Poll: Emotions and such.

[Hairetos]

That'd defeat the purpose of existence: to obtain happiness.

 

[Sneeze]

I'd like it be like a switch if anything, there's no way I'd wanna get rid of them forever but it would be nice to be able to turn them off when there's work that needs to be done or I need to sleep, just to avoid distractions.

 

[mireko]

Of course not, what does that even mean? I'm not sure you've given credit to quite how much emotions control our lives. I mean, "calm" is an emotion. Even being reasonable is an emotional thing, since there'd be no drive to do so unless you felt like it was the right choice.

And while we're arguing, acting according to our emotions is reasonable. An emotional reward is no less real than a physical one of equal value. The only way you can be emotionally irrational is if you follow a course of action that will punish you more than it rewards you.

No. Having no emotions at all makes things boring and tedious.

I disagree with your argument because both these things have a direct connection to emotions.

That said, I don't want to be without emotions, because I'm perfectly happy with feeling happy.
Wow, that sounded so much better in my head.

Embarrassing comments are forbidden.

 

[elbowlick]

Goodness, no. I've been through a phase, lasted about a year, in which I felt cold almost all the time and I didn't enjoy that much. I wouldn't mind being able to turn them off every once in a while, but only if I can get them back just as easily.
Spending the rest of my life without any sense of passion would be boring.

 

[Kurokami]

No. Having no emotions at all makes things boring and tedious.

Not for someone without emotions. Don't get me wrong, they will be boring and find everything pointless but they themselves would have no negative opinion of it.

Personally I don't concern myself with happiness or satisfaction too much as I am and try to put reasoning/logic up above most things as it is, but that's heavily tied to my pride and sense of 'right' I suppose, so I can't imagine why in the world I would want to have no emotions.

 

[BENZOOKA]

Having emotions is an essential factor in being human. Hell no.

 

[Woodsey]

I'm sure feeling empty is worse than feeling something.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I'm not sure. No emotions would probally be around the act of pushing my sickly mom out of the way as I walk past her. But emotions would probally mean I hug her have a long talk and ECT, So I'd rather go with emotions, so I can actually make friends and talk without the voice of a spoon of rice-crispies.

 

[Dogstile]

Right now, i'd love to have no emotions. But only until things started looking up

 

[Safaia]

Anyone who has ever been through a bad spell of depression where they don't feel anything will tell you that it sucks so much.

 

[Jodah]

Completely give them up? Not so much. I would like to see more people able to control them, however.

 

[Beliyal]

It's very utopic, but yes, if done correctly, life without emotions would be better.
Emocions make just as much sense as drugs in you life.
It a mental over-reaction that degenerates your judgement, gives you a false sense of happiness, brings more pain than it should, and people get addicted to it to the point of saying they couldn't live without them.
Movies live Equilibrium are just plain stupid because the anti-emotion guys always express emotions (like fear, impatience, discust, anger, etc.).

Well, you must live in one bleak world if all happiness is just "false" to you. And I can't even begin explaining how wrong it is to compare emotions, a basic part of humankind (much like breathing or eating), to drugs. So I just won't go into a debate, but I do hope you will one day feel the benefit of emotions, because it would be terrible if you didn't.

As for Equilibrium, fear or anger are not the emotions they tried to eradicate. Fear and anger are basic instincts that appear in all life forms that have a way to express themselves. Fear is necessary to survive, because if we didn't fear, we would pretty much die very quickly. It's similar with anger, impatience or disgust. Other emotions, like love, happiness, sadness, disappointment, jealousy, being excited and other; those are what make our lives go on. Yes, you could survive without love, but for what? Would you live in a world without art and development? No music, no books, no inspiration, no imagination, no preference for colour, way of life, profession? Because, emotions are the basis of those things. Without emotions, we wouldn't have videogames so we wouldn't be here discussing this. So, no, I don't think our lives would be better. We wouldn't have anything to judge whether they are better or not. What WOULD be better is if we could learn how to control them and not behave on any impulse. That would save us a lot of trouble, not eradicating emotions altogether.

Spoiler: Here is my explanation, if you even care to hear it. I recommend not even reading it and just moving on, since I really don't feel like arguing over something so trivial.

Let's get one thing straight: dogs are not capable of rational thought or reason. They can not think "What do I feel like doing today" or "Hm, I have several options here...". They may seem to have a mind of their own since they have been domesticated and are, thus, less spontaneous than wild animals (ie. easier to predict), but their behaviour is still purely governed by instinct. It's just not as apparent.

Dogs, like other animals, adapt to their surroundings. Since they are domesticated, they rely on their owner for survival and pretty much every other need. When they are not being taken care of or something goes wrong, they whimper. This is NOT emotion in the human sense; we merely attach the human concept of emotion to them due to the bond shared with dogs.

I feel my original point stands, not that I care much.

Since you said you wouldn't like to argue about this, I won't push it, but it seems that you seriously lacked a bond with an animal in your life. Just owning a pet doesn't really count, unless you make that pet your genuine friend. Animals express themselves differently and people can overlook it or not notice. But as I've grown up with animals, I've seen their genuine happiness or sadness or disappointment or wishes. Of course it's not an emotion in human sense; they are not human so, clearly, they can't have the same way of expressing those emotions or even the same emotions as we define them. But it's not just instinct. Sometimes yes, but they can express emotions other than instinct. I don't have any scientific research to back this up and no scientific research that denies it (if such exist) would make me think different after I've seen what a simple animal is capable of doing, on the field of emotions. I might be wrong, but I also think it's wrong to dismiss such a thing only because their brains are different than ours, or because you can't discern between their facial expressions. They have their own ways. I also wouldn't like to turn this into a debate, mostly because no one can can give a definite proof, so please don't take this as my way to disprove your statements.

I voted for "no"; I see absolutely no benefit to having no emotions at all. The benefit would come from controlling your emotions and that's very doable as it's not a superpower.

 

[Beliyal]

Spoiler: Here is my explanation, if you even care to hear it. I recommend not even reading it and just moving on, since I really don't feel like arguing over something so trivial.

Let's get one thing straight: dogs are not capable of rational thought or reason. They can not think "What do I feel like doing today" or "Hm, I have several options here...". They may seem to have a mind of their own since they have been domesticated and are, thus, less spontaneous than wild animals (ie. easier to predict), but their behaviour is still purely governed by instinct. It's just not as apparent.

Dogs, like other animals, adapt to their surroundings. Since they are domesticated, they rely on their owner for survival and pretty much every other need. When they are not being taken care of or something goes wrong, they whimper. This is NOT emotion in the human sense; we merely attach the human concept of emotion to them due to the bond shared with dogs.

I feel my original point stands, not that I care much.

Since you said you wouldn't like to argue about this, I won't push it, but it seems that you seriously lacked a bond with an animal in your life. Just owning a pet doesn't really count, unless you make that pet your genuine friend. Animals express themselves differently and people can overlook it or not notice. But as I've grown up with animals, I've seen their genuine happiness or sadness or disappointment or wishes. Of course it's not an emotion in human sense; they are not human so, clearly, they can't have the same way of expressing those emotions or even the same emotions as we define them. But it's not just instinct. Sometimes yes, but they can express emotions other than instinct. I don't have any scientific research to back this up and no scientific research that denies it (if such exist) would make me think different after I've seen what a simple animal is capable of doing, on the field of emotions. I might be wrong, but I also think it's wrong to dismiss such a thing only because their brains are different than ours, or because you can't discern between their facial expressions. They have their own ways. I also wouldn't like to turn this into a debate, mostly because no one can can give a definite proof, so please don't take this as my way to disprove your statements.

Firstly, thank you for not flaming or name calling despite the fact that you think I am wrong. I respect that.

You're right, I never have had a pet before, so you should take my opinion with a grain of salt. I have never had a bond with an animal and haven't seen the things you mentioned, so perhaps I am not eligible to comment. Just as you do not know the feeling of being detached from animals and may have your perception distorted by your bond with them (not saying it is, just saying it's possible).

In the end, as you said, no one can prove anything. So thank you for not escalating this, and showing me another point of view on the subject.

Yes, I could be biased or have my perception distorted. Possibly because animals can induce emotions in you, so you might start thinking that they somehow wanted to or they understand them. However, once you get a bond with an animal, you kinda don't really care anymore, whether or not they truly feel something more than instincts. But you sure start believing they do

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

No, I tried to not feel anything for a while, and it sucked.

Besides, if I didn't feel emotions, I wouldn't be able to love my gf like I do. Then life wouldn't be worth living. I'd rather feel pain than nothing at all, but emotions give us so much more than pain.

Captcha: smilieds FOOD

 

[xHipaboo420x]

WHY WOULD YOU SAY THAT

 

[Sunrider]

Of course not, what does that even mean? I'm not sure you've given credit to quite how much emotions control our lives. I mean, "calm" is an emotion. Even being reasonable is an emotional thing, since there'd be no drive to do so unless you felt like it was the right choice.

And while we're arguing, acting according to our emotions is reasonable. An emotional reward is no less real than a physical one of equal value. The only way you can be emotionally irrational is if you follow a course of action that will punish you more than it rewards you.

No. Having no emotions at all makes things boring and tedious.

I disagree with your argument because both these things have a direct connection to emotions.

That said, I don't want to be without emotions, because I'm perfectly happy with feeling happy.
Wow, that sounded so much better in my head.

Embarrassing comments are forbidden.

Eeeeeeehh?!

 

[9Darksoul6]

Well, you must live in one bleak world if all happiness is just "false" to you. And I can't even begin explaining how wrong it is to compare emotions, a basic part of humankind (much like breathing or eating), to drugs.

So emotions won't bring you unhappiness because they're a basic part of being human?
So is dying.
As for the bleakness you suppose there's in my vision of the world, that's not a rational argument, and even not an argument at all; it may, however, be evidence of what I'm saying: suppose everyone in the world did cocaine, and someone says it damaged their lives; that's the kind of talk that everyone would use to counter his argument:
"The world without this shit feels so bleak; I don't know if I could live without it".

As for Equilibrium, fear or anger are not the emotions they tried to eradicate.

No, they were trying to eradicate emotions as a whole. That's what the movie's constantly saying.
And even if they weren't, my point stands: eradicating most emotions but keeping some would be completey pointless and is a stupid premise.

Fear and anger are basic instincts that appear in all life forms that have a way to express themselves. Fear is necessary to survive, because if we didn't fear, we would pretty much die very quickly.

You know that's not true.
For instance:
A) A creature is afraid of fire; it will try to avoid fire.
B) a creature burns itself; it doesn't like pain; it will try to avoid fire.
It's not fear that helps you survive, it's brain power/smartness/inteligence.
Imagine if we feared food? Would that help us survive?
What you said makes no sense.

It's similar with anger, impatience or disgust. Other emotions, like love, happiness, sadness, disappointment, jealousy, being excited and other; those are what make our lives go on. Yes, you could survive without love, but for what? Would you live in a world without art and development? No music, no books, no inspiration, no imagination, no preference for colour, way of life, profession? Because, emotions are the basis of those things. Without emotions, we wouldn't have videogames so we wouldn't be here discussing this.

I hope you don't find talking about videogames as important as you make it sound it is. xD

So, no, I don't think our lives would be better. We wouldn't have anything to judge whether they are better or not. What WOULD be better is if we could learn how to control them and not behave on any impulse. That would save us a lot of trouble, not eradicating emotions altogether.

As for the rest of your rethorical, poetic and very emotive pro-emotion speech, I will once again bring up the cocaine analogy.

 

[TheGuiggleMonster]

Even if life was boring and uninteresting without happiness, you wouldn't be able to feel depressed or bored anyway so I say yes.

 

[Astoria]

While I complain about having emotions a lot I wouldn't give them up. Without emotions you're basically a robot so life is meaningless and empty.

 

[9Darksoul6]

Being without emotion would make humans monsters.

Calling something a "monster" is an act of discust, which is an emotion.
That's circular logic.