philosophy :: psychology :: theology :: technology
The argument has been put forth that, while arguments are either evaulated in a binary scheme—as valid or invalid—feelings are necessarily valid. I think this is an example of a self-esteem gospel, some pop-psychology mumbo-jumbo along with the prevailing wisdom among parents that it’s best to be “great friends” with your kids (often at the expense of their respect for you, and to the great peril of their persons).
Emotions, like ideas, are faculties of rational minds. If all feelings were necessarily valid, then they would be unevaluable—nothing that our minds could comprehend would be able to sway our emotions. This is prima facie untrue: the art of rhetoric is based on certain precepts and reasons, and even a personal offense may seem more or less an imposition when all facts are taken into account.
An emotion that is based on faulty understanding, ignorance, or no apparent intellectual stimulus is, then, invalid. The child that pitches a fit over not getting a piece of candy in the drugstore check-out line at her will—that fit is invalid because it’s based upon the faulty reasoning that whatever she wills is the best thing for her. The man who laughs at a funeral is schizotypal—we call him sick, because there is a mental imbalance there. A mood swing from a chemical imbalance due to drug abuse is understandable from a pharmacological standpoint, but rationally invalid.
I stood among many under the tutelage of a speaker once who said, “Whatever you are feeling is always perfectly valid. Just let it out, or experience it as it comes; no one can tell you that it’s wrong, it simply is.” Well, I’m here to tell you that it’s wrong, Jack. I’m sure this is the same line of thought with which Bacchic prostitutes whored themselves; I’m sure this is the line of reasoning that keeps depressed people ill, and cruel people enraged.
When you’re feeling upset, stop and ask yourself if it’s reasonable for you to be so. Don’t buy the lie that you can’t control yourself. You will find that, if you’re willing to overcome your rationalizations, a bit of self-critique will quench the fire of your anger or balm the sting of your weeping.
The argument has been put forth that, while arguments are either evaulated in a binary scheme—as valid or invalid—feelings are necessarily valid. I think this is an example of a self-esteem gospel, some pop-psychology mumbo-jumbo along with the prevailing wisdom among parents that it’s best to be “great friends” with your kids (often at the expense of their respect for you, and to the great peril of their persons).
Emotions, like ideas, are faculties of rational minds. If all feelings were necessarily valid, then they would be unevaluable—nothing that our minds could comprehend would be able to sway our emotions. This is prima facie untrue: the art of rhetoric is based on certain precepts and reasons, and even a personal offense may seem more or less an imposition when all facts are taken into account.
An emotion that is based on faulty understanding, ignorance, or no apparent intellectual stimulus is, then, invalid. The child that pitches a fit over not getting a piece of candy in the drugstore check-out line at her will—that fit is invalid because it’s based upon the faulty reasoning that whatever she wills is the best thing for her. The man who laughs at a funeral is schizotypal—we call him sick, because there is a mental imbalance there. A mood swing from a chemical imbalance due to drug abuse is understandable from a pharmacological standpoint, but rationally invalid.
I stood among many under the tutelage of a speaker once who said, “Whatever you are feeling is always perfectly valid. Just let it out, or experience it as it comes; no one can tell you that it’s wrong, it simply is.” Well, I’m here to tell you that it’s wrong, Jack. I’m sure this is the same line of thought with which Bacchic prostitutes whored themselves; I’m sure this is the line of reasoning that keeps depressed people ill, and cruel people enraged.
When you’re feeling upset, stop and ask yourself if it’s reasonable for you to be so. Don’t buy the lie that you can’t control yourself. You will find that, if you’re willing to overcome your rationalizations, a bit of self-critique will quench the fire of your anger or balm the sting of your weeping.
Is the definition of feeling wholly consistent here? Is feeling for you what, say, for Heidegger et al. is called “mood”? In which case, it would be more fundamental to human Da-sein than rationality. Or is feeling the temporary play of psychosomatic response from some stimulus, good or bad?
Well Thom, I concede you may have me stumped. I’m talking about the primarily physiological, chemical things, as well as the psychological understandings that produce feelings. If I THINK I am slighted, I will FEEL anger; if I perpetuate an incorrect mode of THOUGHT that says I am worthless, I will FEEL depressed. One leads to the other. It can be the other way around, but that’s no excuse: feelings that dictate the direction of your thoughts all the time are people behaving like animals.
I don’t know enough of Heideggerian “mood” to discuss it. Care to fill me in? Or is this in “Being and Time”? (Thanks for your comments!)
“You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals, so let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel!” LOL! Anyway, Michael, I miss you! Sorry I’ve been out of touch, I’ve been using rational thought to overcome some pretty silly emotions. I am grateful to God to say that I am back on track and emotionally (psychologically) healthy. I think we feed off the emotions because it makes us believe in the existence of emotional forces which suit our intellectual purpose. For instance, believing that a lost love is still emotionally connected because we retain feelings for them. When rationally approached, this usually does not hold water. Anyway - I should be around more for a while. Currently unemployed, broke, and loving it! D
“Mood” is simply a description of those feelings which pervade and effect the entire person. Anxiety, das Angst, for example. What the Bible means by joy. Mood-level emotion as I said pervades the whole person, but there is another level which is just being pissed off that you missed a deadline or forgot to pay a bill.
Then my position holds, perhaps (though not necessarily) especially for “mood.” If we reason out that life is absurd, we are filled with “das Angst.” Ours is a rational faith: we are filled with not a temporary, fleeting norepinephrine rush, but a rational confirmation and logical deduction leads our minds and, therefore, our emotional states, to a place of peace and joy because of our assurance in Christ. The one that misunderstands the Gospel will not experience the full joy of Christ while he suffers under those negative delusions.
This may break up because of the nature of faith in our spirits (respectively) communing with God’s Holy Spirit, but Packer holds a position I think is particularly cogent, viz., that there is not a trichotomy–at least as it is understood that true and meaningful revelation can altogether surpass all comprehension.
I’m still kicking this around. Thoughts?
[powered by WordPress.]
For the discussion of current and historical trends in the liberal arts, information technology, and religious thought. "Of all human pursuits, the pursuit of wisdom is the more perfect, the more sublime, the more useful, and the more agreeable."
Think.
ThinkBlog.org has been on the web since August 2003, with 292,449 words in 846 posts.
It is presently 23:10:03 on 05 Jul 2008, server side. All content except where otherwise noted Copyright © 2000-2006 Michael Phillips.
43 queries. 2.356 seconds
August 22nd, 2005 at 16:01:26
Is the definition of feeling wholly consistent here? Is feeling for you what, say, for Heidegger et al. is called “mood”? In which case, it would be more fundamental to human Da-sein than rationality. Or is feeling the temporary play of psychosomatic response from some stimulus, good or bad?
August 22nd, 2005 at 20:38:58
Well Thom, I concede you may have me stumped. I’m talking about the primarily physiological, chemical things, as well as the psychological understandings that produce feelings. If I THINK I am slighted, I will FEEL anger; if I perpetuate an incorrect mode of THOUGHT that says I am worthless, I will FEEL depressed. One leads to the other. It can be the other way around, but that’s no excuse: feelings that dictate the direction of your thoughts all the time are people behaving like animals.
I don’t know enough of Heideggerian “mood” to discuss it. Care to fill me in? Or is this in “Being and Time”? (Thanks for your comments!)
August 24th, 2005 at 22:49:17
“You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals, so let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel!” LOL! Anyway, Michael, I miss you! Sorry I’ve been out of touch, I’ve been using rational thought to overcome some pretty silly emotions. I am grateful to God to say that I am back on track and emotionally (psychologically) healthy. I think we feed off the emotions because it makes us believe in the existence of emotional forces which suit our intellectual purpose. For instance, believing that a lost love is still emotionally connected because we retain feelings for them. When rationally approached, this usually does not hold water. Anyway - I should be around more for a while. Currently unemployed, broke, and loving it! D
August 25th, 2005 at 15:44:56
“Mood” is simply a description of those feelings which pervade and effect the entire person. Anxiety, das Angst, for example. What the Bible means by joy. Mood-level emotion as I said pervades the whole person, but there is another level which is just being pissed off that you missed a deadline or forgot to pay a bill.
August 30th, 2005 at 18:20:17
Then my position holds, perhaps (though not necessarily) especially for “mood.” If we reason out that life is absurd, we are filled with “das Angst.” Ours is a rational faith: we are filled with not a temporary, fleeting norepinephrine rush, but a rational confirmation and logical deduction leads our minds and, therefore, our emotional states, to a place of peace and joy because of our assurance in Christ. The one that misunderstands the Gospel will not experience the full joy of Christ while he suffers under those negative delusions.
This may break up because of the nature of faith in our spirits (respectively) communing with God’s Holy Spirit, but Packer holds a position I think is particularly cogent, viz., that there is not a trichotomy–at least as it is understood that true and meaningful revelation can altogether surpass all comprehension.
I’m still kicking this around. Thoughts?