Did Intellectuals of the 20th Century Undermine Emotion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coberst
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    conspiracy
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the claim that 20th-century intellectuals have unintentionally contributed to a cultural bias favoring reason over emotion, which undermines human emotional experience. Damasio's work is referenced, highlighting that philosophy and science historically marginalized emotion, despite earlier thinkers like Darwin and Freud recognizing its importance. The conversation explores the implications of this bias, suggesting it has led to a moral and cognitive disconnect in society, where emotional intelligence is undervalued. Participants debate whether this trend is a recent phenomenon or has roots in ancient philosophical traditions. Ultimately, the dialogue emphasizes the need for a balanced understanding of emotion and reason to foster a more effective moral framework in contemporary society.
  • #31


Lets think of what are Emotions. We have anger, we have sorrow, we have infatuation, and desire. These emotions are a major part of humanity, and are the driving force behind pretty much everything we do as individuals and as groups. I do not recognize how emotions can be dismissed by rationality because they are two different worlds. Rationality is a tool used for reasoning. If we are to leave emotion out of rationality so be it, but without emotion there is no reason for rationality. Without emotion there is nothing important and there is no point to anything.

How is it possible for a value system to be void of emotion? In a world without emotion there is no such thing as right or wrong, or good or bad.

Maybe I can see compassion being thrown out the door, but that still leaves desire and greed which are branches of emotion, even in a self serving satanic like philosophical system, emotions still run the show the only difference is that the emotions that are running things are negative and destructive to humanity as a whole and to the greater well being of the individual as well. How dumb do you have to be to think that we would be better off backstabbing each other and being only out for ourselves than helping and loving one another. Is not happiness the desirable emotion?

Survival is key. but rationally how is ones survival worth anything more than time to experience emotion. Ultimately we all die, and our children inherit the future. So if you are wise, you will promote the good emotions and not the bad, and you will have children and teach them to do the same. If you don't wish to have children, maybe because the world is overpopulated, then you should just try to experience positive emotions while you are here. If you are up to it maybe do something you can be proud of while your here and maybe a part of you will live on as the change for the better you created that may change the coarse of history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


robertm said:
Yes indeed. The "Selfish Gene" as professor Dawkin's puts it. A propensity for altruism follows directly and predictably from the nature of our genetic evolution. It is inherent.

Let me link this thread with some of the research I came up with for my thread on Altruism

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=174792&highlight=altruism
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
8K
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 96 ·
4
Replies
96
Views
10K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
24K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K