What does philosophy mean to you?

Your second sentence lends no support to your first.

Yes, it does. Most of us make our opinions based on emotion, and it can be logically correct or wrong.

They were not intended to "follow" one another--just distinct utterances.

But I see C.I.'s point.

its like Nietzsche says when you try to override an emotion all you are doing is overriding it with one or more other emotions.

emotions are just shortcuts to logic

Yeah, E.P. One drive just replaces (or overcomes) another.

What philosophy means to me:

- Amusement
- Engagement
- Exercise
- Challenge

I don't necessarily expect:

- Answers
- Explanations
- Utility
- Purpose

in that case then, there really is no way we can escape emotional influence. we cannot completely attain that "view from nowhere". I think though, that we do need to control and restrain our emotions as much as we can, in order to see things as transparently as we can.

It's not that simple; our ability to control our emotions is an impossible task depending on the situation. That's the reason why there can be so much conflict in the areas of religion and politics.

That's fine, but I wanted to point out that you provided no argument for your claim that "feelings are reality". This is an unsubstantiated claim, and also (I think) a false one. Reality is reality, and feelings are feelings. I feel like a sack of potatoes, but in reality I am just an ill human being.

EP says that "in that case then, there really is no way we can escape emotional influence. we cannot completely attain that "view from nowhere". I think though, that we do need to control and restrain our emotions as much as we can, in order to see things as transparently as we can."
I agree that the solution to emotional distortion must always be in terms of degrees, never complete or absolute. The "view from nowhere" is no more than an ideal; all views are from somewhere. I can't imagine doing anything with total disinterest. All actions are motivated, and especially within the SOCIAL sciences the most we can do is make as many assuptions and purposes explicit in order that they can be factored into our conclusions. But I agree that we should "deal" with our emotions as much as possible, but not just by suppression. We know how that can make them more dangerous.

Agrote says "That's fine, but I wanted to point out that you provided no argument for your claim that "feelings are reality". This is an unsubstantiated claim, and also (I think) a false one. Reality is reality, and feelings are feelings. I feel like a sack of potatoes, but in reality I am just an ill human being."

I agree. My contribution was no more than the declaration of an intuition--as solid as "Picasso's work is more beautiful than Warhol's" (which I think is correct). Feelings ARE real(ity), and, Reality is not something without content. Don't you think that your tautologies "reality is reality" and "feelings are feelings" are declarations of intuitive realization having no need for argumentative support?

No. Taken at face value, they're just tautologies and cannot be false. But what I really meant is that feelings and reality are seperate. "Just because you feel it, doesn't mean it's there." I think this claim of mine does need argumentative support, and I offered a quick example to support it: I feel like a sack of potatoes, yet in reality I am not one.

Feelings and reality are not independent experiences for the perceiver even though it may be wrong or not logical. As far as the individual is concerned, feeling supercedes logic and truth.

Agrote, don't you think that feelings, as immediate experience, MUST be "real"? They may be "unrealistic" responses to situations, but, as C. I. notes, they are undenably real responses to situations.

Yes, obviously feelings happen. But they're not a reliable guide to what else happens or exists. When I say, "just because you feel it, doesn't mean it's there", I don't mean that the feeling itself might not be "there". I mean that whatever object you think the feeling is a response to, is not necessarily there. The easiest example is that, just because theists feel the presence of God, that does not indicate that God is present. The feeling that God is present is a real feeling, but it is not felt in response to a real God.

Agreed. My point, I think, is that feelings are, existentially, more basic than logic, or even thought in general. The full life, to me, is a life of strong feeling. Hence the critical importance of art and social intimacy.
So glad I am not an unfeeling but logical thinking machine.

It's unsurprising you would feel that way however that's no assurance you are correct. Turing's views are relevant.

If feelings were not important to human life, life probably would have very little value except survival.