated purely by logic, that is, by the need to understand the world, to predict events and avoid loss of understanding , is to behave in all the ways that you call emotion , even though the only
motive is rationality. For instance, the characters Spock and Data on Star Trek are supposed to
operate purely on the basis of logic, it notice how they actually behave. They strive for outcomes and are disappointed if they don’t achieve those outcomes. I would also a argue that they behave in ways that are similar to guilt, anger and anxiety. The only difference between the way they that approach the world and people with ‘emotion’ approach the world is that their attitudes and desires are displayed coolly , subtlety. You’ll never see an ‘outburst’ of rage or weeping from them, but you’ll see the same processes of thinking that lead to rage and weeping in people with emotion. Basically, they are typical people on tranquilizers. Or one could say they act the way that autistic people do , claiming they don’t understand emotional behavior. But what we know about autistics is that they have feelings. Their difficulty is that they cannot process complex social interactions In other words, their difficulties in processing rapidly changing complex social logic is the cause of their inability to understand ‘emotion’.

This is why your dream world without emotion is merely a world of people on tranquilizers or a world of autistic people. It retains all of the changes in logical
processing that we are used to calling ‘emotion’, the only difference being they would occur more slowly, subtly.

Yes, I would argue that emotions as I see it is juice or energy.
The reason for it is simple, thats how we have been told it is.99% of people who arent interested in philosophy would give this same answer if asked.
Because thats what we have defined emotions to be.
If we were to ignore this definition, and use the psychologist’s definition instead, then we would have never had this problem. — Kinglord1090

I think you’re wrong that we would never have had this problem. We would have just about all of the problems that we do have now, for the reasons I stated above.
Let’s take guilt , for instance. You think it is a juice or energy?
Let me ask you this. You and I agree that if the only thing that motivates a person is logic, they will still be motivated to form friendships and social bonds. They will still want and need people in their life because we learn from each other , and the world makes more sense when we share ideas with each other. In order to maintain. the closet possible bond with another person (I’m not talking about emotional ‘love’, but an intellectual bond based on rationality) , we need to know how they see us, what role we play in their lives, how they see us helping them to understand their world better. In other words, we need to know where we stand with them. If I know that they ‘like’ me , what I am knowing is that they find me intellectually valuable to them.
So what happens when I meet someone new and discover that they are even more interesting than the person I had been bonding with previously? Will I feel an obligation toward that previous friendship? Or would I just continue to pursue my new bond and not concern my self with the previous one? You might think that if logic were my only motivation, I would simply not concern myself with the changed status of my previous relationship. But is this really true? What guarantees that I would understand fully why I found myself
preferring the second bond over the first? What guarantees that I would not feel ambivalent and confused? I am not talking here of ambivalence and confusion as ‘emotions’ . I am talking about them as logical, rational assessments of my relationships. When one relies solely on logic and rationality, there are many situations that one encounters that don’t seem to fit the logic one tries to apply to them because they require learning , a modification of one’s scheme of understanding. Until one can successfully update one’s understanding, one wil experience confusion, ambivalence, ambiguity , uncertainty , chaos. Again, I’m not talking about ‘emotions’ but features of the limits of rational processing. So I could very well be rationally confused about my responsibilities toward my previous bond. One could say that I was rationally torn between the old and then new relationship. Should I tell my old friend about the new one? Would the old friend rationally understand or would their logic be insufficiently flexible to glimpse why I abandoned them for my new friend? How are all these thoughts different from the ‘fluid energy’ of guilt? Because logical confusion, ambivalence and ambiguity doesn’t involve a feeling of suffering? But doesn’t it involve an awareness of confusion and loss? Isn’t that a ‘logical’ suffering’?

How does one deal rationally , logically with another person who hits me for no reason that I can see? It may be logical for me to assume or suspect that they knew better to attack me but they decided to do it anyway. Would it then be logical for me want to teach them a lesson, to make them mend their ways? What’s the difference between my desire to punish the other and the emotion of anger ? That anger is a fluid, an energy, and my ‘calm’ desire to punish the other is rational, logical ? But would a rationalperson act calmly if the other person is actively, immediately threatening them? Wouldnt it be logical to act aggressively, forcefully? Is this behavior still different from the emotion of anger? You would say yes, anger overcome sis and blinds us , but rational aggression and attack is logical.
What if I find out later that the person who attacked me mistook me for some one else , or beloved that I was the one who has wrong ed them first, and they were simply trying to ‘rationally’ punish me?
There could be an endless cycle of attack and counter attack, with each side believing that they were in the right. We could call this righteous anger , except that you would want to to eliminate the word ‘anger’ and substitute the term ‘logical indignation’, or ‘rational condemnation’.

At any rate , it seem to me that just about all of the situations in this world that keep it from being peaceful consist of two parties both believing they are in the right , and desiring to punish the other party, to show them a lesson, to get themto mend their ways. And all this violence , it seems to me, stems from people attempting to think as rationally and logically as they can about why the other person or persons could possibly do what they did and think what they think. All of this without the need to bring ‘emotion’ into the picture.
l