Non-Emotional Exchange?

Forums: Philosophy, Social Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Is this in fact a unobtainable social connection. Lately with friends, who have been studying philosophy for a while, have been telling me that there ability to have long and intelligent conversations is because the bare no emotional attachments to their views or arguments. But to me that seems some what of a white lie. Is it really just our ability to suppress these emotions when we debate, because of a logical standpoint? If so, I would imagine that this suppression or lack of, might be a common obstacle between to separate people when talking about the same subject. I read on another post about some linguistics theory about how when a person is saying a sentence, the other person doesn't actually understand that person's origin or meaning of what he is exactly saying. I'm wonder of this has something to do with the form of debate where you are generally expected to keep healthy boundaries on your emotions. I do agree with this, But I'm more curious with the possible repercussions of these choices.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 882 • Replies: 5

No top replies

@Joe,

With the exception of the game of graduate seminars in which students are often Sophists in disguise, it seems to me that one cannot (or should not) divorce one's philosophical positions from one's own life. Granted, one may take a neutral point of view in explicating a text, or discussing the history of philosophy, but not when presenting the results of one's own meditations about a subject. This view most likely betrays my Existentialist background, but I think one should take philosophy (at least if one is doing philosophy and not merely studying it) seriously as part of who one is.

At the same time, it also seems to me that philosophical discourse, relying on rational explication of positions, can (and should) be made on a reasoned and unpassionate manner.

1 Reply

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

With the exception of the game of graduate seminars in which students are often Sophists in disguise, it seems to me that one cannot (or should not) divorce one's philosophical positions from one's own life. Granted, one may take a neutral point of view in explicating a text, or discussing the history of philosophy, but not when presenting the results of one's own meditations about a subject. This view most likely betrays my Existentialist background, but I think one should take philosophy (at least if one is doing philosophy and not merely studying it) seriously as part of who one is.

At the same time, it also seems to me that philosophical discourse, relying on rational explication of positions, can (and should) be made on a reasoned and passionate manner.

So your saying that when forming your personal theories that you should draw on emotions and experience. And when presenting these ideas to others it should be discussed with i guess a somewhat pacifist nature?
If this is what your saying, I think its a very straightforward way of outlining the process. It seems to be the stance that most philosophy friends of mine take. Thanks for your explanation.

0 Replies

@Joe,

I am not sure I am saying that philosophical positions should "draw" on emotions and "experience" for their ground without understanding how the word is being used. If philosophy is a form of thinking, then it must have its ground in reason and understanding.

I am saying that, at least to me, philosophising should be "personal" in the sense that it comes from the individual, and is formative to his being. I take very seriously the words behind PhiBetaKappa, that philosophy is the guide to life, not something foreign or outside of it, not some sort of hobby like trainspotting. I would hope that one does philosophy authentically.

I myself take some philosophical positions extremely seriously, but I also take it as a matter of faith (as it were) that these can be justified---or at least explained---by the use of reason and understanding to anyone of good will and openness. Shouting before the "court of reason" will not advance the process of finding truth.

Perhaps, though, "pacifist" does make sense when considering some kinds of argumentation, since propaganda and informal fallacies are a kind of violence (although of an intellectual nature) just as is the brute force of barbarism found in so many places in today's world that seeks to silence thought?

1 Reply

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

I am not sure I am saying that philosophical positions should "draw" on emotions and "experience" for their ground without understanding how the word is being used. If philosophy is a form of thinking, then it must have its ground in reason and understanding.

I am saying that, at least to me, philosophising should be "personal" in the sense that it comes from the individual, and is formative to his being. I take very seriously the words behind PhiBetaKappa, that philosophy is the guide to life, not something foreign or outside of it, not some sort of hobby like trainspotting. I would hope that one does philosophy authentically.

I myself take some philosophical positions extremely seriously, but I also take it as a matter of faith (as it were) that these can be justified---or at least explained---by the use of reason and understanding to anyone of good will and openness. Shouting before the "court of reason" will not advance the process of finding truth.

Perhaps, though, "pacifist" does make sense when considering some kinds of argumentation, since propaganda and informal fallacies are a kind of violence (although of an intellectual nature) just as is the brute force of barbarism found in so many places in today's world that seeks to silence thought?

If philosophy is indeed a form of thinking, then i must ask myself and others, What does reason and understanding reflect personally?

For my own perception, I think that an understanding is such a common theme within ourselves through out the day that it has to be constantly supported by new understandings brought to our thought process. This exchange of questioning to define a question of understanding seems like it piles to quickly for someone to grasp what you think your trying to reason out.

This is not really the best wording I could have used, but i digress.

1 Reply

@Joe,

Hey Guys,

I think jg's pretty much on target here, but here are my thoughts on the matter:

You can't remove emotion completely. In those cases, during philosophical debate or discourse, where there is an emotional element to the subject for you, that can't be removed. The best thing one ought do, is to a) Be aware of it -and- b) Try and understand the basis for those emotions.
There are many aspects to philosophy where emotions are important; off the top of my head, aesthetics is the only one that comes to mind as having a basis in need for the emotional element. But other emotions are critical to understanding the repercussions of what's being discussed: fear, anger, sadness, etc.
If you're working to apply pure reason then yes; I think a conscious effort to not consider, or resort to, emotional appeals is productive.
Emotions, when they reach a certain intensity, can actually short-circuit the rational thought process for some people. I'm guessing there's not a one of us here whose not had that happen. Once again, an awareness of one's emotions - in general - can help keep this in check.

All in all I'd say this: Don't try to to remove emotion from your philosophical interaction but do work to understand your own emotional triggers and be wary of where they can lead.

Hope this contributes, thanks.

0 Replies

Non-Emotional Exchange?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know