Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Existentialism
#76

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 12:55 AM)julep Wrote: I'm neurodivergent and don't necessarily trust my emotions or my reason.

I consciously aim to balance reason and emotion in my life, insofar as each may be applicable. I reckon they're both useful and worth consideration.
On hiatus.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#77

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 12:55 AM)julep Wrote: I don't think I agree completely with you or Dom, but I appreciate your perspective and the thought you've given to it.  I'm neurodivergent and don't necessarily trust my emotions or my reason. The way I experience emotions and cognition may just be too different to contribute to this discussion.  However, I do envy people who can feel comfortable with their conclusions. 

Personally when I'm not sure about competing rationales is to research as best I can and then ask someone's else's opinion to figure out what I feel about the answer, then go by that. It's not particularly philosophical. (so I'll excuse myself from this discussion...probably not a good contribution to the thread,sorry)

Of course it is a good contribution. Precisely because we all experience these things differently. There really is no norm for emotions. We're all on a curve for each type of emotion, with zero on one end and extreme on the other. It's genetic.

I don't think any of us can completely trust our emotions or reason.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • Kim
Reply
#78

Existentialism
So was OP trying to troll us into feeling that as atheists we're basically fucked and life has no meaning?  Shoot, we already know that.  Big Grin Weeping
The following 4 users Like jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Peebothuhlu, Kim, Thingymebob, abaris
Reply
#79

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 02:13 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 12:55 AM)julep Wrote: I'm neurodivergent and don't necessarily trust my emotions or my reason.

I consciously aim to balance reason and emotion in my life, insofar as each may be applicable. I reckon they're both useful and worth consideration.

Considering how much experience I have with mental instability, I've always tried to use those experiences as learning experiences for how not to act. It's worked wonders though. It never made sense to me to do anything else with that information.  Tongue
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” -Carl Sagan.
The following 2 users Like GenesisNemesis's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, Thingymebob
Reply
#80

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 02:24 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: So was OP trying to troll us into feeling that as atheists we're basically fucked and life has no meaning?  Shoot, we already know that.  Big Grin Weeping

I don't know. But he certainly doesn't seem to be around to make any comments. So, he obviously didn't get what he was looking for.

(03-20-2022, 11:55 AM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: Considering how much experience I have with mental instability, I've always tried to use those experiences as learning experiences for how not to act. It's worked wonders though. It never made sense to me to do anything else with that information.  Tongue

Kudos to you, if you can keep it out of your dreams. I can't.
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
The following 1 user Likes abaris's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#81

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 02:24 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: So was OP trying to troll us into feeling that as atheists we're basically fucked and life has no meaning?  Shoot, we already know that.  Big Grin Weeping

I wonder why people do that. Join up make a couple of posts and then disappear.
The following 2 users Like Thingymebob's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, Alan V
Reply
#82

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 12:49 PM)Thingymebob Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 02:24 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: So was OP trying to troll us into feeling that as atheists we're basically fucked and life has no meaning?  Shoot, we already know that.  Big Grin Weeping

I wonder why people do that. Join up make a couple of posts and then disappear.

Trolling. Or they expect applause and when it isn't forthcoming then they dash away.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#83

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 12:49 PM)Thingymebob Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 02:24 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: So was OP trying to troll us into feeling that as atheists we're basically fucked and life has no meaning?  Shoot, we already know that.  

I wonder why people do that. Join up make a couple of posts and then disappear.

I guess he was looking for other existentialists.  When he didn't find them, he left.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#84

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 01:01 PM)Szuchow Wrote: Trolling. Or they expect applause and when it isn't forthcoming then they dash away.

I guess, they were looking for confirmation bias.
[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]
Reply
#85

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 01:14 AM)Dom Wrote: Emotion is not something your consciousness produces or controls, and you can't really turn it off. 

This is where we still disagree.

I remember an instance with my grandmother.  We were visiting her at her home in Indiana, and she got upset because we had ignored it was her 80th birthday (if I remember correctly).  So she sat down at the dining room table and sadly sang "Happy Birthday" to herself.  It was kind of pathetic.

What she didn't realize was that we had planned a surprise birthday party for her later that day, with more of her relatives yet to show up for the occasion.  If she had known that fact, she would not have experienced the same emotions.

So my conclusion remains that consciousness does control our emotional reactions in many instances, and once we realize that fact we can take more control over them.  Even just shifting our attention to something else changes our emotions.

Honestly, haven't you ever changed your emotional reactions by reinterpreting what you're seeing?
Reply
#86

Existentialism
Our emotions are clearly informed by what we believe, what we know, what we desire, what we fear, etc.  A change in any of those in a particular circumstance will affect the emotion, even reversing it from one of negativity to something positive.

But I don't think emotion itself is consciously driven.  I don't think we'd be able to function if it were.  If emotion were driven by conscious direction we'd spend too much time analyzing how we should feel before deciding to feel that way - consciously.  I have no experience of ever doing that - consciously deciding how I should feel about about something BEFORE actually experiencing the feeling.  It's like belief - a process of mind outside conscious control.  Try to believe that 2 + 2 = 7.  I'm pretty certain you'd fail.

We consciously ACT on emotion, but that's distinct from the subjective effect of emotion.  And of course how we ACT may be diametrically opposite how we feel.

Your grandmother's disappointment reflected what she believed at that moment.  Later, new knowledge triggered a flood of new positive emotions, erasing the original one.  But I very much doubt she spent her morning deciding to feel disappointed, that came unbidden - as did the positive emotions later when fresh knowledge displaced what she'd believed.
The following 2 users Like airportkid's post:
  • Dom, Alan V
Reply
#87

Existentialism
(03-19-2022, 09:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I missed that little nugget, but boy, it is wrong. Aesthetic appreciation and religious beliefs have no appreciable connection, in my own personal experience as well as observations.

This seems to be a confusion of atheism being material rationalism, when in fact it only means someone doesn't believe in god(s). Many of us love art, and many aren't intrigued by it; many religionistas love art, and many aren't intrigued by it.

Unfortunately that's totally incorrect. It's a "package". You may have no experience of it, but that doesn't mean there is no connection. Only that you don't know about the connection. As usual, you present your "opinions" as the gospel truth. You should check your Papal Pronouncements with the Roman Curia, before proclaiming them, your Holiness.

Religion and aesthetics are, in some cases, completely connected.
In fact in some traditions, (such as the Anglicans and Catholics) they have traditions which are THE REASON people are attracted to the entire business in the first place. And when they find out the religious *part* of the package is total BS, for years they grieve the lost connections. Just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean others share in your ignorance.
Test
Reply
#88

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 05:17 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 01:14 AM)Dom Wrote: Emotion is not something your consciousness produces or controls, and you can't really turn it off. 

This is where we still disagree.

I remember an instance with my grandmother.  We were visiting her at her home in Indiana, and she got upset because we had ignored it was her 80th birthday (if I remember correctly).  So she sat down at the dining room table and sadly sang "Happy Birthday" to herself.  It was kind of pathetic.

What she didn't realize was that we had planned a surprise birthday party for her later that day, with more of her relatives yet to show up for the occasion.  If she had known that fact, she would not have experienced the same emotions.

So my conclusion remains that consciousness does control our emotional reactions in many instances, and once we realize that fact we can take more control over them.  Even just shifting our attention to something else changes our emotions.

Honestly, haven't you ever changed your emotional reactions by reinterpreting what you're seeing?

I don't see how that has much to do with the price of tea in China.

Obviously current impressions trigger the need for supplementary chemicals - if I pull a gun on you, adrenalin is needed for you to cope with the situation. If I point an ice cream cone at you, no adrenalin is needed. 

Hence emotions are triggered by events. Change the event and there is no need for the chemical change.

What doesn't happen is that I point a gun at you and you can stop the adrenalin flow. You can't.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
Reply
#89

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 06:51 PM)Dom Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 05:17 PM)Alan V Wrote: Honestly, haven't you ever changed your emotional reactions by reinterpreting what you're seeing?

I don't see how that has much to do with the price of tea in China.

Obviously current impressions trigger the need for supplementary chemicals - if I pull a gun on you, adrenalin is needed for you to cope with the situation. If I point an ice cream cone at you, no adrenalin is needed. 

Hence emotions are triggered by events. Change the event and there is no need for the chemical change.

What doesn't happen is that I point a gun at you and you can stop the adrenalin flow. You can't.

You aren't taking into account ambiguous situations, which most situations are.

What you are telling me is that you think most people believe they are responding directly to the real world rather than to their own interpretations of it. Perhaps that is true.
Reply
#90

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 06:56 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 06:51 PM)Dom Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 05:17 PM)Alan V Wrote: Honestly, haven't you ever changed your emotional reactions by reinterpreting what you're seeing?

I don't see how that has much to do with the price of tea in China.

Obviously current impressions trigger the need for supplementary chemicals - if I pull a gun on you, adrenalin is needed for you to cope with the situation. If I point an ice cream cone at you, no adrenalin is needed. 

Hence emotions are triggered by events. Change the event and there is no need for the chemical change.

What doesn't happen is that I point a gun at you and you can stop the adrenalin flow. You can't.

You aren't taking into account ambiguous situations, which most situations are.

What you are telling me is that you think most people believe they are responding directly to the real world rather than to their own interpretations of it.  Perhaps that is true.

That's not what I think. All situational interpretations are subjective.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
Reply
#91

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 06:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Unfortunately that's totally incorrect. It's a "package". You may have no experience of it, but that doesn't mean there is no connection. Only that you don't know about the connection. As usual, you present your "opinions" as the gospel truth. You should check your Papal Pronouncements with the Roman Curia, before proclaiming them, your Holiness.

Religion and aesthetics are, in some cases, completely connected.
In fact in some traditions, (such as the Anglicans and Catholics) they have traditions which are THE REASON people are attracted to the entire business in the first place. And when they find out the religious *part* of the package is total BS, for years they grieve the lost connections. Just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean others share in your ignorance.

Hey, that's a nice straw-man you've built there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it.

Because you obviously didn't notice, I will repost the relevant passage that you actually quoted before ignoring it:

Quote:Many of us love art, and many aren't intrigued by it; many religionistas love art, and many aren't intrigued by it.

I've even emboldened the part that you should pay attention to, because you obviously need the help.

Next time don't lead off such a mistaken post with a personal attack and you might get better treatment. Also -- next time, read for comprehension rather than ego-fapping.
On hiatus.
Reply
#92

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 05:17 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 01:14 AM)Dom Wrote: Emotion is not something your consciousness produces or controls, and you can't really turn it off. 

This is where we still disagree.

I remember an instance with my grandmother.  We were visiting her at her home in Indiana, and she got upset because we had ignored it was her 80th birthday (if I remember correctly).  So she sat down at the dining room table and sadly sang "Happy Birthday" to herself.  It was kind of pathetic.

What she didn't realize was that we had planned a surprise birthday party for her later that day, with more of her relatives yet to show up for the occasion.  If she had known that fact, she would not have experienced the same emotions.

So my conclusion remains that consciousness does control our emotional reactions in many instances, and once we realize that fact we can take more control over them.  Even just shifting our attention to something else changes our emotions.

Honestly, haven't you ever changed your emotional reactions by reinterpreting what you're seeing?

That story doesn't support your point. In it, the reality changed. She didn't alter her emotions by altering her thinking absent outside impetus.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
The following 3 users Like Dānu's post:
  • airportkid, Dom, GenesisNemesis
Reply
#93

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 06:56 PM)Alan V Wrote: ... most people believe they are responding directly to the real world rather than to their own interpretations of it.  Perhaps that is true ...

I'd say that is absolutely true, for everyone, at all times, since our experience of the world cannot be felt except through our senses, and our senses are processed and interpreted by mind.  We always assume the interpretation matches reality (else we we couldn't function), but I will say we are deficient in recognizing that our interpretation is interpretation, and therefore don't make allowances.
The following 1 user Likes airportkid's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#94

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 09:51 PM)airportkid Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 06:56 PM)Alan V Wrote: ... most people believe they are responding directly to the real world rather than to their own interpretations of it.  Perhaps that is true ...

I'd say that is absolutely true, for everyone, at all times, since our experience of the world cannot be felt except through our senses, and our senses are processed and interpreted by mind.  We always assume the interpretation matches reality (else we we couldn't function), but I will say we are deficient in recognizing that our interpretation is interpretation, and therefore don't make allowances.

I think you're generally correct, but I also think it's possible to separate our emotions and perceptions from our sense of self.
On hiatus.
Reply
#95

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 10:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ... I also think it's possible to separate our emotions and perceptions from our sense of self ...

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means.  Are you saying that who we are is separate from what we are?  That there's a "soul" separate from the chemistry and processes of biology?  Maybe you're not saying those things but then I don't know what you're saying.
Reply
#96

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 11:00 PM)airportkid Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 10:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ... I also think it's possible to separate our emotions and perceptions from our sense of self ...

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means.  Are you saying that who we are is separate from what we are?  That there's a "soul" separate from the chemistry and processes of biology?  Maybe you're not saying those things but then I don't know what you're saying.

I'm not saying those things. I'm saying that our feelings need not define who we are. Feelings are temporary and transient. Say, if I get angry at a customer for being ultra-picky or something, is that anger me? Only if I let that be so. I also have the alternative of telling myself that this is simply a transient feeling, and refusing to go off on the guy, and instead maintaining my demeanor; and coming back to the issue after my emotional spate has run its course.

This has nothing to do with souls or any of that claptrap. Our feelings only define us as people if we allow them to do so. We can change how we perceive the world, and thereby change how we respond to it. Knowing that feelings aren't controllable a priori we can still control how we respond to them, and the same goes with perceptions.
On hiatus.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#97

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 11:09 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ... Knowing that feelings aren't controllable a priori we can still control how we respond to them, and the same goes with perceptions ...

I think that's the crux.  How we ACT in response to emotion or perception is (hopefully) tempered by conscious consideration, where conscious consideration is more or less "who we are", and the raw emotion/perception a driving factor, but not THE factor, if we're wise, and recognize that emotion/perception are not trustworthy, just quick and immediate.  I think we agree there, if that's your point.
The following 1 user Likes airportkid's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#98

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 11:09 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 11:00 PM)airportkid Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 10:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ... I also think it's possible to separate our emotions and perceptions from our sense of self ...

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means.  Are you saying that who we are is separate from what we are?  That there's a "soul" separate from the chemistry and processes of biology?  Maybe you're not saying those things but then I don't know what you're saying.

I'm not saying those things. I'm saying that our feelings need not define who we are. Feelings are temporary and transient. Say, if I get angry at a customer for being ultra-picky or something, is that anger me? Only if I let that be so. I also have the alternative of telling myself that this is simply a transient feeling, and refusing to go off on the guy, and instead maintaining my demeanor; and coming back to the issue after my emotional spate has run its course.

This has nothing to do with souls or any of that claptrap. Our feelings only define us as people if we allow them to do so. We can change how we perceive the world, and thereby change how we respond to it. Knowing that feelings aren't controllable a priori we can still control how we respond to them, and the same goes with perceptions.

Our feelings are no less definitive of who we are than the traits and proclivities picked up through nature and nurture, nor the beliefs, likes, dislikes, and curious tics we acquired similarly. We are simply the totality of what we have been, or so I believe. To walk away from that, to me, is to wander into the romantic territory of true selves that are always other than what we have been, and things like soul mates, all six of them that we happened to coincidentally find in serial fashion.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#99

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 11:09 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 11:00 PM)airportkid Wrote:
(03-20-2022, 10:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ... I also think it's possible to separate our emotions and perceptions from our sense of self ...

I'm sorry, I don't know what that means.  Are you saying that who we are is separate from what we are?  That there's a "soul" separate from the chemistry and processes of biology?  Maybe you're not saying those things but then I don't know what you're saying.

I'm not saying those things. I'm saying that our feelings need not define who we are. Feelings are temporary and transient. Say, if I get angry at a customer for being ultra-picky or something, is that anger me? Only if I let that be so. I also have the alternative of telling myself that this is simply a transient feeling, and refusing to go off on the guy, and instead maintaining my demeanor; and coming back to the issue after my emotional spate has run its course.

This has nothing to do with souls or any of that claptrap. Our feelings only define us as people if we allow them to do so. We can change how we perceive the world, and thereby change how we respond to it. Knowing that feelings aren't controllable a priori we can still control how we respond to them, and the same goes with perceptions.

That works unless your chemistry is off and a ton of adrenalin is released. The fact that you can choose not to act on this is that either you have a good chemical balance, which is genetic, or you have been exposed to this feeling so frequently that your body responds with a much lighter reaction. 

We're all different, I don't even get angry.
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply

Existentialism
(03-20-2022, 11:34 PM)Dom Wrote: We're all different, I don't even get angry.

That's why you're the moderator while we lesser mortals toil and quarrel in the shadow of the ban hammer  Sun
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)