Can one argue sentiments?

[Odyne]

I know you can argue an idea, a concept, a theory most of the time, but can you argue feelings and sentiments?

Can one say that "This feeling is not valid because of such and such" or "these sentiments/emotions are up for a debate"?

If yes, how would you argue feelings? If no, why not?

 

[TinyBubbles]

could you give an example?

 

[Odyne]

could you give an example?

I don't have one. The thought sort of sprouted in my head.

damn it..why are all my questions so broad! lol

 

[NeverAmI]

Theoretically if you took people and put them in the same exact situation then you could average the typical responses. The US military uses fear conditioning extensively and is probably one of the hugest drives for understanding human fear and how to control it.

Even then, I don't think it is plausible to judge an emotion as either right or wrong there is only cause and effect.

Just my take on it.

 

[Razare]

Arguing feelings is difficult because they're a subjective experience, likely to be slightly different for every individual. I know that they're mostly the same, but even a subtle change from one person to the next means that their feelings are dissimilar enough to call it apples and oranges.

People base their decisions on a pain vs. pleasure system, anyway, logical argument is just a framework from which to argue feelings most of the time.

Take the current debate surrounding the Islamic temple built near ground 0. Logically, there's no ground to stand on for the people opposed to it. They've come up with arguments, but at the heart of all their arguments are feelings.

Humans don't require a method to debate feelings because we mostly accept them as personal absolutes.

 

[TinyBubbles]

I don't have one. The thought sort of sprouted in my head.

damn it..why are all my questions so broad! lol

lol dont worry, my questions are pretty open ended too~! its a bad habit i know xD

anyway, to answer what i think you mean, i don't think you can. unless you're arguing with yourself. you can't step into another's shoes literally and experience what they've experienced, so to claim their feelings are invalid based only on what you know of their circumstances would be presumptuous at best, immoral at worst. just because you can't see a legitimate reason for why a person feels something, doesn't mean there isn't one. they might not even know it.

 

[MrWindUpBird]

In a sense, yeah. I argue my own feelings with myself all the time. Sometimes I feel a weird emotion and I have to think about what it is and look around for the root cause. Maybe it's just because I'm too repressive. But there have been times when I've thought something was emotionally awry, only to find that I just needed something to eat or a good night's sleep.

As for others' emotions, you'd have to define "valid." What does it mean for an emotion to be "valid?" Socially acceptable? Not selfish? If it's either (or both) of those, then yes to that, too.

 

[Faye]

Sure why not?

 

[Avva]

I think an emotion is either rational or irrational, rather than valid or not valid.

 

[KazeCraven]

I see a lot of possibilities, most of which would require a philosophy/code that says we should feel certain ways. I mean, if you felt happiness when someone (a genuinely good person) died, is that a valid feeling? If you feel indifferent to your son's suffering, is that a valid feeling? I think you can feel wrongly, especially if the question is whether you are right in expressing that feeling.

If you're pretty good at reading someone's mental state and you thought the person didn't know her feelings well, you could probably make a good case in arguing about sentiments as well. This reminds me of a woman who would tell her husband what he actually wanted to order, and usually when he didn't he would say, "You were right, I would have preferred the feta cheese sandwich." (Or something like that.)

 

[NeverAmI]

I don't know if I would call emotions rational or irrational at all. You don't cognitively decide what emotion will pop up. You can choose to ignore emotions, try to think in a different way, and if you work it right, you can eventually alter how your body responds to certain stimulus.

 

[the]

you can argue anything, feelings included. Feelings shouldnt be up on a pedestal and untouchable. They can be wrong just like anything else.

 

[~jet]

I'd say yes and no; a people should be free to declare sentiments, but others should not be able to argue with them. Simply agree or don't, sympathize or don't, etc, but not trying to invalidate them.

 

[Avva]

But who is to judge whether a feeling is wrong or right?

 

[Bird]

I feel like if you're trying to tell someone their feelings are wrong or inferior or invalid, then you're probably just a huge prick.

 

[Odyne]

But who is to judge whether a feeling is wrong or right?

Maybe the person experiencing the feeling?

Also, can an emotion be evaluated any other way than just "Wrong" or "Right"?

 

[NeverAmI]

Also, can an emotion be evaluated any other way than just "Wrong" or "Right"?

Cause and effect.

I tend to ask 'What caused you to feel that way?' If they trust me enough, and they have had time to think about it, they can usually explain why they felt a certain way. Often when I do that I feel retarded for ever having assumed I could 'tell them how to feel.'

Sometimes it takes me days to figure out why I felt a certain way about something.

Labeling a feeling as right or wrong without the full context seems trivial. And if you dig far enough, I am fairly well convinced that right and wrong don't really exist, just cause and effect. This can go all the way down to analyzing their brain structure.

 

[Avva]

A person can think that whatever emotion he/she is feeling isn't what he/she wants to/should feel, but that doesn't make it necessarily wrong I think

 

[Odyne]

I feel like if you're trying to tell someone their feelings are wrong or inferior or invalid, then you're probably just a huge prick.

lol! Hmm, isn't that what psychologists do in a way?

 

[NeverAmI]

lol! Hmm, isn't that what psychologists do in a way?

Psychologists don't judge, at least not professionally. They reveal cause and effect. If the patient wants a desired effect, they need to analyze the current causes not achieving that effect, and alter behavior/thinking (or more) to achieve the desired result.

Typically those desired effects fall in line with societal norms so you could say that the current emotions/symptoms are 'wrong' for the desired effect, but that isn't at all where it ends.

If anything, the psychologist needs to remain unbiased to search for the root cause.