Why does Philosophy get wrapped up in emotion?

A dear INTJ friend of mine has something he says which constantly annoys me but which I haven't actually found a way to dispute logically. He says 'If you can't quantify it, it doesn't matter.'

I asked him about ideas like love and the soul and within a purely logical context you can quantify love and the soul can be verified as a defined logical establishment (but not as an abstract).

I put forward ideas like God and again, you can find neurological reasons for the existence of the idea of God. Not for God as an abstract but for the existence of the idea and this is more important than the reasons for the existence of God (since God can't be quantified).

Perhaps a good response to your INTJ friend would be; Absolute truth is unknowable and therefore unquantifiable. That is what popped into my head at that little statement. Should make their head spin a bit since it is a bit of a circular argument. Basically, everything in life is subject to the knowable and the unknowable, it is the great balance, as I like to think of it. Your INTJ friend is fooling themselves if they believe anything can be quantified. Perhaps they think nothing matters? I work for a philosopher and it tickles me when he starts talking about Plato and Socrates.

then tell him that "if you can not quantify it now, it doesn't mean it can not be quantified any time". There are many things that could not be measured before before because there where no instruments to do the job. 20 years ago it was impossible to measure brain activity. Does that mean there is no brain activity? Or there was no brain activity 20 years ago but there is now?
I read somewhere that now there has been made a scale that is so sensitive and precise it can weight the soul (being the difference between the weight before and after death). I don't know if it is true but I strongly believe that in the near future this will be possible :becky:

as for the OP, it is difficult for me to leave my emotions out of a philosophical debate. Mostly I want to explore other ways of looking at things and I love to brainstorm with an other open mind. My thoughts are never completely solid. But when the other party is extremely solid about there thoughts, I start to defend the opposite viewpoint, just to prove that there is always an other point of view and the one is not better than the other. I don't believe the absolute truth exists. There are so many ways of looking at things and they are all right and all wrong. The best way to prove this is with quantum physics where scientists have shown that matter can act as matter or energy. It is both at the same time but when you look at it searching for matter it will act as matter but when you search for energy it will act like energy.
 
The "shutting down" is a defense mechanism. I envy people who have it, or have not obliterated it. Once you do, there's no going back, but there's no going forward either.

Shutting down is my pet peeve. When having a heated discussion/debate about something emotional and controversial, some people pull the "everyone can believe what they believe card". It's a cheap shot for people with no backbone. They don't really believe in anything. They have broken down and can't take it anymore. This is a weakness, not something to envy.
 
What you're getting when someone shuts down, I would argue, is their attempt at a non-insulting/non-aggressive way to vent their anger. They're upset, but know it's not your fault, so they don't want to take it out on you, so they close up and try to avoid discussing it anymore

I'm of the belief that when people adopt a core belief or align themselves with a particular value, they put of piece of themselves into that belief. When that belief is devalued, attacked, or condescended to, they get angry or hurt, simply because they have stored a part of themselves in that belief.

It happens if you presure someone's religion (I believe God is XYZ type of being), when you speak badly of someone's friend or family (I believe that this person is worthy of friendship), or when you break into someone's house (I believe that I have the right to private property, and it should be respected). Hell, I even used to cringe when my dad would get angry and start yelling at someone who cut him off or did something else that caused him to slow down on the road (I believe that my time/schedule is valuable enough that no other people should get in its way).

Philosophy chases after fundamental questions about reality and questions indiscriminately the central ideas that permeate peoples' lives. Philosophers are constantly trying to find the questions which have the farthest reaching consequences... so it's no surprise that it sparks up peoples' anger rather quickly, and they try to contain/redirect it by shutting down conversation. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the reason you find that certain groups have a "shorter shut down period" is because you sound more aggressive when talking to them, or otherwise let on that you disapprove of their beliefs--both of which would make them worry a bit & be more likely to sense 'attack'. On the other hand, to test that we'd need to find a fundamentalist who really likes philosophy and see whether or not liberals (or w/e the opposite of fundamentalist is) tend to shut down discussion with them quickly... and unfortunately, I don't know any fundamentalists who likes philosophy at all, lol... so maybe you're just right.
 
then tell him that "if you can not quantify it now, it doesn't mean it can not be quantified any time". There are many things that could not be measured before before because there where no instruments to do the job. 20 years ago it was impossible to measure brain activity. Does that mean there is no brain activity? Or there was no brain activity 20 years ago but there is now?
I read somewhere that now there has been made a scale that is so sensitive and precise it can weight the soul (being the difference between the weight before and after death). I don't know if it is true but I strongly believe that in the near future this will be possible :becky:

as for the OP, it is difficult for me to leave my emotions out of a philosophical debate. Mostly I want to explore other ways of looking at things and I love to brainstorm with an other open mind. My thoughts are never completely solid. But when the other party is extremely solid about there thoughts, I start to defend the opposite viewpoint, just to prove that there is always an other point of view and the one is not better than the other. I don't believe the absolute truth exists. There are so many ways of looking at things and they are all right and all wrong. The best way to prove this is with quantum physics where scientists have shown that matter can act as matter or energy. It is both at the same time but when you look at it searching for matter it will act as matter but when you search for energy it will act like energy.

[MENTION=1591]Morgain[/MENTION];
The key word would be the definition of "knowable" then. You would have to prescribe to the ideal that man is infallible then to presume that something is 100% knowable or a certain. Hell, I don't even think our understanding of the supposed omnipotent being(s) known as god(s) is perfectly described/understood by man.
 
My current view of life is that we are all trapped in a matrix of false perceptions. In order to move towards the truth, whatever that is, we need to evolve our perceptions. We may never reach the truth in our lifetime but there are benefits in getting closer to it. I don't know what the truth is as i am also deep in the matrix but i am trying always to break down my false perceptions and to point to the doorways in other people’s false perceptions so that they can move on themselves.

If enough people evolve their perceptions then the entire system has to change to keep pace with societies evolving perception.

Some people are stubbornly stuck on false perceptions and will not listen to any other perception. Their false perception becomes their prison. If enough people do that it has a detrimental effect on all of us because it allows the control system to keep things as they are.......which is not where we want to be as a society! We want to be improving!

In a spiritual sense this could be described as trying to leave the material plane and opposing the demiurge (Jehovah) which wants us to remain rooted on malkuth (the material plane).....but that might just be a perception in itself!
 
Last edited:
My current view of life is that we are all trapped in a matrix of false perceptions. In order to move towards the truth, whatever that is, we need to evolve our perceptions. We may never reach the truth in our lifetime but there are benefits in getting closer to it. I don't know what the truth is as i am also deep in the matrix but i am trying always to break down my false perceptions and to point to the doorways in other people
 
I don't know about false perceptions but I think that partial truth perceptions is a better name for it. I like the idea of questioning all of one's perceptions but I feel like that could lead to a padded cell. "I can evaporate through these walls man"

Lol!

I think when you step outside your cultural programming and look back at those still clinging to it, you see that the beliefs they hold onto form almost a psychosis. The fact that many people are clinging to a collective psychosis does not mean that it is true

For example people used to think that the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. Some people dared to cleanse those doors of perception and moved closer to the truth. Usually they were punished by the architects of false perceptions like the catholic church

I think it i definately wise to keep one foot on the ground when exploring fresh perspectives however!
 
Why does Philosophy get wrapped up in emotion?

I never met `Philosophy' ... what' she like?
Might the wording and the psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic implications of the posing of the question provide a clue or two?
Abstractions can't get `wrapped up in emotion' ... creatures which have lymbic systems can and do.

Most often this 'shut down' happens on points of morality.
Fundamentalists have a far shorter 'shut down period' before emotion clamps down on logic and reason.
You can begin a conversation with a fundamentalist which goes 'Does God exist?' and they'll have instantly shut down from the idea that you believe there's any chance God doesn't.

Philo-sophia ... love of wisdom.
How many practice would-be wisdom more than they place it on a pedestal and love it from afar?
A wiser way of posing questions of god, IMHO, is to talk about conceptions of God, notions of god, mental models of `The Divine', etc.
Sans symbol grounding of the term `god' there can be no certainty that all the parties are even talking about the same `Thing' in the same universe of discourse.

Have you experienced this shut-down in having philosophical discussions?

Who with? What caused it?
Did you manage to work your way out of it?

Technically, though such discussions about `god' do fall under philosophy somewhat, they might fall better under the rubric of theo-logy ... the study of `theo'/god.
I've found that most who actually practice wisdom (mis)spend little time discussing what people fantasize as they are practicing abominable behavior in the name of this (mis)conception of `god' or another in some perverse game of `Simon says' in which `god' supplants Simon and it's some paternalist using the great Oz machine to play mouth piece for a would-be omnipotent being who would have the power to put words in our heads directly or give us helpful clues via intuition.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Mohandas Gandhi
 
Last edited:
My attention is primarily focused on two main points (and one sub-point):

1. Why does emotion enter into the equation when discussing philosophy?
a. Is this a negative, positive, or value-neutral action?
2. That which is quantifiable is the only thing that counts.

1. The initial duty would be to define what is meant by emotion (this is no simple task and I am not up for the challenge of trying to create a thorough definition; there has been debates over the meaning of emotion for centuries and even with complex brain-scanning capabilities we- the human race- are at a loss as to what the phenomenon underlying the brain activity is). This I do know: the word is often straw-man fodder and is employed in order to win an argument by laying bare the other person in an argument by disarming their ideas without interacting with the actual premises.

At the most simplistic form, however, emotion can be construed as a visceral or cognitive reaction to a stimulus that may or may not have an apparent rational or logical explanation.

Who can explain why a person smiles when they see a collage of orange and red, purple and cerulean at sunset? Who can get at the phenomenon behind why some people, no matter how hardened, will experience a release of serotonin while engaging in laughing?
http://hms.harvard.edu/public/news/2010/072810_marci.html

No matter what your MBTI or temperament is the human mind experiences emotion. It is inevitable and an evolutionary fact. Certain types (like my own, INTP) like to detach themselves from their emotions. I have caught myself using analytical methods to decipher my own emotions and why I feel a certain way. Though this can be an advantage at times, it is surely my loss that I am not able to tap in and understand my own emotions. This becomes exacerbated when we believe that our emotions affect us ONLY WHEN we are conscious of them.


It has taken me some years to realize this. It can be quite the strength and asset to have a feeling function in the first two spots of cognitive functions. If someone has Te or Ti in the dominant position, then feeling is in what Jung called the "shadow function." This allows for feeling to manifest itself in very bizarre and even tangential ways. In manners that don't seem to adhere to the situation at hand, but they nearly always have a connection, no matter how tenuous.

1a.
So to me, when discussing philosophy, it is vital to TRY to discuss matters as far from the emotions as possible, but when they do arise, one need not disperse with them immediately, but search out WHY they arise in the first place. I suspect that one of the primary emotions to emerge when discussing philosophy (or any other debate) is fear. Fear can be rational if based on reality (oh, how we could go on and on discussing what reality IS and what is suitable to fear). If you can find agreement on what should and should not be feared then you have really achieved something in debate. In watching politics the past few years I have noticed that the most common and relevant tactic is two –pronged:

1. Make what the opponents fear seem small and unimportant.
2.Magnify their fear, thereby making it seem the most relevant issue


It is not much different in debating philosophy though if you’re with someone you trust, you may be able to find some intellectual rapport.


So, in summation, I think emotion is throughout the thought process, the key is finding the points at which it emerges most clearly. It takes detective work in order to do it since I think it is much more fluid and dynamic than static. Earlier in the thread Norton said, “Emotion is the lubrication of thought”. I think that is quite fitting. The next dilemma is to find out whether that emotion is based on reality, if you can settle on the definition of reality. If you can do that, then you can assign logical value to the emotion and the dispute is arbitrated.



2. 'If you can't quantify it, it doesn't matter.'
I think what your friend is attempting to say is only that which is provable needs our attention. I notice this attitude in no few Te dominant or auxiliary MBTI. Well, this seems to be at odds with the endeavor of philosophy (another loaded word). To use the known for a springboard into the unknown is vital. This is how information, science progresses and evolves. If we stuck with what we knew then we’d be happy with the wheel. It reminds me of an oft-quoted aphorism of Henry Ford: “If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse.”

Also, our tools evolve as well. Morgain wrote that certain phenomenon may one day be quantifiable. Morgain used brain-activity as an example. I would like to use germs. Before the advent of the microscope germs were thought of as science fiction in many circles- even in medical circuits. Now we realize how closely tied together human and animal sickness is with germ activity. In some ways it was a myth before since we did not have any way of quantifying it as true. If our tools are correct and it seems they are, then what we need to do is alter our methods, our tools, not necessarily shut out something because it is not able to be proven.
It is a challenge for us all. I am an agnostic-atheist, but many of my close friends are believers. We debate occasionally and I enjoy it. But I have to be careful not to insist that the only valid premises in our discussion are ones that can be ratified by evidential fact.

Your friend does have a point though- we can go too far in possibilities. Some may want to debate something when all available evidence flies in the face of it. That is much different than arguing whether something is probable or not. An idea is implausible when all available evidence contradicts its premises. And while I enjoy exploring the unknown, the implausible is a waste of my time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top