Emotions and Reason

[Reciprocality]

Could our rationale ever do anything else then reason its way backwards from emotions, and could anything else then reason be the result of emotions?

Next only to *senseorial sensations? Which reason neccesarily is the derivative of.

Could we reason and deduce an emotional conclusion? Would appriciate any response : )

 

*senseorial sensation sounds like "beautiful beauty", but it were to specify those senses like vision, taste, physical pain etc, and not those of thought and emotion.

[Leo Gura]

You can reason forwards. But your reason is co-opted by ego and overridden by emotions.

[Pallero]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking. But just wanted to say that there is always reason behind emotions.

[commie]

I guess I need to sit down and listen to my reason more because I seem to be in denial about that.

More generally...

7 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

Could our rationale ever do anything else then reason its way backwards from emotions

Like its kin never, ever is a dangerous word. If you distinguish thought from both emotion and sensorial sensation, why couldn't reason work backward from thought?

7 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

Could we reason and deduce an emotional conclusion?

It seems like it but of course the deduction could be a mere rationalization that serves to justify the emotion as part of an outwardly rational narrative.

[Reciprocality]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You can reason forwards. But your reason is co-opted by ego and overridden by emotions.

In most usage of logic people seem to justify their emotions as though it were BUT an effect of reason, by backwards it is meant that they fool themselves to think that doing that IS premise-premise-conclusion when in reality they conclude first may the premises be as fantastical as they see fit.

There is no doubt a motion of reasoning forwards, what i question is wetther it sequels our emotions in itself, and if yes to which extents/quantities? And if yes, how can we be sure it does not makes the first assertions in this comment absurd?

Ego would be synonymous to emotion with regard to the questions, in their mutual relation to reason, so yes i certaintly agree. Which is why "But your reason is co-opted by emotion and overridden by ego." would be virtually the same idea.

[Reciprocality]

8 hours ago, Pallero said:

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking. But just wanted to say that there is always reason behind emotions.

Now i wonder, is it by virtue of logics you assert that, or is it by appeal to the effect of custom? The assumption past experiences are in congruence with reality and that those experiences WILL be in congruence with the future?

I can say that there is a reason goats walks the earth surface, but i i can not reason all the neccesary premises for that to be logical in regards to all other animals as well as physical laws. Still i INDUCE there must be SOME reason, and if i could do it would not those premises be set 'after the fact' of seeing the goat?

[Reciprocality]

9 hours ago, commie said:

I guess I need to sit down and listen to my reason more because I seem to be in denial about that.

More generally...

Like its kin never, ever is a dangerous word. If you distinguish thought from both emotion and sensorial sensation, why couldn't reason work backward from thought?

It seems like it but of course the deduction could be a mere rationalization that serves to justify the emotion as part of an outwardly rational narrative.

And IF it serves to justify emotion the mode in which i used EVER would be THE question, for it asks if ever anything else than emotion-therefore-reason could be the function of reason.

To your first comment i say good luck! It is a wall one may never ascend. And have been a subliminal "verkebyll" as we say in Norwegian, for philosophers in centuries.

Verkebyll could mean "congestion".

"why couldn't reason work backward from thought?" I do not get the question.

Edited October 31, 2020 by Reciprocality

[commie]

Let's be even more general then: why assume a causal hierarchy? Why couldn't all types of mental events influence all such types? Do you get that question?

Surely reason is effective outside of an emotional context so I don't see how "emotion-therefore-reason" could possibly be "the function" of reason.

[Reciprocality]

Yes, why assume a causal hierarchy? Influence and determinative factor do NOT exlude eachother, reason can influence emotion by proxy of it ITSELF being yet another part of reality. I am myself questioning the hierarchy of it, and kindly ask for guidance in that. Assertions move us forward only insofar as they can be connected to externalities, and again why I am after examples for how one goes about finding reason itself as synchronical axioms, and itself a case for the importance of reason.

"Surely reason is effective outside of an emotional context" What you are asserting here is what i in the original post are after the justification of (second question), and without which i can not agree with you on.

This gets into some weird territories but would appriciate you following along : )

..

So i believe (we can get back to the why of the belief) that SYNCHRONICALY, that is to say every instance in itself by extention of nothing else then itself there is emotions, senseorial sensations and incentives to actions. (of which the free will seems accidental in relation to, but this can be disputed)

Then DIACHRONICALY i think our faculties for reason make sense of those emotions as well as sensations, i think biologicaly it emerged hundreds of millions later than the syncronical ones. (the biology of it are itself accidental to the claim, as simply without it the claim looses no validity)

I am not desputing wheter those diachornical assesements influence the synchronical ones, but wheter they themselves becomes synchronical, a bedrock of each moment. (edit: here you may say there is no bedrock of each moment, but similar to the text down below this would be a contradiction)

I whould add that to do anything at all is neccesarily a hierarchy, the valid objection would be to the content not the structure of it, for the objection would itself validate the objected. (again, be it the structure)

Edited October 31, 2020 by Reciprocality

[commie]

6 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

I am after examples for how one goes about finding reason itself as synchronical axioms, and itself a case for the importance of reason.

Unless you are a solipsist, wouldn't the mysterious efficacy of mathematics qualify?

6 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

I am not desputing wheter those diachornical assesements influence the synchronical ones, but wheter they themselves becomes synchronical, a bedrock of each moment.

A bedrock influenced by things which arose above it in other moments, you mean?

It would be prettier if mental events all had always been synchronical. Do you have an even prettier proposal?

In other words, what does this duality bring to the table?

 

For what that's worth, with regard to what I might call a "bedrock" quality, I feel more of a difference within these types of mental events than between them. Granted, reason feels special in that regard since I feel like there's a difference among the other types.

6 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

I whould add that to do anything at all is neccesarily a hierarchy, the valid objection would be to the content not the structure of it

The necessary hierarchy might be more fundamental than any of the distinctions proposed here, therefore I can not agree.

[Reciprocality]

On 1.11.2020 at 6:14 AM, commie said:

The necessary hierarchy might be more fundamental than any of the distinctions proposed here, therefore I can not agree.

With that logic you can only agree to those things which bedrock you can falsify and know you stand on, that would be impossible in the real world.

Or alternatively agreement is a word we can not agree upon.

On the last sentence i made the point and only the point that hierachies are a neccesity for action, is it its validity you can not agree with?

 

On 1.11.2020 at 6:14 AM, commie said:

Unless you are a solipsist, wouldn't the mysterious efficacy of mathematics qualify?

 

I am not, nor do i think it would.

On 1.11.2020 at 6:14 AM, commie said:

A bedrock influenced by things which arose above it in other moments, you mean?

It would be prettier if mental events all had always been synchronical. Do you have an even prettier proposal?

In other words, what does this duality bring to the table?

Reason as a sensational bedrock in itself, that is the only way i could justify reason as a cause for emotion, it is probably an unfalsefiable question however.

I do not believe i care much to speak of the aesthetics of this, and can not see why you would bring it up.

The duality bring to the table that which makes it knowable whether all reason are means to justify emotion and other synchronics, or ALSO ends in themselves.

 

I would suggest you to write something of your own, a few aphorisms which encapsilates your understanding of my line of thought so i can know if i need to clearify, perhaps conclude yourself on my premises so to make it explicit where we diverge.

I'm sorry it took this long to see this thread were responded to, but will appriciate some strong cases against mine as i'm sure you can create if you tried. : )

Edited November 7, 2020 by Reciprocality

[Origins]

@Reciprocality Reason isn't a something. This is the mistake of philosophy. It thinks of abstract categories like reason as real objects, it's total nonsense. You've got some neurons firing in your prefronal cortex, figuratively speaking (because there's more than just the PFC involved of course, moreover it also depends on many other factors like how your brain has matured which determine the manner in which "reason" as it looks manifests in your brain). Again reason is not a thing, we have to get that out of our thinking, reason is merely a byproduct of brains trying to discriminate and synthesise perceptions in their awareness, perceptually or purely imaginary. So as it concerns the subject of emotions, do you think your brain experiences emotions? It does not. Our whole body experiences emotions but only our brain has a prefrontal cortex. This isn't a subject to think about in a linear way because we're dealing with our biologies, which are relational and therefore geometrical. You cannot philosophise about emotions beyond playful abstractions, they have a place value and things that exist relative to that place value, but that's it. Philosophers have evolved from trying to be biologists, neurologists and psychologists these days because we now have subjects like biology, psychology and neurology. But philosophy has a place there, again, playful abstraction to get us thinking in unique ways about seemingly trivial questions.

I liked your post though, its good to see intelligent thought otherwise hello from Australia!

Edited November 8, 2020 by Origins

[Reciprocality]

24 minutes ago, Origins said:

@Reciprocality Reason isn't a something. This is the mistake of philosophy. It thinks of abstract categories like reason as real objects, it's total nonsense. You've got some neurons firing in your prefronal cortex, figuratively speaking (because there's more than just the PFC involved of course, moreover it also depends on many other factors like how your brain has matured which determine the manner in which "reason" as it looks manifests in your brain). Reason is not a thing, we have to get that out of our thinking, reason is merely a byproduct of brains trying to discriminate and synthesise perceptions in its awareness, perceptually or purely imaginary. So as it concerns the subject of emotions, do you think your brain experiences emotions? It does not. Our whole body experience emotions but only our brain has a prefrontal cortex. This isn't a subject to think about in a linear way because we're dealing with our biologies, which are relational and therefore geometrical. You cannot philosophise about emotions beyond playful abstractions, they have a place value and things that exist relative to that place value, but that's it. Philosophers have evolved from trying to be biologists, neurologists and psychologists these days because we now have subjects like biology, psychology and neurology. But philosophy has a place there, again, playful abstraction to get us thinking in unique ways about seemingly trivial questions.

I liked your post though, its good to see intelligent thought and hello from Australia!

Finally! And i agree! Everything you said is right on, but i still want to give philosophy all that i have, and why i raised the question if reason could be itself a "synchronical" sensation, and why i see all philosophy and reason as mere incentives to justify emotion. : D

Thank you for the respone, appriciate the depth!

Edit, i would not see it as the "mistake" of philosophy, the mistake would rather be to the extent one have too high expectations of the utility by which philosphy and reason can justify emotion.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Reciprocality

[Origins]

1 minute ago, Reciprocality said:

Finally! And i agree! Everything you said is right on, but i still want to give philosophy all that i have, and why i raised the question if reason could be itself a "diachonical" sensation, and why i see all philosophy and reason as mere incentives to justify emotion. : D

Thank you for the respone, appriciate the depth!

No problem! As for your motivations towards philosophy, well they're your emotions so absolutely! Haha.

Can you elaborate on your use of "diachronical" for this context? If what you're saying is that reason can be a sensation of various kinds absolutely I agree, in fact the more it is a sense close to feeling and emotion is probably not only contributive to your intellectual drive but also indicative of higher emotional intelligence, at least an aspect thereto. Moreover, as per the specifics of said sensation now that I think of it I believe its varied and an under-appreciated nuance that only those who spend long enough contemplating a subject actually experience. In fact for me only right now as a consequence of reading your post have I been able to spot that tree in the woods so to speak after looking down with the same birds eye view this whole time, so thank you for posting. Of course, I may have misinterpreted your use but regardless simply contemplating both synchrony and diachrony in the context of the aesthetics of reason has enabled me to make that new connection, so appreciation.

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, Origins said:

Can you elaborate on your use of "diachronical" for this context? 

That were a typo, meant the opposite 'Synchronical', which i define as: "that which can be said about a specific accidental to its relational past and future" (Here Hume and some other empericists would claim that relation can never really be said to be but a mere "connexion" . If it were NOT accidental to the specific's past and future i would call it a subset within a diachronical 'whole', or rather simply diachronics.

 

1 hour ago, Origins said:

If what you're saying is that reason can be a sensation of various kinds absolutely I agree, in fact the more it is a sense close to feeling and emotion is probably not only contributive to your intellectual drive but also indicative of higher emotional intelligence, at least an aspect thereto.

If reason were to be itself synchronical i would claim that the road from there to justifying reason as something MORE then that which justify emotion, would not be far. But than again, it could be that it is such only by proxy of being yet another emotion as you elaborated on above. 

2 hours ago, Origins said:

Moreover, as per the specifics of said sensation now that I think of it I believe its varied and an under-appreciated nuance that only those who spend long enough contemplating a subject actually experience. In fact for me only right now as a consequence of reading your post have I been able to spot that tree in the woods so to speak after looking down with the same birds eye view this whole time, so thank you for posting. 

Yes indeed it is under-appriciated, and ufortunatley those of us who do sense these things may not be adequatley verbaly proficient so to make explicit sense of it to themselves, non less communicating it to others. Its great that you saw a new angle to the issue, if i myself could be said to have a passion it is for those trees which have been "hidden" all along and suddenly become clear as day.

[Origins]

12 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

Yes indeed it is under-appriciated, and ufortunatley those of us who do sense these things may not be adequatley verbaly proficient so to make explicit sense of it to themselves, non less communicating it to others. Its great that you saw a new angle to the issue, if i myself could be said to have a passion it is for those trees which have been "hidden" all along and suddenly become clear as day.

There’s this very fascinating visual ability when it comes to switching between foreground and background which is analogous to being able to do so logically that allows one to discover new colours, shades and perspectives to the same picture in the way you’ve surmised you enjoy. Analogously also but in a different way is the ability to solve visual illusions because there is often this sometimes highly nuanced, aka what we generally associate as perceptivity, perspective shifting involved. There is also apophenia. All of these are layers to each other of course, different but overlapping. 

And I see these descriptions here as convergent divergent abilities rather than divergent abilities onto themselves, something that I’ve only now just described for the first time to myself. Meaning what’s popular in mainstream psychology is to equate passages of thinking as either divergent or convergent, I’d like to suggest at least two more possibilities, that is divergent convergence and convergent divergence with the latter here representing what I’ve shared in this comment, that is, the ability to divergently shift between perspectives within the same broad lens, pure divergence to contrast as an example would be like the relationship between broad lenses or aspects of a broad lens with things outside of the broad lens. In saying that naturally these abilities play an important part when it comes to artistic production as well but, as a pun, they're certainly not the full perspective of course. Some of these abilities are also great for solving lateral thinking puzzles, solving a crime (outside of pure deduction), creating a software program in some programming language, etc.

Some people find philosophy and the like overintellectualisation, “over-intellectualisation” as some may call it, directed towards the right path and using the right mind is highly important of course for brain development in both early and adult life. A baby simply playing with the same toy in a cognitive sense can develop numerous cognitive abilities from the perceptual to the logical discriminatory and of course, to its inverse, a person wrongly equating proper cognitive discourse with perceptions as “over-intellectualisation” probably lives a much less perceptive life. Of course, true over-intellectualisation is probably simply a lack of perception because once the ability to perceive the right lens through a perspective shift or say a logical deduction then the need for intellectualising that phenomenon ceases. 

Intellectualisation is not just an important emotional tension we have with the experiential world but as a consequence as we’ve discovered in this conversation one also develops emotional aesthetics around reason itself which develops perceptual cognitive aesthetics which play a further importance for our overall psychical expression. Without this tension, the tectonic plates of culture do not shift when they ought to, technological innovations are not discovered when they ought to be discovered, simpler solutions are not discovered when they ought to be discovered, etc, etc.

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Origins

[Reciprocality]

@Origins: "Of course, true over-intellectualisation is probably simply a lack of perception because once the ability to perceive the right lens through a perspective shift or say a logical deduction then the need for intellectualising that phenomenon ceases. "

Wherever one draws the line of “over-intelectualization” it needs be where it functions (due to some relational incentive) as an end in itself, instead of the means it started as. If you take the incentive out of that equation you will stand left with that exact dichotomy of “reason and emotion” as we discussed earlier, for again, without the incentive reason would be the synchronical ‘rock bottom’.

The need to intellectualize that specific phenomenon do cease to exist, but seeing that we are these spontaneous creatures that in our innocence will make new problems to solve, we by proxy of this new NEED will spin and intellectualize that very phenomenon yet again, I believe. And potentially when some line of thought derivative of that ‘phenomena of which truth we thought we could be certain’ gets contradictory we will go all the way back and spin on it again. Maybe due to less than ideal memory, or maybe due to the actual invalidity of the phenomenon. This can be one of many ways to for example interpret “frenzy”.

Set theoretical it seems rather obvious that such ‘non-validity’ or uncertainty will elicit harsh reactions, seeing that subset 3.1 to 3.126 could be erroneous for the simple missteps in set 1 or 2. It may be those reactions we try to impede, now the paradox is that the next moment we gloss over some other uncertainty. (now it is only a real paradox for the one believing he is fundamentally ‘rational’.

 

@Origins: Visual Illusions, are the horizontal lines parallel or do they slope?

My answer to this question has within it again the cognizance of “diachronical/synchronical”, the subliminal faculty of sense-making which process I can not reach simultaneously says that the lines slope, the degree to which I am aware of how to make sense of the figure tells me those lines are perfectly symmetrical to all others and perfectly horizontal as well.

In direct awareness I find the former to be valid synchronicaly, for I have no past and future to contrast it with, it has no subset nor category to fit in.

Then I put those limited parts of the figure that I understand in relation to each other, and deduce from there how the position of both sets of colors as well as the geometrical relation those squares in between to make an illusion of slopes. But then again, the process is not necessarily the totality nor the essence of the moment, begging the question of potential emotions.

@Origins: “And I see these descriptions here as convergent divergent abilities rather than divergent abilities onto themselves, something that I’ve only now just described for the first time to myself. “

That is certaintly one way to explicate it, although it presumably leaves out parts of the totality of the conversation, that is those parts which have to do with ‘ends in themselves’, ‘sensations without predicates’ ‘first principles’ etc.

 

@Origins: “what’s popular in mainstream psychology is to equate passages of thinking as either divergent or convergent, I’d like to suggest at least two more possibilities, that is divergent convergence and convergent divergence with the latter here representing what I’ve shared in this comment, that is, the ability to divergently shift between perspectives within the same broad lens, pure divergence to contrast as an example would be like the relationship between broad lenses or aspects of a broad lens with things outside of the broad lens “

So if I understand you correctly “convergent divergence” as the structure of thought which within it relies on predicates as Kants “a posteriory” so to elicit form there previously developed patterns? Perhaps also known as accommodation, or I would call it “open-ended accommodation”.

And Divergent Convergence as the structure of thought which within is relies on Kants “a priory” so to elicit (presumably) ‘artistic’ modes of reason, ‘novel’ modes of reason? Alternatively even value theoretical believes? This would be virtually opposite of “assimilation”, so something in mine our yours reasoning is probably of, although not neccesarily. Or maybe it is not that far of the assimilation-process at all, i am poorly read on psychology unfortunatly, i mostly take everything on first principles and read whatever is neccesary from there. Usually i find academic conclusions rather "static" so that may be the reason. 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Reciprocality

[Nahm]

On 10/30/2020 at 10:35 PM, Reciprocality said:

*senseorial sensation sounds like "beautiful beauty", but it were to specify those senses like vision, taste, physical pain etc, and not those of thought and emotion.

It doesn’t sound like ‘beautiful beauty’, it is the same as saying ‘beautiful beauty’. This is being missed. 

[Reciprocality]

3 minutes ago, Nahm said:

It doesn’t sound like ‘beautiful beauty’, it is the same as saying ‘beautiful beauty’. This is being missed. 

By that logic you are the one conflating the sensation of sounds/vision with that of reason.

[Nahm]

@Reciprocality

Alright then. Godspeed. 

Dr tried to check my reflexes the other day with the little knee hammer thingy, but he wasn’t fast enough. I was like ...