Life is illogical. All we do is get born, contribute to society for a bit, then die. There really is no need to keep living besides the joys of life, right? I think existance is illogical and therefore unneccesary. The only thing that makes life worth living is the emotions we share, right? Does that mean the people who don't have enotions have a pointless life? Does that mean the Spock should shoot himself?
Did any of that make sense?
2007-06-18 11:04:00 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Yes, but then again, we wouldn't care.
2007-06-18 11:08:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I would have to say yes. Life would not be interesting since we would not care for anything, strive for anything, etc. Without emotion we would just be here and not have any desire to live or carry on so it would probably be a case where we would have become extinct early on in the time when humans began to evolve.
Even ants and the simplest of bacteria have some type of a drive to carry on since instinct can be considered as an emotion even if it is on the most basic level (The desire/instinct to survive). If we and other forms of life had no emotions/drive of any kind, odds are that no life as we know it would be here and there would be no humans here to ask this question??!!!
2007-06-18 21:23:39 · answer #2 · answered by Qweemawva Anzorla Qwartoon (Male) 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Funny, I was thinking as I read what you wrote that they claim that people "should give back to society". Who says that people ever received anything (useful) from society?
Perhaps life would not be pointless without emotions, but it would be no fun, either. Not only that, it certainly would not be enjoyable, or exciting or any of that.
Mr. Spock? Remember, he did experience emotions...when he fought for his lady love!
But, hey, one does not need to experience joy or happiness or whatever to make life meaningful: one can just do things for the sake of doing them, go places to see them...One does not need to be cold-hearted, but one does not need to be (overly) emotional.
We are all different: we all see things differently. Take life as it comes and don't worry about the future or what others may think of you.
It's like that saying, "The longest journey begins with a single step." Meaning, I reckon, that the longest-lived person does it one day at a time.
2007-06-18 18:26:34 · answer #3 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think an understanding of emotion is important, but I don't think life is pointless when one chooses to live without them in daily life or is intolerant of people who prefer emotion. Not having an understanding of emotion though, would be ignorant.
I think Spock might indetectably consider emotion, but doesn't act from emotion unguided by logic
Maybe it has to do with Chinese astrology; a snake has a different emotional style than a rabbit or a tiger. Maybe our capabilities toward the point of life should be geared to our emotional capability. A tiger for example is probably fatigued-many of us get cranky when fatigued . . .surely tigers aren't born sinners meant to be baby rabbit food
2007-06-18 18:51:56 · answer #4 · answered by isis 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I guess it depends on what the point of life is. For me, I don't see emotions as a necessary factor so much as the general striving for progress and reduction of cruelty.
Without emotions, perhaps we wouldn't care about anything, but I don't know that caring or interest is the same as emotion... Data (or Spock) still clearly understood right and wrong.
2007-06-18 18:21:54 · answer #5 · answered by gavin6942 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Life would be pointless without emotions. But someone without emotions does not have a pointless life. Everyone is here for a reason and maybe that persons reason is to teach a lesson to others even if they are emotionless.
2007-06-18 18:53:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Life isn't without a point due to the absence of emotion;rather life is dull
2007-06-18 20:39:22 · answer #7 · answered by Daniel P 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"What's the point of your existence?"
"To feel. 'Cause you've never done it, you can never know it. But it's as vital as breath. And without it, without love, without anger, without sorrow, breath is just a clock... ticking" from equilibrium.. if you haven't seen it I'd check it out. its a really good movie, and reminds me of your question :]
life's pretty pointless even with emotion. i think we give it meaning. but without emotion, we wouldn't care about our lives, or anything else for that matter. i couldn't imagine living in this world without emotion. life wouldn't matter. nothing would matter... but with emotion, we have a chance to care and make it matter, make it mean something. we wouldn't have that urge to explore and expand, to go beyond where we are now.
so yeah, i think life would be pointless without emotion.
2007-06-18 19:11:37 · answer #8 · answered by swiftasaurus 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. If you want to separate emotions from, say, logical thought, life sure would not be pointless if there were no emotions. I think the whole thought of "point" would fall under heading "logical thought", not under "emotions". I mean, it would be the logical in us that continuously seeks after "the point of all this".
Apologize for all the ".
I disagree with your idea that emotions really are the point of life. I don't think you can separate different sides of humans apart.
2007-06-18 18:18:23 · answer #9 · answered by Mien 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Life without emotions is like a painting without color. It's just not the same experience.
2007-06-18 19:10:19 · answer #10 · answered by writeaway 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes it makes sense. I know someone that doesn't have a sense of humor(joy), I know that he is missing a large part of life that we were meant to enjoy. Usually when one emotion is missing, another doubles in emotion to replace it., such as anger or another negitive emotion.
2007-06-18 18:19:49 · answer #11 · answered by i had to go im so sorry 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋