Why does Philosophy get wrapped up in emotion? | INFJ Forum

Why does Philosophy get wrapped up in emotion?

Chessie

Chessie

Community Member
Apr 5, 2010
508
198
0
MBTI
INfJ
I know that's a strange thing for an INFJ to ask. Certainly my own feelings on the ideas I hold very dear to myself tend to get fairly passionate.

I've noticed something lately when I've tried to have genuinely philosophical discussions with people (even in the local philosophy group) and that is that there is a point beyond which few people are willing to explore and at which point emotion becomes the sole basis for their arguments.

For some people this has been the accountability and responsibility which we can hold people to when they have addictions. Others have stopped at the point of wondering why men and women have orgasms. It's as though contemplation and consideration just end when you begin to ask questions and posit answers. Emotion becomes a stumbling block rather than the wonderful assistance it usually is to help people intuit out new ideas.

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.

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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Morgain and aeon
Really? I took Philosophy of Religion last quarter and the thing that bugged me was all of the logic. It was also funny how they were trying to prove something that may not exist with something as concrete as logic.

I think that philosophical discussions are different than philosophy because the discussions have more deep emotional ties to them while a philosopher is quite logical.
 
Beliefs have personal value and significance, so it's difficult to expect people not to respond emotionally to something which is considered personal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: middle1
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).

When emotion and philosophy get together they never seem to produce logical outcomes and since logic is what philosophy is about it strikes me as strange that a person would involve themselves in philosophy if it is antithetical to their emotional wellbeing to do so.

I don't consider it wise to avoid all discussion of philosophy any more than I consider it wise for someone to stick their head in the sand when wolves are around.

We've seen how philosophy and ideology have governed the development of the 20th and 21st century. Still, if a person is to have a discussion of philosophy I think it better that they discuss it without encumberment and prepared to discover things they don't like regardless of whether or not those things mesh with their personal values system.
 
Everything is wrapped up in emotion, including philosophy. Emotion is the lubrication of thought. It provides motivation for thinking and for caring about one's thoughts.

I recently asked a philosophy professor friend of mine how he handles his emotions in an argument or debate. He said that he thinks of it more like "play acting." Almost an out-of-body experience where you observe yourself as well as your opponents as objectively as possible. If you approach philosophy with great curiosity as to why people have different opinions and think the way they do, you not only learn a lot, you might also change your mind. Winning an argument is meaningless if you're wrong. It's probably meaningless if you're right, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Galileo
Res said:
Beliefs have personal value and significance, so it's difficult to expect people not to respond emotionally to something which is considered personal.
Click to expand...

I agree that you’re likely to be disappointed to approach situations with that kind of expectation. That said, I may believe something and value that belief, but it doesn’t mean I have to take it personally if it is challenged. After all, I, as a person, am one thing. My beliefs are something else — they do not define who I am.

In any event, I could be wrong, so no point in keeping them too close to the breast! :wink:


cheers,
Ian
 
Last edited:
Chessie said:
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.'
Click to expand...

The degree to which something matters, or not, is a description of value, or meaning. Meaning arises out of the contextual relationships among things. As such, value and meaning change with the context.

To that end, each individual, with their own unique perspective, and therefore context, must define value and meaning for themselves as it concerns each relationship of their Self to each Other.

Given this, what matters to one may or may not matter to another, regardless of whether one can quantify the thing in question.

That
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aeon
aeon said:
I agree that you’re likely to be disappointed to approach situations with that kind of expectation. That said, I may believe something and value that belief, but it doesn’t mean I have to take it personally if it is challenged. After all, I, as a person, is one thing. My beliefs are something else — they do not define who I am.

In any event, I could be wrong, so no point in keeping them too close to the breast! :wink:


cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...

@aeon - But keep in mind that many do define themselves through their beliefs so to challenge their beliefs is to challenge or question who they are; its to attack who they are as a person. This is not to say that two people strongly committed to their beliefs can't have a civil discussion about the nature or principles of belief.
 
Res said:
@aeon - But keep in mind that many do define themselves through their beliefs so to challenge their beliefs is to challenge or question who they are; its to attack who they are as a person. This is not to say that two people strongly committed to their beliefs can't have a civil discussion about the nature or principles of belief.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I used to identify with my beliefs very strongly. Thing was, if I were to discover new information that demonstrated my belief was incorrect, I had to take it in
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaze
This often happens to be because firstly, I'm highly opinionated myself, and sometimes I admit I actually do it, because there are some issues that I and my friends cannot agree upon, especially social obligation, which I have very set views about. Secondly, because I involve myself in a lot of activity that could be classed as political, I have some very opinionated friends.

It's actually something I've started avoiding now, because I'm not the world's best debater and I don't like arguing with people.
 
As I've gotten older, I've become less personally connected to my opinions. Perhaps it's because I've been wrong often enough in the past to realize that I can be wrong about anything. I've also realized that I don't have to have an opinion about everything. I'm now more concerned with the process of my thinking than the results. Actually, accepting fallibility is quite liberating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inquisitive and aeon
Especially as it concerns moral values, my sense is they come from, and are shaped by, being alive over time whereby we experience this and that as good and/or bad.

If we are to consider the neurological basis of the experience of good/bad, or pain/pleasure, it makes sense that emotion will almost always be involved with the discussion of morality, inasmuch as such higher-level memory-informed cognition is biologically unified with activation of the limbic system, prefrontal cortex, and amygdala. I think and feel this is a good thing. Emotional awareness is (among other things) a feedback mechanism that helps us to navigate our world. Part of that world is the consideration of rationality within philosophy.

I don’t value attempting to discard this part of our awareness and experience in the quest for truth, philosophical or otherwise. What I do value is recognizing one’s own nature — emotional and otherwise — accepting it is so, and integrating that aspect of one’s self into one’s conscious awareness through the practice of mindfulness.

As an aside, I’m not so concerned with being right or wrong in an argument so much as I am seeking to receive and understand, and be heard and understood. I only have my individual perspective on truth (and I could be wrong). It isn’t mutually exclusive to any other perspective — at least from where I’m sitting. I tend to enjoy finding truths that are strongly antithetical — there is great beauty to me in an irreconcilable paradox.


Namaste,
Ian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nixie
I agree with Aeon and Norton to a great degree. However, my sense of self requires that I form the opinions and beliefs. I do however belief that true faith does not exist without questioning. I am open to listening, absorbing, expanding my understanding of the world and thus recognize that I am just as likely to be full of bullshit as the next person and am always willing to be wrong.
 
It's very difficult to debate, many people cannot step out of their own shoes.

I love debating with people, because I do LOVE seeing different points of view, and playing devil's advocate despite what I think is true.



I also constantly remind myself that if I think I know something, I probably don't.

Lots of people don't have that ability. Their truth is THE truth.
 
It has always amazed me (and now more than ever) how, when it comes to politics (political philosophy?), so many people are absolutely convinced that what they believe is completely right. And, this is about one of the most complex of subjects that touches on all aspects of society, culture and economy. The more simplistic their ideas, the more emotional people seem to be about them. Few people get straight A's in school, yet they act as if, when it comes to politics, they have all the correct answers. Fundamentalist thinking, whether it be in religion, politics, economics or science, is detrimental because it is rigid, simplistic and self-satisfied. When you know you're right and have all the answers, you fail ever to reexamine your ideas. In a complex, changing world, that is a sure recipe for failure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aeon
Norton said:
It has always amazed me (and now more than ever) how, when it comes to politics (political philosophy?), so many people are absolutely convinced that what they believe is completely right. And, this is about one of the most complex of subjects that touches on all aspects of society, culture and economy. The more simplistic their ideas, the more emotional people seem to be about them. Few people get straight A's in school, yet they act as if, when it comes to politics, they have all the correct answers. Fundamentalist thinking, whether it be in religion, politics, economics or science, is detrimental because it is rigid, simplistic and self-satisfied. When you know you're right and have all the answers, you fail ever to reexamine your ideas. In a complex, changing world, that is a sure recipe for failure.
Click to expand...


I agree, and add that relying solely on "standardized tests" and grading is also horribly detrimental to our idea of "intelligence". It's only one type of intelligence, and I think that gets forgotten often.
 
Norton said:
It has always amazed me (and now more than ever) how, when it comes to politics (political philosophy?), so many people are absolutely convinced that what they believe is completely right. And, this is about one of the most complex of subjects that touches on all aspects of society, culture and economy. The more simplistic their ideas, the more emotional people seem to be about them. Few people get straight A's in school, yet they act as if, when it comes to politics, they have all the correct answers. Fundamentalist thinking, whether it be in religion, politics, economics or science, is detrimental because it is rigid, simplistic and self-satisfied. When you know you're right and have all the answers, you fail ever to reexamine your ideas. In a complex, changing world, that is a sure recipe for failure.
Click to expand...

Yes but sometimes there are very ridiculous stances people have on issue in politics where they are completely wrong on every level even though it is a belief that is essential to their morals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back