| | Dominic, Rodney,
First Dominic:
... really annoying is that my posts have to go through moderators ...
I've taken care of that.
... you want love regardless of whether you feel it or not ...
Not exactly. I love just as much, with or without the intense feelings. If one felt those intense feelings all the time, it would wear them out or they would go crazy. When my children were growing, there were times when I did not "feel" my love for them, especially if I were very tired and they were being very obtuse--nevertheless, I loved them just as intensely.
What is the point of an emotion if it only brings out what you already have in front of you?
There wouldn't be any point, but that is not what they do. Emotions come in two forms, desires and reactions. Desires are the motivators of life, but no emotional desire tells us how to fulfill that desire or even what it is a desire for. We have to learn that feeling in our stomach is hunger and eating food is what satisfies it, and which things are food and which are poison. The reactions are either warnings (of danger or something wrong, for example) or rewards (for thinking, choosing, and acting correctly).
The feelings do not tell us anything, just as the taste of food does not tell us anything (except after we learn them, what some ingredients in our food are, like salt, some spices, etc.) The good taste is a "reward" for eating good things. People who loose their ability to taste (which is actually mostly smell) still have to eat, but they will get not pleasure from the taste of the food. The good emotions are like good tastes, they enable us to enjoy our lives, which ultimately is the purpose of lives.
(2) How do you account for disharmony between emotions and what you at least ~want~ to value?
The emotions or feelings are only responses to what you are conscious of. People with disintegrated value systems and thought patterns, people who think entertaining ideas, so long as one does not act on them, for example, will have disintegrated unaccountable emotions.
Now Rodney and Dominic
(Because this pertains to what you said, Rodney)
You think I have subjectivist elements? ... So let me know what you mean if you can.
I can. Anyone who thinks the emotions are cognitive in any way is, to the extent they grant "knowledge" to emotions, subjective. The emotions are only reactions and the only information they provide is that we have them.
What's wrong with these two concepts?
Branden's confusion of knowledge with habituation and memory while playing with words, saying subconscious does not mean unconscious is typical quackery. If I am conscious of something, I am conscious of it. If I am not conscious of it, I am not. There is no other ground.
First, the subconscious is anything it must be "somewhere." I mean, if it is not in our consciousness, where is it? It cannot be in memory. If the subconscious is only memory then just call it memory. But psychologists do not say it is memory. Where the subconscious is or the faculty responsible for it is never identified. It is, as Rand would say, "blank out."
Secondly, even if there were these subconscious things, if I were never conscious of them in any way, it would be as if they did not exist. If I am aware of them in any way at all, I am conscious of them and they cannot be subconscious things at all. How can I be both conscious of something and totally unaware that it exists? If I am really not conscious of it, what difference could it possibly make it it's there or not?
Ah, yes. The answer is, even though we are not conscious of them, these subconscious things (whatever they are) cause people to have feelings for which they do not know the cause or origin.
Except for biological causes, no feeling or emotion is causeless. All our feelings and emotions are reactions to the content of consciousness, and nothing else. We feel frightened in response to things we perceive or think about that are frightening, we feel desire in response to perceiving or thinking about things desirable. If you think about anything that causes you to feel anxiety, anticipation, or fear, you will realize you never have those feelings except when actually thinking about those things that worry you, or you look forward to, or are afraid of.
Unless we are conscious of those so-called subconscious things that cause us inexplicable feelings, they can cause no feelings at all. If they could, the psychologist is obliged to explain the mechanism by which they perform that miracle.
Even if there were some way the which that we are totally unaware of could cause us to have feelings, that would not make those feelings cognitive. Suppose a dipsomaniac is explaining why he drinks even when he knows he shouldn't. He explains he has this overpowering urge to have a drink which he cannot resist. The question is, how does he know that feeling he calls an urge to have a drink, means, "have a drink?" Maybe the urge really means "brush your teeth." How does he know it means, "have a drink?" and not, "brush your teeth?" He had to learn that urge was to have a drink and that having a drink satisfied the urge. The urge did not tell him what it means.
It is that way with all desires. No emotion tells us what it means, we have to discover that rationally. We can have knowledge about the feelings and desires, what they mean, how to satisfy them, which to fulfill and which to resist, but the feelings themselves carry no information at all except the fact of their existence. The emotions are percepts, not concepts, and not cognitive. To equate any feeling, desire, urge, or emotion with knowledge is subjectivity, and ultimately destructive to both one's emotional and intellectual consciousness.
Mr. Branden is an apostle of subjectivity, I'm afraid. It does not surprise me, all psychologists are quacks, no matter how nice a voice they have, how charming their smile is, or how much Objectivist doctrine they cite.
For the record, both of you, Rodney and Dominic, hold a much more mainstream "Objectivist" position on these things than I. I am only describing my position, not denigrating yours, or trying to convince you to change your views.
Regi
|
|