The answer depends on the point I wish to make. :) On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:28 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Perhaps. Which comes/came first? The emotions or morals? > > On Aug 16, 4:28 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > The point is, if this is how you understand things, my attention. This is > my > > blood pressure, this is my feeling of anger, this is the situation. > That's > > the moral so to speak. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:02 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The point is , I think , that we act with a calm demeanor and not with > > > a strong emotion of anger. We cannot be bereft of emotion but instead > > > of feeling anger where anger is normal we should feel an emotion of > > > calmness when acting against miscreants. > > > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 1:59 AM, ornamentalmind > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Regardless of your view of psychological states, are you seriously > > > > suggesting that humans have states when they feel no emotions at all? > > > > I agree that often we can not be driven by our feelings; however, to > > > > imagine no hormones roaming our bloodstream and no feelings at all > > > > seems to be a severe situation. > > > > > > All research is welcomed. > > > > > > On Aug 16, 10:15 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Yes, wrong, Orn. As Lee suggests, the moral should best be served > > > without > > > >> emotions attached. That's the evaluation stage. "The truth of us > having > > > >> omnipresent emotions" in my view is a narcissistic > self-aggrandizement. > > > > > >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:31 PM, ornamentalmind > > > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > >> > "...I maintian that morality is best sreved without emotions > attached, > > > >> > can > > > >> > you show my why I am wrong? " - Lee > > > > > >> > Wrong?...since we all have emotions (and I would posit that we > have > > > >> > emotions all of the time too), any determination of right/wrong > would > > > >> > be made including emotions. However, assuming the truth of us > having > > > >> > omnipresent emotions, morality would/could not exist without them. > > > > > >> > On Aug 16, 4:09 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > Paradox, yes agreat frind of mine tells me the same sorta thing, > > > that > > > >> > > morality without emotion is somehow lacking. It is partly due > to > > > his > > > >> > > words and my respect for him that I have started this thread. > > > > > >> > > However as Rigsy points out to evict a looter from his council > home > > > >> > > for his looting does not adress any problems, nor does it serve > as > > > >> > > adiquate punishment, and would I think only make things worse. > > > > > >> > > This course of actions is a fine example of thinking/talking > about > > > >> > > morality whilst angry, and is to my mind no good at all. > > > > > >> > > I maintian that morality is best sreved without emotions > attached, > > > can > > > >> > > you show my why I am wrong? > > > > > >> > > On Aug 14, 5:31 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > Deep question, Lee; not an easy one. One who suffers injury > must > > > have > > > >> > > > the right of redress, be that restitution or retribution, or > else > > > we > > > >> > > > live in Hobbes's state of nature. The question of balance and > > > >> > > > proportionality is the proper remit of the law courts and > great > > > minds. > > > >> > > > Where the injury in question falls outside the purview of the > > > >> > > > collective good or the legal framework to that end, morality > and > > > >> > > > values must act to constrain the individual in respect of > balance > > > and > > > >> > > > proportionality; that is why it's so very vital that we > understand > > > >> > > > what we do when we tinker with the foundations and structures > of a > > > >> > > > society's moral compass. > > > > > >> > > > Personally, i've always felt that emotions are the fuel for > the > > > >> > > > directed mind. > > > > > >> > > > On Aug 12, 1:28 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > So as we should all know we have had quite a week of it here > in > > > the > > > >> > > > > UK. Facebook and many other web places have been inundated > with > > > all > > > >> > > > > sorts of sillyness. > > > > > >> > > > > Calls to bring back national service, calls to evict those > found > > > >> > > > > guilty of the rioting and looting, calls to stop their > benifits. > > > I > > > >> > > > > have witnessed some of my good good friends spew out all > mannor > > > of > > > >> > > > > sillyness in their anger. > > > > > >> > > > > I have procliamed in the past that all questions of morality > are > > > >> > > > > better served sans emotions and I see much this week that > has > > > only > > > >> > > > > firmed this view. > > > > > >> > > > > In order to discover though the validity of this thought > tell me > > > do > > > >> > > > > you agree, or not and why? People of ME sway my opinion > with > > > your > > > >> > > > > wise words. > > > > > >> > > > > What good can come of deciding upon a course of action > whilst > > > holding > > > >> > > > > onto your anger? > > > > > >> > > > > I ask of course as a self confessed recovered angry man.- > Hide > > > quoted > > > >> > text - > > > > > >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
