Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Naturalism's Stand on Secular Gods ( Social Constructs )?

Expand Messages
  • LyndonP
    You used my quote after talking about Eliminative Materialism, which I do not ascribe to, in many or most cases, and certainly not as a whole theory- again
    Message 1 of 11 , May 6, 2010
      You used my quote after talking about "Eliminative Materialism," which I do not ascribe to, in many or most cases, and certainly not as a whole theory- again that was Alain and you who were talking about Emat.

      Anger is an emotional state, one that cannot be eliminated, but certainly one that can be controlled and is caught up in our conceptions of the world.

      Think of the anger felt over the Lockerbie bombing where a terrorist blew up the plane compared to the anger felt about the plane crash off of Brazil. There is anger over the "cause" of the first- a deep anger at the terrorist who "intentionally" or purposively shot down the plane.

      In the second case, we certainly feel sadness at the lives lost, but the anger is different. We cannot get deeply angry at a freak windstorm or lightning that brought the plane down, we recognize them as targets that are not worthy of our anger- like there is not really reason to get angry at the chair you just stumped your toe on. There may be, in the Brazil case, anger at pilots or control staff that failed to do their duty, and we may do so by saying they were intentionally or unacceptably being lazy, but this anger only comes when we find agents who acted intentionally.

      Understanding the causal roots of anothers actions, or accepting that there is a long causal history that led to that action, reduces the amount of anger we feel towards those agents who are doing those intentional acts. This comes from recognizing that the intentional act is not coming from a contra-causal force that the agent invokes, but is coming from the long biological and environmental history of that individual. It basically, through a deeper conceptual understanding of the brains of individuals and how they work, mitigates the power of the intentionality in the first plane crash to the type of mechanistic causation of the second plane crash.

      Acting angry against others, or showing that you are one to get angry at others, may, or in most cases certainly will, influence how they intentionally act. Your behavior is very much controlled by trying to prevent the anger from others, many times if others become angry with you, it will be followed by behavior that is negative towards you, which is probably best to be avoided. But much of the time these cases are more a detriment to society, at least today, than they are beneficial, and a better understanding of the causal roots of others actions, followed by a mitigation of our angriness and angered responses is beneficial.

      The anger that we feel towards people is a product of how we understand the world. 2000 years ago a person may have gotten angry with the chair they stumped their toe on because they had a conceptual understanding that there was "active agent" in the chair that was intentionally trying to hurt them. Given that we no longer see active agents in that chair, our/your anger and emotions towards that chair have changed.

      These are only my thoughts of course, and I may take it farther than many who follow Naturalism, but on Naturalism.org the issues of compassion usually touch on this issue.

      Thanks,
      Lyndon




      --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "lemmett@..." <lemmett@...> wrote:
      >
      > OK. Incidentally the psychology of romantic love was talked about. I don't see what that has to be supernatural I mean you make your own luck is true though "luck" doesn't exist. But I don't really want to talk about love so much.
      > OK if you believe in EM but even with that I'm not sure it makes sense to eliminate the idea of e.g. anger from your everyday thinking. I doubt that any of its proponents have really done so, what would that even mean? E.g. what is the meaning of sentences like
      > Anger in itself is also just an emotion, which is not something one can do entirely "away" with, although, you can mitigate it to some extent... And even when one feels anger at a situation, it seems with closer inspection we can "reason" out that anger and accept that it is not something one should be angry about, hopefully, mitigating initial reactive responses.
      > How can someone not believe in anger yet claim to make true statements on it? So I am to believe that you've eliminated a folk theory yet are still able to talk about it without slipping back into your folk ways or into claiming that what you say is true.
      > I'd have though that it isn't a component of the EM, or no-one believes it outside the classroom.
      >
      >
    • lemmett@talk21.com
      OK thanks for the reply and sorry for continuing to misrepresent you. It is not deliberate. 2000 years ago a person may have gotten angry with the chair they
      Message 2 of 11 , May 6, 2010
        OK thanks for the reply and sorry for continuing to misrepresent you. It is not deliberate.

        2000 years ago a person may have gotten angry with the chair they stumped their toe on because they had a conceptual understanding that there was "active agent" in the chair that was intentionally trying to hurt them

        Really? What a wonderful idea.



        --- On Thu, 6/5/10, LyndonP <luckylyndy7@...> wrote:

        From: LyndonP <luckylyndy7@...>
        Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Naturalism's Stand on Secular Gods ( Social Constructs )?
        To: naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, 6 May, 2010, 16:06

         

        You used my quote after talking about "Eliminative Materialism, " which I do not ascribe to, in many or most cases, and certainly not as a whole theory- again that was Alain and you who were talking about Emat.

        Anger is an emotional state, one that cannot be eliminated, but certainly one that can be controlled and is caught up in our conceptions of the world.

        Think of the anger felt over the Lockerbie bombing where a terrorist blew up the plane compared to the anger felt about the plane crash off of Brazil. There is anger over the "cause" of the first- a deep anger at the terrorist who "intentionally" or purposively shot down the plane.

        In the second case, we certainly feel sadness at the lives lost, but the anger is different. We cannot get deeply angry at a freak windstorm or lightning that brought the plane down, we recognize them as targets that are not worthy of our anger- like there is not really reason to get angry at the chair you just stumped your toe on. There may be, in the Brazil case, anger at pilots or control staff that failed to do their duty, and we may do so by saying they were intentionally or unacceptably being lazy, but this anger only comes when we find agents who acted intentionally.

        Understanding the causal roots of anothers actions, or accepting that there is a long causal history that led to that action, reduces the amount of anger we feel towards those agents who are doing those intentional acts. This comes from recognizing that the intentional act is not coming from a contra-causal force that the agent invokes, but is coming from the long biological and environmental history of that individual. It basically, through a deeper conceptual understanding of the brains of individuals and how they work, mitigates the power of the intentionality in the first plane crash to the type of mechanistic causation of the second plane crash.

        Acting angry against others, or showing that you are one to get angry at others, may, or in most cases certainly will, influence how they intentionally act. Your behavior is very much controlled by trying to prevent the anger from others, many times if others become angry with you, it will be followed by behavior that is negative towards you, which is probably best to be avoided. But much of the time these cases are more a detriment to society, at least today, than they are beneficial, and a better understanding of the causal roots of others actions, followed by a mitigation of our angriness and angered responses is beneficial.

        The anger that we feel towards people is a product of how we understand the world. 2000 years ago a person may have gotten angry with the chair they stumped their toe on because they had a conceptual understanding that there was "active agent" in the chair that was intentionally trying to hurt them. Given that we no longer see active agents in that chair, our/your anger and emotions towards that chair have changed.

        These are only my thoughts of course, and I may take it farther than many who follow Naturalism, but on Naturalism.org the issues of compassion usually touch on this issue.

        Thanks,
        Lyndon

        --- In naturalismphilosoph yforum@yahoogrou ps.com, "lemmett@... " <lemmett@... > wrote:
        >
        > OK. Incidentally the psychology of romantic love was talked about. I don't see what that has to be supernatural I mean you make your own luck is true though "luck" doesn't exist. But I don't really want to talk about love so much.
        > OK if you believe in EM but even with that I'm not sure it makes sense to eliminate the idea of e.g. anger from your everyday thinking. I doubt that any of its proponents have really done so, what would that even mean? E.g. what is the meaning of sentences like
        > Anger in itself is also just an emotion, which is not something one can do entirely "away" with, although, you can mitigate it to some extent... And even when one feels anger at a situation, it seems with closer inspection we can "reason" out that anger and accept that it is not something one should be angry about, hopefully, mitigating initial reactive responses.
        > How can someone not believe in anger yet claim to make true statements on it? So I am to believe that you've eliminated a folk theory yet are still able to talk about it without slipping back into your folk ways or into claiming that what you say is true.
        > I'd have though that it isn't a component of the EM, or no-one believes it outside the classroom.
        >
        >


      • ouinon_janein
        lemmett@... wrote:
        Message 3 of 11 , May 8, 2010
          lemmett@..." <lemmett@...> wrote:
          < OK thanks for the reply and sorry for continuing to misrepresent you. It is not deliberate.

          luckylyndon@LyndonP wrote:
          < 2000 years ago a person may have gotten angry with the chair they stumped their toe on because they had a conceptual understanding that there was "active agent" in the chair that was intentionally trying to hurt them

          lemmett@ wrote:
          < Really? What a wonderful idea.>

          :lol I liked that "picture" too; but there's another reason that someone might react like that: Which of the two objects is exerting the most force at the point of collision? Your foot or the chair? They exert equal force, in fact, so the violent contact is actually felt as if something was in a duel with you but that other thing most "unfairly" escaped scot free because doesn't experience any pain! :lol If thought that the chair felt pain ( and could talk ) then would be more likely to apologise for bumping into it, and the chair could say, "It's alright, didn't do any permanent damage, I'll put some ice on it and it'll be fine; are you ok?". Yeah, I know, the chair wasn't moving ... so it's all your fault, but why didn't it move out of the way like any reasonable person/being? ! :lol So, you're angry with it for being an inanimate object! :rofl

          But the reason that I think it can be argued that anger doesn't exist is because anger is just a label/value judgement which we apply to various ( very various ) reactions, physical/chemical states, thoughts, and actions, which, like "love" are entirely subjective. We have no way of knowing if what someone else labels anger is the same thing as we label as anger. The meltdown of someone on the autism spectrum can look like anger when in fact it is overwhelm, for instance, and what is felt by some people as anger other people may describe/label as fear. What some people say is resentment/ill will others may call anger, and sheer excitement may be called anger, when it happens to be about something controversial. When is indignation or outrage anger? When is pain, ( when stubbing toe for example ), "anger", and when is it "stress/distress" or "irritation" etc? People in certain societies, eg. Spain, look and sound, to someone from England, for example, as if they are angry most of the time, ( which can be quite alarming ), when apparently they are just excited or involved/engaged. What looks like merely icy hauteur or remote withdrawal to an english person might be described, and experienced as the most extreme anger by someone from another culture.

          What is anger? People use the word for all sorts of reactions.

          Even limiting its use to very specific physical states, of which their sufferers might only be slightly conscious, is ambiguous, because the same physical signs accompany fear, sexual and other excitement, stress/distress, etc, aswell as the onset of certain illnesses ( heart attack or even stroke ), aswell as eating very spicy food.

          "Anger" has no objective existence. It is map not territory. It's "not there". :)
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.