First of all, I defy all relativism, I defy it on principle.
This doesn't mean I am ignoring circumstances, the context -- I am working out such an understanding of the circumstances that a person's identity is not affected by those circumstances. Unless this circumstance is God.
I say a person should not let himself be defined by circumstances; a person should have an identity that exists regardless of the circumstances; except when this circumstance is God.
I make my theories such that I postulate that there is something in each person that remains, no matter what happens to this person. Meaning I posit a "force", an "energy" (for the lack of a better word so far), an ability that is there no matter what (except when meeting God).
Why do I do this? Because if we speak about "a person" doing something, we must postulate that this person exists, and what is essential to this person.
Otherwise, without this postulate, we get to the notion that "there is no us, no you". And the whole discussion becomes meaningless.
ellion said:
Then the self is "influenced" by the (same!) self ...
the self is infleunced and influences with infinite possibilities. so, yes!
But can this self exist without these possibilities? Are there some possibilities that are necessary?
How do emotions impact our rational thinking?
good question?
Well, how do emotions impact our rational thinking, I ask?
Is it the classical "When you're upset, you can't think"? or "When you're in love, you can't think"?
I disagree. When you're in love, your priorities are different, and you act and think in accordance with these priorities. This doesn't mean you can't think rationally. 2 + 2 is still 4.
If by "you can't think" is actually meant 'you don't behave the way you normally do' -- then we aren't talking about emotions influencing our rational thinking anyway. Then we're talking about the agenda one has for oneself -- and such agendas are just that: agendas, not reality.
We don't exist apart from our emotions, neither do they "have an impact on our free will". What they have "impact" on is rational thinking -- but this "impact" is possible only when a person's rational thinking is inconsistent and incoherent
but then you go on to say!
The connection fo emotions to cognition is that there are secondary emotions that emerge as reactions to certain cognitive states. These emotions don't impact our rational thinking; they are merely an indicator that our rational thinking was inconsistent and incoherent
With secondary emotions, the situation looks thus:
1. A cognitive dissonance (inconcistency, incoherence, incongruence) is discovered.
2. This triggers an emotional response.
Depending on other beliefs that this person holds, the repsonse is either A: defensive (anger, frustration; belief: "It is bad to find that you are wrong. It is wrong to be wrong. You must never show you're wrong."), or B: positive/affirmative (mild frustration; belief: "There's nothing wrong with being wrong. One should work out inconsistencies."). (Technically, it should also be posible to be completely indifferent upon finding an inconsistency, but I think only the mentally ill are so.)
3. The emotional response then sets the tone of thinking: whether the thinking will go A: in the direction of defense (anger continues), or B: in the direction of resolving the inconsistency.
In case A, the thinking indeed seems to be influenced by the negative emotions -- but I think it is in fact the belief that is negative, the negative emotions just accompany it.
But.
Often, popularily, we get to see this scheme of how emotions influence our thinking:
1. You talk. You hear something you don't want to hear.
2. You get angry.
3. You can't think rationally anymore.
While this may be true for many people, it is way to inexact to give a reliable picture of what happens when we are "influenced by emotions" (note the quotation marks!).
can i offer an explanation as to why your thinking is inconsistent.
this is what i have been saying all along you cant work with absolutes saying there is one rule that is applicable in all situations.
But this is exactly what I am after! A rule that is applicable to all situations.
i would have to say view the situation and the individual in the situation as a dynamic interaction of energetic principles. but there are times when you dont have to view it this way either and that will depend on the principles in question also?
My insisting on that one always applicable rule does not mean I ignore the circumstances.
I want to conceptualize a person's identity and their will in a manner that they remain intact regardless of circumstances. (Aside from God, as stated above.)
so the only rule is there is no rule.
No. If the only rule is that there is no rule, then this is still a rule -- and a dreadfully relativistic one at that. A self-negating rule.
Do you think that free will has its seat in the rational thinking?
no!
Good then. This answers a lot of my questions.
YOU THEN SAY THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE BUT REAFFIRM 1EMOTIONS DO NOT INFLUENCE OUR FREE WILL
2SECONDARY EMOTIONS ARE BORN OF INCONGRUENCE. THIS SUGGEST AGAIN THAT EMOTIONS (SECONDARY) ARE SOMEHOW DETACHED FROM ASPECTS OF THE SELF AND ARE A FUNTION OF COGNITIVE PROCESS.
I CAN SEE HOW (SECONDARY)EMOTION CAN BE BORN OF COGNITIVE PROCESS BUT TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE NO IMPACT ON FREE WILL IS TO DETACH THEM FROM THE WHOLE (A BLACK AND WHITE PAINTING).
No, this does not follow. I would agree with you if I would believe that the seat of free will is rational thinking. But I don't believe so.
i'm not sure what you say 'no' to, or what does not follow. can you tell me more about
what you understand of my statement here and how you replied to it? please!
Of course!
It first seemed to me that you deem rational thinking to be the seat of free will.
And if emotions can impact rational thinking, then they can also impact free will.
Now that we cleared up that rational thinking is not the seat of free will, and that emotions are an integrative part of the self, the picture is different.
Free will per se can do nothing; free will per se is nothing unless it has some content to be applied on.
This content can be rational, ethical, emotional.
It is not that emotions would impact free will.
Emotions are a content on which free will is applied. (Granted, in Western culture, we are not used to know ourselves this way, this is why emotions seem so foreign to us, something that "takes away our raitonality.)
Just as rational thoughts are a content on which free will is applied.
This application happens in accordance with the beliefs a person holds.
So, technically, we could say that the concept of free will is redundant -- for it is the beliefs themselves that arrange and re-arrange themselves, and that this is all there is to it.
But.
Each of us does feel like a someone, being an I -- and this is the instance in which those arrangings and re-arrangings of beliefs take place.
We are observing ourselves, and at the same time we are the agents of and in ourselves. We can call this observation-of-self and being-an-agent-of-and-in-oneself "free will". It is will because it does something, and it is free as it is not bound by any other instance of the same kind (within the same system).
i did mean affect yes.
THIS IS QUITE CONFUSING FOR ME, HOW DOES BEING EFFECTED BY THESE EMOTIONS MAKE THEM NOT PART OF MYSELF. BEING EFFECTED BY EMOTION (HAPPINESS / SADNESS) MEANS THEY ARE SO MUCH A PART OF ME THAT THEY CAN AND DO HAVE A VERY REAL EFFECT ON THE WHOLE OF MYSELF, EMOTIONS ARE FELT THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF MY BEING EVEN IN FLESH AND BLOOD.
A part of the confusion probably stems from the classical understanding (that we are all conditioned into) that "we have emotions". That "having emotions" is somehow something one can either have or not, almost as if they were accessoires to our self.
nope thats not what was confusing.
what was confusing was how you could say that me being effected by my emotions meant they where not part of myself.
I apologize. That misunderstanding came from the unclarity about where the seat of free will is.
I still find it odd to consider myself affected by my emotions. I could think myself affected by my emotions if they were something part from me.
But I don't think that way. I *am* my emotions. I am *being* my emotions. They don't "happen to me".
It's probably a methodological problem of explanation in general. I don't consider my emotions to be "part" of me -- but there seems to be no other way to say it (for now).
That emotions are a "part" of me is an analytical statement that can be misleading. Define yourself as being made up of parts, and a hierarchy emerges. Rational thinking is good, sexual drives are not so good etc. It is this hierarchy that is dangerous; as it is not absolute.
Popularily, it goes: "Emotions negatively affect our rational abilities". Let's look into this a bit: In deep sadness or in great cheer, one most likely indeed does worse on an IQ test. And as we in the West are used to think, anythnig that diminishes our intellectual abilities is bad, thus emotions are bad. (Just enforcing the hierarchy!) Along with it comes the idea that rational is what one wants to be, and that rational thinking is the seat of our free will. And emotions, those monsters, work against our free will, hindering it.
When you say that emotions impact our free will I now see you meant something else than what I've said above right now.
However, as I have observed, that negativistic outlook on emotions ("Emotions hinder our free will" -- note: *hinder*, not *impact*), is quite common.
I apologize it took quite a while to work this out.
I never said that a limitation equates a complete negation.
but that is what you are saying, you are saying we cant have free will (negation) if we have limited free will(limitation).
I don't understand my words this way, but now that you've brought it up:
A limitation does not equate a complete negation. This, however, does not go for all concepts. Some concepts are all-or-nothing. One either has a name, or one hasn't got a name. One either has free will, or one doesn't have free will.
sorry but thats not my interpretation thats your interpretation of my interpretation.
I'm glad that we disagree on this one then. It just cleared up my understanding of your outlook some more.
and i too would see the latter as being the more correct in this instance.
Present an example where such an interpretation as I suggested doesn't apply.
i dont think you understand my outlook to be honest, though i would like you too and i am trying to help you understand how i see it.
Things take time and effort.
this question may help you see things how i see them.
exactly where is your will limited and where is it unlimited?
It's limited nowhere. It is free as long as I am myself.
free will is something that we do have in some situations but we dont have in others.
Please give examples of both!
all i can say is your highly thought of.
Thank you!
