A Contradiction I Noticed..

[EyeSeeCold]

A lot of people and maybe even some INTPs will tell you that feelings are meant to be experienced not rationalized. Well, in the same way, aren't thoughts meant to be reasoned with, not muddled with emotional attachment?

As long as your emotions pervade your logic, my logic will pervade my feelings.

 

[Latro]

You don't think feelings into existence. You don't feel thoughts into existence. You do synthesize the two together to make decisions effectively.

That's my two cents.

 

[Wish]

Since when are thoughts emotionless?

 

[FabricatedSerenity]

This puts me in mind of Hume. Passion is the causation and rationality the means of implementing passion in a realistic way? (<-- my own speculation derived from the scan of Hume.)

 

[Glordag]

I agree with this. I don't think it goes unnoticed, though. In the sciences and in business, you will often hear people state things like "there's no place for feeling here." Similarly, it's often in the realm of emotions (art, relationships, etc.) that I hear people state "you can't rationalize feeling."

 

[5k17]

Without feelings, you would not have any aims. You could think as much as you wanted, but would lack a reason to do anything, even for self-preservation; thus, you'd probably die pretty soon, and that would be very inefficient.

 

[The Gopher]

Without feelings, you would not have any aims. You could think as much as you wanted, but would lack a reason to do anything, even for self-preservation; thus, you'd probably die pretty soon, and that would be very inefficient.

So thats why INTPs with fewer feelings don't have many aims? We have enough feelings to do somethings but like self-preservation but not much. Is this why we seek entertainment to give us a feeling? So we survive? how far can I take this...

 

[eccentriceclectic]

Since when are thoughts emotionless?

This was my reaction as well.

The way I understand it, emotions act as something of a primer to thought, meaning that our mood/emotional affect determines the way we reason and our cognitive process. I also don't understand cognition or emotion to be unidirectional - rather, they all sort of mesh.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I understand that our thoughts are naturally mixed with our sentiments, but I polarized perspectives to make a point.

 

[eccentriceclectic]

I understand that our thoughts are naturally mixed with our sentiments, but I polarized perspectives to make a point.

I suppose I am missing the contradiction, however and see this merely as two perspectives on the same plane.
Rationality or analysis pervades emotions for INTPs because we enjoy active metacognition (or at least I do).
You say that most view it from the opposite perspective. That is, their emotions invade their otherwise logical thought process and they should acknowledge it as valid, making the assumption that emotions are not given deserved legitimacy in reasoning.

But, I think INTPs do this to a certain degree as well. If we have an emotional reaction to a problem we feel should be dealt in a logical way, we can appreciate and think about why we are having an emotional reaction in the first place and that will take weight in our assessment. We may not show the emotion, or we may transfer it to others, but we also value the experience - just in a different way.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The contradiction is that empirically inclined people want rationally inclined people to leave emotions un-analyzed but then they allow their thoughts or logic to be mixed with their feelings. It's hypocritical (and inevitable). So I say let me analyze my feelings as much as I want (because it's going to happen anyway).

 

[Silas]

This reminds me of this book (which I haven't even read) called Descartes Error by Antonio Damasio. Quote:

'The idea that the mind exists as a distinct entity from the body has profoundly influenced Western culture since Descartes proclaimed, "I think, therefore I am." Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa and a prominent researcher on human brain function, challenges this premise in a fascinating and well-reasoned argument on the central role that emotion and feelings play in human rationality. According to Damasio, the same brain structures regulate both human biology and behavior and are indispensable to normal cognitive processes. Damasio demonstrates how patients (his own as well as the 19th-century railroad worker Nicholas Gage) with prefrontal cortical damage can no longer generate the emotions necessary for effective decision-making. A gifted scientist and writer, Damasio combines an Oliver Sack-like reportage with the presentation of complex, theoretical issues in neurobiology.'

Arguably relevant I suppose.

 

[IfloatTHRUlife]

I guess i just have to say i agree with EyeSeeCold.

First lines on Emotion on wikipedia, which thoroughly describes what i was trying to put into words, but alas, wiki won. - Emotion is the complex psychophysiological experience of an individual's state of mind as interacting with biochemical (internal) and environmental (external) influences. In humanshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human, emotion fundamentally involves "physiological arousal, expressive behaviors, and conscious experiencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion#cite_note-0 Emotion is associated with mood, temperament, personality and dispositionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition, and motivation.

Its there.. its interesting.. i am going to examine such interesting things.. no matter what.

Honestly, as simple as emotions seem, can anyone say they truly understand them? For example, if you asked someone what love is, or what happy is.. you would just hear people say everything from marriage to chocolate to sex to ponies, or on the intjForum you would hear death, destruction, enslaving alien races... you know, the normal stuff.. but that doesn't accurately describe the emotion, or explain what triggers it, why it effects some people more than others, why they motivate people in different ways etc.

Indeed.

 

[LPolaright]

You don't think feelings into existence. You don't feel thoughts into existence. You do synthesize the two together to make decisions effectively.

That's my two cents.

I disagree.
I can think feelings into existence by analyzing a situation and then enforcing the feeling that is supposed to rise, or merely by thinking about a feeling I, or anyone else would eventually feel it, or by recalling a feeling I felt in the past (is recalling a part of thinking?).
Same goes for feelings but a little weirder, when I feel "pure" (It will never be pure) emotion towards an object or a person, thoughts will often emerge out of nowhere (or more accurately - out of feeling).

Emotion and Thinking are two different forces, I can't possibly polarize them. You can both feel and think at the same time. But I haven't really thought about it deeply, maybe at some instances the ability to think and feel at the same time is limited but it does exist.

 

[Glordag]

You know, thinking about this is only arousing feelings of bitterness. You shouldn't try to rationalize this feeling you're having so much.

 

[IfloatTHRUlife]

I dont really agree Lpolaright, mostly because feeling is result of emotion, it is not emotion itself. Emotion will drive you to feel, and drive you to have thought. You can certainly analyze and raise feelings with thought, but you cant force yourself to generate random changes of feeling or thought the way emotion does, it is a subconscious process.

 

[LPolaright]

I dont really agree Lpolaright, mostly because feeling is result of emotion, it is not emotion itself. Emotion will drive you to feel, and drive you to have thought. You can certainly analyze and raise feelings with thought, but you cant force yourself to generate random changes of feeling or thought the way emotion does, it is a subconscious process.

I think the main reason why you disagree is because I do not know how to explain it better, because the idea of "emotion" eludes me... It is really on the tip of my tongue but I cannot really understand what Wikipedia or other people tell me when they say "emotion".

For example, for me emotion goes very well with the definition of feelings.
But for you and the rest of the scientists for some reason it doesn't.
Motivation is an emotion - sad or happy is a feeling.

I can raise both motivation and sadness or happiness with my thoughts, so that distinguishing part of yours doesn't really help me.

Sure feelings can derive from motivation, but for me it only seems as though you order "higher feelings" aside from "lower feelings" and it only makes sense to me on the level of organizational needs.

So to me, emotion is no more than complex feelings - thus they can certainly work with thinking.

 

[Spungo Mungo]

I would posit that all thoughts are emotional in origin, otherwise there wouldn't be anything to prompt them. This is why abstract thought can be difficult, as it requires motivation which is not necessarily natural (namely, the motivation would be the desire to pursue an abstract argument, which would tend not to fall under the umbrella of everyday thought). Rational thought would then be a simple marshalling (or filtering) of ordinary, emotional thought.

 

[nexion]

1. Come up with idea as a result from observation
2. Abstract idea into something which could be universally applied to a set of data following a specific pattern
3. Use emotions to back up logical proof

Or something like that...

 

[Dimensional Transition]

Hmm, my thoughts are influenced by my emotions. It's not like my thoughts are truly pure and rational, although I try to be as rational as possible. Emotions will always play a role even though you might not notice it.

 

[Zero]

I'm pretty sure people who say that you can't rationalize feelings mean THEY can't rationalize feelings.

If someone doesn't even understand how to do something like that, it's probably not something they can do and certainly not something they could understand. It's probably one of those things where if they did try, they'd be like a dog chasing its tail.

They're probably more worried about people who suppress their emotions and don't feel or think about them.

Since when are thoughts emotionless?

I thought the original question was, "Since when are emotions thoughtless." Emotions are usually a reaction to something.

 

[nexion]

Please, tell me how one would rationalize emotions, or how you would rationalize yours. Feel free to use specific examples or abstractions.

 

[Zero]

Cause -> Emotional Reaction -> Realization of the cause -> Decision based on realization

Alternatively

Cause -> Emotional Reaction -> Realization of the cause -> Decision based on emotion


Rationalizing:
Person gets angry at me -> I feel bad -> I realize I feel bad, because they got angry at me -> Whatever they got mad at me for is something I couldn't help, etc... therefore not really something I can do anything about. So no reason to feel bad.

Experiencing:
Person gets angry at me -> I feel bad ->May realize why I feel bad -> Continue to feel bad (because of that person or whatever)

That's what I assumed the discussion was about.

 

[nexion]

Thanks.