Emotions, why must we feel?

Up until thus far, there hasn’t been a class that really left me puzzled. It hasn’t left me questioning myself and my thinking. Monday’s class finally did that for me. I still think upon it and sit in awe, confusion, and wonder as to how my mind was processing the information thrown at me.

 Specifically, Group 20 (Sartre on Emotions) is the group that got me thinking.

At the beginning of class, the group asked us, “Where do emotions come from?” Now, before I answer this, if you are not a part of the class, I want you to ponder for a moment. Where do emotions come from? Do they come from out brain, our mind, our heart? Where? Do not continue reading until you think for just a minute, please.

So my response was this: emotions arise from our brain, they come from stimuli that create responses amongst our neurons and the synapses that link them. Very scientific right? Well that’s how I normally attempt to orient myself and my thinking, through science, through reason. From the brain is the most logical answer, it means that emotions are genetically instilled in us.

However, can a person turn off emotions? Can they learn and try to ignore specific ones? Example: a killer psychopath does not feel remorse. Why does that man not feel remorse? Was he born without that ability or did he learn it? Did he become desensitized? Did he decide that feeling was worthless to him? How this is answered could influence where you think emotions arise from.

So then, new example: In American society we cry when someone dies. We grieve and morn their death. For us, we find this tragic, sad, and depressing. So then, why is it that other cultures rejoice at death? They embrace it, it’s that end all that they wait for their entire life. When it happens they have great festivities. Can you now tell me that emotions are genetically wired? How can one society feel sadness upon death and, another, feel happiness?

This is about when I came upon two realizations.

1. Emotions are reactions. We don’t feel anything to nothing but we can feel everything to something. We react and we feel. Someone slams their hand on a desk, you jumping is a physical reaction but the feeling of fear is an emotional reaction. The fear would not have been constructed without the initial slam to the desk.

2. Emotions are socially constructed. We learn from each other how to act, how to feel, how to emote. We have been doing this for thousands of years and it’s become so second nature that we don’t realize we learned it. So we learned to feel fear when something unexpected happens, like the slam on the desk.

This is why I think it is completely possible for a person to learn how to “shut off” emotions. Love is supposed to be one of the strongest emotions that we have. However, I think it has been hyped up too much. Rather than deciding for ourselves what the meaning of the word is, we allow media to construct the definition for us, leaving us confused. We can learn to love and not love. We can choose who we wish to feel love for, and we can also choose who to take it away from.  And we shouldn’t allow ourselves to get caught up in the common definitions.

There is a last point I wish to touch on. Recently I have been playing with the thoughts on the effects of different upbringing and how those effects play a part in someone’s decision/reaction/emotion.

For instance, a classmate described to us an event of which he lost many of his friends. A reaction he had was that it was their loss. The friends are the ones who were in the wrong and he was not the problem, or so he told himself. Lying to oneself like so is avoiding responsibility. I’m not saying how the classmate thought was necessarily wrong, I’m not attacking, I promise. I just find it fascinating how we as humans react differently to similar situations. When I was in high school, I lost all of my friends junior and senior year. I was eating lunch alone and never really went out. Rather than beating around the bush and placing blame elsewhere, I knew exactly why I didn’t have friends. I actually, more or less, consciously or subconsciously, chose not to have friends. I layered on my homework, I disconnected myself with everyone, and I let them think of me what they wish. I was tired of conforming to everyone’s standards and I just wanted to be done with school. I took full responsibility for my actions and understood what the effects were.

So, yes, we can choose our emotions and we must take responsibility for those emotions because many of our actions are dependent on emotions. 

Dying.

Death is upon us. We cannot escape it. We cannot hide.

Why is it that I am so fascinated by death? The image of my death is a puzzle that constantly soars through my imagination. Curiosity is to the point of almost killing me. Scenarios plague me but none are good enough.

I do not fear death. I do not embrace death, not yet. If I did I would not be here. Suicide is not a foreign thought to me so my outlook is probably far different than others’. People forget that we can die. They get caught up in the moment and they get distracted; which is what Heidegger was saying. We need to acknowledge the fact that we can die. Only then can we try to live our lives authentically.

But what is authenticity? Is it just living how you want? But sometimes we don’t know what we want. Is authenticity different for each person? Is my definition of authenticity the same as yours, the same as hers, the same as his? I cannot answer that. Many times we get caught up in the moment; “living in the moment”. Does that mean you’re living authentically? Are you just going along with what you want? As long as the thought of death stays with us, then maybe we are.

Death is the only fact in life. Death will happen no matter what. We are not immortal. There is no afterlife. So how we choose to live in the here and now is all in our own willpower… willpower. Funny to mention this and I didn’t even mean to. Two fellow classmates and I were discussing willpower and the will to live and overcome obstacles that might prompt suicide after class. Allow me to explain.

Suicide is hardly ever caused from thoughts the individual places upon himself. A simple “I’m not worth it” can give reason but there are generally much deeper reasons as to why a person might ultimately commit or think to commit suicide. These reasons come from Others. So, for examples sake, I never thought I wasn’t worth it, I never thought I wasn’t smart enough. However, due to outside influences and the comparisons of others, I ultimately convince myself that I’m not worth living this lifetime.

Too often do what take what others say as truth. We are easily persuaded especially if we already have a hint of uncertainty.

And so, we should ask ourselves: If I died tomorrow, would I be satisfied? If I died tomorrow, would I do anything different?

This was asked of the class and most everyone said they would do something different. But here’s where I challenge the “average” person. What is it that you would change and why? If you change, that means that you wouldn’t be satisfied with your life up until this point, more or less. If you change then you aren’t living each day as if you were to die tomorrow. I’m not trying to be grim, I’m being straightforward. We live in a society that loves to forget. Like I said before, we forget we can die.

To answer the question for myself, no I don’ think I would do anything different. I live my life the way I like; I go to class because I enjoy the material, because I want to learn. If I don’t feel like going a day, I don’t go. I work the job I work because I love what I do. If I were to die tomorrow it wouldn’t make much difference to me because I can die with the knowledge that I have. I know what my future will most likely consist of and that gives me peace. Peace of mind that I will love everyday just the same as the last. And so, with that knowledge I can be satisfied. I don’t need to see it happen; I don’t need to experience it because I love the idea just as much as I may love the actual events. 

Dostoevsky

                It is quite intriguing how Dostoevsky describes the basic inability of reason and desire to go together. That basically if one uses reason they are disregarding desire and if they exercise desire then they disregard reason. However, he does admit that some reason might be desirous but that is it highly unlikely. He says that one day we might be able to calculate what is expected of us, that we actually have no free will and that everything is already mapped out.

                However, Dostoevsky counters this with the idea that if everything is already calculated then we will find ways to break away. We will automatically rebel against the chart in order to prove that we are human and that we exercise free will. It’s impossible to say whether or not we really have free will because there’s no real way of calculating it. I think free will is all a matter of us believing we have it. If we believe we have a choice; that we can change and choose how to live life, then that’s us exercising free will.

                I think it’s highly possible that there is no way to calculate our desires. This is because sometimes we won’t even act on our desires. Other times when we act of our desires, they are irrational and unconventional. If humans were rational beings, then we wouldn’t be acting on desires. The only time a desire is rational is when someone thinks and plans it out. When they methodically analyze the pros and cons and decide what they believe to be the best choice for them. Sometimes this is a way to come up with the most desirous option. This can be seen in the case of a career path, “which job will give me the most money?” People think things through in this manner all the time. However, I don’t think this shows our true deep desires.

Our desires are based off of fundamental animal instincts to prove that we are individuals with our own right to make decisions. When we are exercising this ability we are showing that whatever choice was made, it was because we wished it. Sometimes it doesn’t always make sense though. I think that’s why Dostoevsky refers to humans as bipedal idiots (more or less).

For instance, animals are the types of creatures that learn from experience. However, humans don’t necessarily have to do that. We can learn from our parents and friends and family. If we wished, we could take someone’s word and believe it to be true without actually having experienced it ourselves. If someone saw an UFO and then told someone else, although the person hearing about it didn’t necessarily see it, they might believe that it is real. However, other times, we rely on our own experiences to make our opinions. It’s actually quite fascinating how contradictory humans really are. If we break it down and think about it, why would in some instances we believe what someone says but then in others we won’t? There really is no logical answer to that.

Just in the same that it is impossible to state why we are contradictory in that sense, shows that it is impossible to state the formula humans have for the decisions that we make. We never really know what we are going to do and when we come to the faintest glimmer of an idea, we almost shun it away. It’s as if we thrive on the mysterious and unknown. We don’t want to know no matter how much we say we do. And we want to be different and go against the norm no matter how much we say we don’t. 

Slave and Master Morality

Nietzsche makes some interesting points in regards to slave and master morality which seemed to create some disagreements within the class. I think the different perceptions on the text can result from how a person is brought up and how their mind works.

For instance, when I think of “slave morality” I think of a “follower”, a person without their own ideas, someone who just goes with the crowd and conforms. However, some classmates seemed to reference slave morality with exactly what it sounds like, slaves. Although Nietzsche could have been an advocator of slavery, of which I am unsure because I have little knowledge in regards to his life, I’m viewing this philosophical ideas from a more modern and contemporary point of view. And so, master morality, to me, is about a person who is a master of their own life, one who doesn’t conform, who lives their life the way they wish. But some classmates took master morality to mean morality of “masters”, of queens, kings, those of the upper class, etc. Some believe that if one is in that position then they are automatically a master. Although one is born into royalty, one cannot be a master unless they take full responsibility of themselves and their life.

Now I would like to go against this type of narrow thinking. Even though someone is born into their “mastery” does not guarantee that they will become a master. Although it’s thought that it is predestined what a person will be, how events will play out, I find that notion to be irrelevant to life. It disregards the fact that we still have to make decisions for ourselves that we still choose what to do and how to be. If we didn’t do so, we would just sit at home all day and never do anything. That’s why it bothers me when people talk about destiny and free will. It really just doesn’t matter.

Let’s create a scenario. There is a princess, she is born to be a master, her destiny is to become queen and that is apparently the only “choice” she has. However, this is completely incorrect. If she wanted, truly wanted to, she could leave her family, abandon the crown, and live her life in a different way. Now, this might seem dramatic and unappealing to the general public but sometimes people do what they have to in order to be “free”. Everything depends on the individual and it’s difficult to classify this type of information into stereotypes because everyone is different. When a person is subscribing to a stereotype, they are following slave morality. A queen, who is a master, can still be subscribing to slave morality because if they aren’t doing what they want, they are following what is told for them to do.

Sure, a slave can have master morality and a master can have slave morality. However, whether or not they are able to exercise that power and take action ultimately determines what that person’s true morality is. If you’re being true to yourself though, it’s impossible to take part in this contradiction.

So I suppose what I’m trying to say is that there should be different terms attached to a “slave” and a “master” in relation to having “slave morality” and “master morality”. Due to the vagueness and ambiguity of these terms it’s impossible to truly understand how I am deciphering these ideas. And maybe that’s why I struggled so hard upon writing this because I cannot tell how we should define the terms.

And so it occurs to me that the reason why there was misunderstanding in class is due to the misrepresentation of terms.

Nietzsche

This week I want to actually talk about the readings more specifically. I found Nietzsche very interesting and his concepts are something that deserves to be explored.

I find it incredibly amazing the way he pronounces God as “dead”. He’s saying that Christianity is dead, that it is no longer with us and that we must move on. It’s incredible and yet, he’s fully aware that not everyone is willing to accept this.

Recently I have discovered some greatly amusing ideas from this absurd world we live in. For example, I have encountered plenty of atheists, agnostics, and religious folk in my short lifespan (this seems to be a topic of great discourse amongst human beings). However, recently I have been finding many confused people.

There is one person in particular who never ceases to amaze me in beliefs he has. He does not believe in God, he considers himself atheist. However, he will not admit that there is no God due to the fact that he refuses to believe that this is all we have. He will live in ignorance if it will grant him something to look forward to. This is because, to him, this is hell. He cannot let himself come to terms with the fact that once we die, that’s it. What surprises me is this: that I can actually understand his point-of-view. It’s the whole “ignorance is bliss” type of mentality, and in this case, it is.

Another thing I find fascinating about Nietzsche is his discussion on the herd-instinct. This is something that has actually never crossed my mind before. Sure, I’ve given thought to morality and what makes something moral versus immoral. I have merely blamed our common notions of this on religion. However, the fact that it is based off of the “herd-instinct” struck something in me. At first, I was in denial, telling myself “no way, we don’t do this.” But once thought about, it’s apparent how true this is. Since morality is based upon others, then that means that morality is unnecessary whilst alone.

For instance, if someone were to be stranded on an island, alone, what good would morals do them? If anything, it could hurt them. “Oh, the poor fish”, “Oh, the poor tree”, “Oh, the poor deer”. These types of thoughts would get an animal killed. So if we are going solely based off of animal instinct, morals are unnecessary. However, once we add fellow human beings into the mix, we begin to experience a sense of morality that may arise.

Lastly, I would like to delve into his topic of “genius of the species”.  It’s impossible to say when us as a species evolved to be self-conscious. Therefore, it’s impossible to say when the need for consciousness arose. However, for arguments sake, we can continue to discuss this topic because of the interesting points he brings about. Nietzsche states that if we were solitary animals then we wouldn’t need consciousness in the manner that we do. This can be related back to the same premise earlier regarding morality. If we were not herd-like animals, if we did not have a “herd-instinct”, then there would be no need for morality as well as consciousness. What is consciousness anyways other than us being aware of our person in comparison to others? If there was no one to compare our “self” to, then for no reason would we have consciousness.

There is a surprising amount of human characteristics that have been derived from being herd-like animals. Which, when looked at psychologically, can provide great inside into other animals and vice-versa. 

Existentialism Versus Christianity

To be completely honest, when I was first reading Kierkegaard I had absolutely no idea what his purpose was. It wasn’t until class that I realized he is merely focused deeply on the individual.

So I have learned this about myself: although I try to be open-minded (I really, really do try very hard to be, honest) it’s not something I have been able to completely overcome. It’s just been impossible for me to open up to Christianity.

Now don’t get me wrong, there is background to this intense distrust over the religion. For example, growing up I was “raised” Roman Catholic. I never agreed with what I was learning and I always knew deep down I was not Catholic, not in the slightest. However, being a young one, I couldn’t ever tell my mother my dissatisfaction with the church and its ideology. So, I continued to attend for her sake.

The longer I was involved the more contradictions and more logical fallacies were brought to my attention. Therefore, I am now at the point of complete distrust in any religion.

Which goes into my question: can one be an existentialist and religious at the same time?

My answer: Absolutely not.

And now let me elaborate.

Modern day Christianity, the common notion of Christianity, has a single purpose. That purpose is to serve God, to serve Jesus Christ, and to abandon your self in order to follow them.  It’s already decided for you what your purpose is by God. Going based solely off of this, I do not see how Existentialism can be put into this mess.

For me to really describe my thoughts well, we can also analyze Kierkegaard’s Christianity. Kierkegaard’s philosophy is quite fascinating up until I realized how he was somehow Christian. I don’t understand how one can place so much emphasis upon the self when Christianity seeks so hard to destroy that. Anyways, even if we pretend that Christianity wasn’t a so-called “religion” and that there was no established church, no established doctrine of ideas. If Christianity was completely reliant on the individual’s self then there can be a slight acceptance of existentialism (which could happen at the part just shy of admitting to believing in God and Jesus). All the way until the person admits that they have a “God” that they are worshiping.

The point of religions is to do what someone else deemed acceptable. Therefore, if one considers themselves religious, they really just can’t be an existentialist. There is no room for religion for the emphasis placed upon the self. So a person who is religious can never truly be living for themselves because they are constantly thinking about the otherworldly figure they are attempting to please.

The other thing I wanted to quickly touch base on is the idea of subjectivity and objectivity.

For some reason, these concepts seemed very clear to me when I began the readings, I thought I had gotten this down! Oh Kierkegaard I deciphered you! Oh, little did I know, it is so much more complicated than the black and white thinking I was inferring it to be. Now, I continue to be at a loss of understanding. This is because I cannot determine if I believe there is anything objective ever on this planet. Thinking about it, isn’t everything subjective? Even when we collectively analyze something with the scientific method, with multiple people, and come to a repeatable, understandable conclusion, is that still objective or is it subjective to those scientists. I don’t think there is ever a point to where something is a definite objective truth aside from natural events on this Earth that could happen regardless of human existence. 

Slaves to religion and a false notion of proof.

Unfortunately, upon our discussions on Monday, the topic of slavery veered into a course I had not expected or liked. It seemed that such a deep and meaningful topic did not get the debate it deserved. For instance, I had noticed many people kept coming back to the idea of being enslaved to material objects as well as physical limits to a person. However, within The Fall, it seemed that the type of enslavement Camus focused on was that of humans over humans. I am in complete understanding as to how people came to that conclusion (us being enslaved to technology) but I don’t see how it pertains directly to the novel. He states in the novel how we must choose a master and that things like betrothal are also enslavement. However, he never references us being enslaved by what is handed to us.

Either way, I wanted to touch base on whether or not the existentialist is enslaved to anything and whether or not I agree upon this notion of enslavement. To me, it seems that an existentialist wouldn’t subscribe to what it takes to be a slave. I also don’t know if an existentialist could be the master though. Maybe everyone is slightly enslaved to something, similar to how we all have idols, people we admire and/or envy. However, I, personally, don’t feel that I subscribe to this idea of being enslaved. Maybe it’s due to the fact that I live in my own content, little bubble. However, the decisions I make I take full responsibility for. I do not blame anyone except myself for the actions I take. I also do not have any regrets. Every experience is a growing experience and helps me become the person I wish to be.

So, although Camus says that, “For anyone who is alone, with-out God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful,” this only pertains to the people who fail at giving themselves meaning. For the meaning-filled individual, lonely days are not dreadful. Lonely days can be used for complete self-fulfillment because the person has no one else to worry about. However, not everyone thinks in this manner. Which explains why religion is so prominent everywhere, too many people seek to be enslaved. But there is always the question of how valid that religion is.

For instance, the question of God.

Many individuals spend their life seeking to prove the existence of God.

So then, let me ask: what do you mean by the word “prove”, what sort of “proof” must we obtain in order to “prove” there is a “God”?

If looked at scientifically, “to prove” is not in a scientist’s vocabulary. Scientists never “prove” anything, they seek to disprove. Therefore, this quest for God is meaningless because it can never be proved, in the scientific sense.

If looked at mathematically, a “proof” uses a logical, deductive method to come to a rational conclusion. Proofs can be long, complicated, and yet still be completely logical. “If A is B, and B is C, then A is C.” From everything that I have ever learned about Christianity, it is everything but logical. Even a Christian classmate admittedly stated on class on Monday that Christianity is illogical. So it’s impossible to use the mathematical meaning of the word “prove”/”proof”.

And so, when Kierkegaard states that, “and furthermore would live in constantly in suspenso[in suspense], that something terrible should suddenly happen that would demolish my little proof,” it seems to me that Christians should always live in suspenso because the “little proof” isn’t even valid proof (Solomon, 26).

So basically, in order to subscribe to Christianity, one must throw out all reason, all free-thinking abilities, and all rationality. That seems more like the ultimate enslavement right there.