Since everything we ever experience is only ever in our own minds and not external, that means that everything we perceive is a symbol of the real event, as we can never perceive strictly objective truth. It's a very complex symbol, but ultimately a symbol, a concept that represents what we are interacting with.
Since this is true, this means that when we get upset at something, in reality we are getting upset at the symbol we perceive and not the objective truth. Therefore, any emotion that we direct at any event/phenomena in life is actually only ever represented in our own minds. My getting angry at you would actually only ever direct the anger at the *concept* of you,which in actuality is composited of fragments of my self. So getting angry at you just piles on B.S. emotional associations and turmoil onto fragments and concepts that are directly apart of me and my identity.
Is it not, therefore, urgent to respond to things compassionately, as it ultimately reflects on the self?
2007-07-30 12:39:50 · 6 answers · asked by neuralzen 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
@Dr. Y - By directing, I was speaking of associating. The weight and firing potential of the neurons change to associate the concept of anger with the concept of that person, but that concept of the person is made up of other concepts, and conceptual archtypes, that are ultimately associated to the concept of "myself" (see mirror neurons in wikipedia)
2007-07-30 13:00:03 · update #1
Ah, but some emotional states are more conducive to logical and clear thought then others. Anger is notorious for helping you make bad and rash decisions, where as compassion an calm are conducive to clear , rational and helpful thought.
2007-07-30 13:01:18 · update #2
Yes, in fact you have touched on the main point of Buddhism. If this interests you, you may like to read some of the teachings from the Dalai Lama, even if just strictly from a philisophical point of view. Feelings of anger, frustration, hatred, etc. have NO BASIS and must be stopped (cessation). They are merely reflections of our own mind brought about by preconceptions and learned assumptions.
2007-07-30 13:17:54 · answer #1 · answered by lifeilluminate 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
(Updated)
It's a bit nonsensical to talk about DIRECTING emotions AT things, if we agree that emotions occur only in the mind. That makes them non-spatial phenomenon. They may have causes and results, but not really directions.
It seems likewise inappropriate to say association is the same as identification. If something is LIKE something else, it hardly means it IS something else. Ice cream is like manure in that it is possible to eat both of them... but I don't think there are very many people who confuse the two.
This is actually the basis of the first part of your argument - that a sensory symbol is not identical to the actual real object. Why then would a sensory symbol be identical to your idea of 'self'? They are, indeed, both similar in that neurons are involved and that they are not the actual thing they represent. But since similar is NOT same, this seems to make the second part of your argument not workable.
Further, if experiencing an emotional state motivates you to do something useful that you might otherwise not have, then it would seem to be a pretty good idea to have an emotional state. And judging from the prevalence on apparent emotion that can be found in just about any creature complex enough to nuture such a state, it would seem that OVERALL emotion is useful indeed. For survival, if nothing else.
We are, however, a level of complexity beyond even that. So it is possible that our reason is more accurate and useful than our emotion. This may be why we have such a well-developed forebrain: this is the area responsible for decision-making AND emotional control.
Though emotions as a whole seem beneficial, it is logically quite possible that a particular anger-state (for example) may be non-useful. In which case it would be reasonable to not experience it. And contrariwise, there are times when it may be MOST reasonable to enter an anger-state. Anger has helped more than one person survive when he might not have if he accepted the probable outcome of events.
The same may be said for any emotion.
Yes, some emotions can interfere with further reason. But again, this does not mean that they have no use. If reason were the ultimate tool for every problem, then those without emotions would be hailed as our overt superiors and I would further expect natural selection to quickly eliminate all emotive ability in any animal that could reason even vaguely well.
But we don't see this. Instead, the emotionless are seen as inhuman and monstrous and it is the emotional and passionate which are made into saints. Nor does nature seem inclined to remove emotion from even the smartest of us. It seems more reasonable to conclude that emotion serves some purpose. At least to me!
2007-07-30 12:52:14 · answer #2 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, of course! All that we do, we do to ourselves and when we think and act, we can never go outside our mind and soul. But, why would it not be urgent to respond in such a manner you've presented in your conclusion even if it would not reflect on the self? A long time ago, wise people have said that all is one, and that all things in the universe are co-dependent. Anyhow, all thoughts lead to that one conclusion, and this is compassion and mildness.
2007-07-30 12:55:39 · answer #3 · answered by Uros I 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well done. It's not really a question- but it's a great point!
2007-07-30 12:53:25 · answer #4 · answered by Joe 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes. it's true.
2007-07-30 12:50:21 · answer #5 · answered by Kiddo C 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes, why not?
2007-07-30 12:46:57 · answer #6 · answered by Moonrise 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋