It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Your Feelings, and Why They do not Matter.

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte




In Jungian terms, unexpressed thoughts and emotions form our shadow-self, the disowned part of self we project onto others who become the enemy--our spouse, or the country with which we are at war.


Or, a 'numb-self' or an 'never-owned self', destined to be locked into an inner turmoil, yes, then with either internal combustion or excess steam being vented outwardly, but never extinguished. A lost soul, if you will.




There is a heavy price to be paid when feelings are denied or repressed. Lethargy, boredom, and a sense of deadness toward life may be the sorry consequences - bigger and stronger forms of stimulation are required to feel happy and alive. Some people drink, others drive recklesslyï - some get seriously ill as a way to get the attention and still feel alive.
—John W. Travis, MD, and Regina Sara Ryan



edit on 9-8-2015 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Thank you for the post, Astrocyte. I am a big fan of your writing.


that really makes this sort of philosophizing look.....gratuitous, unnecessary....something a person with a lot of education and literary talent engages in to help make sense of the world to himself.


With this remark I would have to agree, but only because anything else is sophistry. If you’re not practicing philosophy and disputation to learn, but are instead content reciting facts or someone else’s philosophy (or psychology, whatever the case may be), then we are in the presence of an authoritarian mouthpiece. For instance, your post is designed to convey what you and perhaps most others would call “truth”, that feelings are everything, but is really an appeal to authority, to the populace, and an attempt to attack a straw man you call cynicism. I become doubly mistrustful here, despite your good-intentions. It seems to amount to no more than “remain within the boundary of psychology, my psychology, and make sure to be nice while doing so”.

I rather do enjoy hearing about psychological theories and systems, but I personally prefer the biology over its psychological counterpart. The problem I admit I have with psychology and philosophy of mind is its incessant need to postulate disembodied entities, whether they are admitted to be explanatory fictions or something else entirely, in order to explain which are at a fundamental level biological states. If you agree with Lakoff, you might agree with the tendency towards faculty psychology in western psychology and philosophy. We’re reminded of Moliére’s virtus dormativa, that opium puts people to sleep because of its “dormative virtue”, which is no different than saying opium puts people to sleep because opium puts people to sleep.

This is, at core, what I am writing about and what my argument amounts to: that “feelings” are such a faculty, something like a virtue, a quality, a property, a “self”, something you and others have expressed as “emergent”, when nothing of the sort has emerged. Though such metaphor is perhaps necessary for economy of communication, ontologically, nothing of the sort even exists. Faculties can only be explained in terms of faculties, for instance your question of what happens when someone doesn't "feel the feeling of being loved". A few have questioned my equivocation in the use of the term “feelings”, and rightfully so, but it is because the word “feelings” means so many things that makes it nearly meaningless to someone like myself, whom admittedly, must at some point refer to something in the world in order to make any sense of it. I do not find any feelings in the world. What in the world is the word tied to? What in the world does it refer to? What are we talking about? What are you actually being compassionate to?

As you’ve expressed despite your compassionate regard, you find this view dismal, narcissistic, cynical—and for someone who values his own feelings above all else, it probably is. Therefor I myself must be dismal, narcissistic and cynical. I suppose some sort of disgust of my words come to you. But my feelings assess your views as dismal, narcissistic and cynical, given that it is your feelings, and not anyone else’s, you are referring to.

The irony continues.
edit on 9-8-2015 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well, Astrocyte mentions evolutionary mechanisms in there, but then he also says altruism is a "pole" of our personalities. I personally don't understand how those two arguments could work together. As far as evolution is concerned, there is no altruism. In the most faithful understanding there's just reciprocity. Maybe I misunderstood a bit, but evolutionary psychology doesn't leave any room for "no strings attached" compassion.
edit on 10-8-2015 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




It's not that feelings are meaningless, for that would imply some of your body is, but it is that your stories are. They literally mean nothing and are about nothing.


I don't know you, so I don't know for sure what you mean by "stories" and how you use the word, but if I'm guessing right, I think you're overstepping a line here. If you're not implying that feelings are meaningless, then how in the hell are stories meaningless? What makes a story? Feelings and experiences. They are a yin and yang, without one the other cannot be. As I've said - there are no such things as separate events. You seem to be trying far too hard to split the world in two; the important, and the unimportant.

There's no such thing as a clear definition, if I've learned anything.

Matters of importance are determined as you go along through life.

There's no rule book for it.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   
You're one of those neoreactionaries aren't you? I think you've been reading too much Evola with this one..



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Never read him.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

"Dark enlightenment"...funny thing is, it actually kinda fits.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"Feelings" reside solely in the perspective of the observer, and not the world at large. This is correct. And you are also correct in asserting that "feelings" only interact with willing subjects, who wish to observe your stated feelings and display empathy.

That said, it seems that the world at large is also purely experiential on the observers part. A wholly subjective experience at that. Beyond our collective agreement of what that world is, we have no real proof that there is a world for our feelings to not exist in. And "collective agreement" can tend to be a very loosely applied term due to the subjective nature of our own subjective experiences (i.e., 2 witnesses observe two different events)

edit on 8/13/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not as verbose as you are, but I will try to keep up here.

Your premise seems to rest on the idea that the world can only be substantiated by its substantial components and that anything beyond is a contrivance of human psychology. I would refer to a conversation I had with a friend not long ago, about plants being aware...having "feelings" even. I expressed my skepticism and he made an excellent point in response: is it not better to err on the side of caution and avoid unnecessary cruelty? You have that luxury, we all do. But to forgo it in the name of intellectual pedantry seems more callous than it is worth. Illusory or not, it's no ones place to say any feeling is unworthy of consideration. Because once you do, it becomes a slippery slope as you struggle to determine what is worthwhile. Which, contrary to the impressions you give, I highly doubt you have mastered either. That's okay, we are all learning.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Thanks for you thoughts.

I have a difficult time wrapping myself around the premise that the world is experiential. For one, I do not find any medium called "experience" separating me and the world. It appears as if I am actually a part of the world, embedded in it, and come into direct contact with it every moment throughout my entire life. I refute idealism on the grounds that it assumes we are not objects in the world, which is an assumption only a physical object could make.

I hold there is no subject. Subjectivity is objectivity but from a highly limited perspective. We do not have eyes on the back of our head, on the bottom of our feet or inside our brains, so we tend to miss out on much of reality, especially when we're too busy concentrating on and listening to the most fleeting and invisible aspects of our biology rather than on the rest of the world.


The subjective fictions are interesting enough, but it is the intersubjective fictions that deserve our keenest attention. Two opposing enemies, with two opposing religions, world-views, political views etc. will both agree on intersubjective fictions such as money, the state, the market and so on. These require collective agreement for them to even exist. Very interesting stuff.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


I'm not as verbose as you are, but I will try to keep up here.


Probably not, but then again I'm not as fallacious as you.



I expressed my skepticism and he made an excellent point in response: is it not better to err on the side of caution and avoid unnecessary cruelty?


Sounds exactly like Pascal's wager. This is simple sophistry. Is there something cruel about attending to truth?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Please demonstrate both the fallacy in my post and my attempt to deceive, as per the definition of sophistry. I see neither and intended neither. Surely you can point it out.

I find it scary to think anyone would consider erring on the side of caution to avoid unnecessary cruelty to be "fallacious and deceptive". How do you find basis for compassion, kindness, random acts of charity? The stuff we pride ourselves in, seeing a need and responding to it not out of duty or obligation but because we know how it feels.

...Oh, right. You dislike all things human. Hence the username. It all makes sense now. I'm sorry for your suffering, spending so much time as the thing you disdain. Although you might find that flexibility grants you some much needed breathing room in your philosophies.
edit on 13-8-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


Please demonstrate both the fallacy in my post and my attempt to deceive, as per the definition of sophistry. I see neither and intended neither. Surely you can point it out.

I find it scary to think anyone would consider erring on the side of caution to avoid unnecessary cruelty to be "fallacious and deceptive". How do you find basis for compassion, kindness, random acts of charity? The stuff we pride ourselves in, seeing a need and responding to it not out of duty or obligation but because we know how it feels.

...Oh, right. You dislike all things human. Hence the username. It all makes sense now. I'm sorry for your suffering, spending so much time as the thing you disdain. Although you might find that flexibility grants you some much needed breathing room in your philosophies.


I specifically said you were fallacious. You yourself demonstrate it. I can’t recall any time your posts to me wasn’t littered with ad hominem, straw men, appeals to emotion and the populace. For instance, nowhere did I say anything about being cruel to others. This thread has nothing to do with cruelty, yet here you are speaking of it.

What I find scary is the extent someone is willing to go to avoid the truth in favour of their feelings (and only their feelings). Sounds to me more like erring on the side of ignorance as opposed to caution. This isn’t cautious, it is reckless. Granted, my writing takes a negative approach, but it seems you don’t want to dispute any of my arguments, that you’d rather speak about something else entirely, probably because you don’t feel good in reading what I have written. Is this not the case?

Do you happen to know why sophistry means what it means? I’m currently writing a lengthy multi-part thread on this very topic because I find it ubiquitous, and I’ll make sure to keep you in mind as I work on it. It has a lot to do with feelings. But you can study the topic in the writings of Plato and to some extent Aristotle. Look to Gorgias and you might see yourself.

edit on 13-8-2015 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You don't have to keep me in mind for anything, particularly if you are more interested in indulging your philosophy than you are in entertaining other points of view for longer than it takes to dissect, boil, pulverize, and file your critique in the appropriate section of the Cynicist's Compendium.

But sure, I can address one particular point that caught my attention. See where it goes from there.


Where once humanity derived its morality from outside sources—perhaps a philosophy, a book or a pulpit—it now derives from the pleasantries and sufferings of our own insides. It is good because it makes us happy; it is bad because it makes us suffer. Isn’t this so? However, how we feel about something is not indicative of that something, but is wholly indicative of he whom experiences it. Nothing besides.


I don't quite grasp why this should lessen the value of emotion as a sort of guiding post in social dynamic and personal equilibrium. This is what you have failed to explain to my satisfaction, not that my satisfaction is at all relevant to your bubble of reality... But maybe you would be willing to humor me.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

i guess you arent interested in humoring me. thats a shame, i was curious to explore the subject with you. but maybe its best i leave such adventures to less lofty companions.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

You seem pretty good at humoring and satisfying yourself. Maybe it's best we keep it that way.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

You seem pretty good at humoring and satisfying yourself. Maybe it's best we keep it that way.


And maybe you aren't in a position to criticize people for having feelings. Particularly when your lack of sentiment appears to give you a somewhat harder edge than might be considered helpful.
edit on 15-8-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Feelings can lead to action, action can lead to change. That's a fact. If the feelings/actions/changes are good or bad can be debated. But considering this fact I would have to give give the OP a false



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Feelings are a given from reality. Like the lay of the land or the strength and direction of the wind. We would like to walk downhill with the wind at our backs all of the time, that is, follow our feelings.

That makes our voting and life choices pretty predictable, especially in a stable, equalized, society.

Feelings move a democracy towards a zero birthrate and 100% unemployment. Enough money will be printed to finish off the most troublesome generations with narcotic plenty.

On the other hand, feelings can keep us going though toil and travail, hazard and hardship once we know there will be a payoff at the end. Most will never know the feeling of accomplishment, because knowing that feeling would perpetuate the common man for all eternity, or at least until the next evolutionary upgrade.

They don't need slaves anymore.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks




Feelings can lead to action, action can lead to change. That's a fact. If the feelings/actions/changes are good or bad can be debated. But considering this fact I would have to give give the OP a false


To feel is an action. To lead is an action. To change is an action. Only things can act. Only things can lead. Only things can change. Only things can change other things. If you were to attempt to point out a feeling, what it amounts to, and by what mechanism it leads to change, you'd finally realize you're not speaking in facts at all, and are merely parroting a dogma.




top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join