I don't trust emotions after all of the evils I have witnessed. Emotions don't exactly scare me though.
Why should I trust emotions at all?ad:

Its hard to trust them (emotions) sometimes. Sometimes its great to let the emotions go. I suppose the people who can switch it on and off would have a better control of their life.. then again, I am no psychologist. Im just speaking my mind at the moment.

I've realized that rationality releases harmless emotions(the ones that generate satisfaction over an issue solved) and rationality is the opposite of emotion.

Is this an obvious discovery and I'm not alone in knowing this?

I am so pissed at some things(other things I just get mad at and then ignore them) I don't like that unless I stop to think about them I simply ignore them. When I ignore them their meaning to me becomes meaningless. I basically don't identify with the intended irrational message anymore. This may be an efficiency circuit in the brain.

Being angry (an emotional response) about an event that rationally causes anger, would be both rational and emotional. So, not all emotions are irrational therefore saying that emotion and rationality are opposites does not square up with reality. For example, if someone socked me in the jaw, it would be irrational to smile and thank the person, while an angry response would be rational.

(April 6, 2011 at 2:03 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Being angry (an emotional response) about an event that rationally causes anger, would be both rational and emotional. So, not all emotions are irrational therefore saying that emotion and rationality are opposites does not square up with reality. For example, if someone socked me in the jaw, it would be irrational to smile and thank the person, while an angry response would be rational.

*holding ideas with neutral hands and connects them with logic*
That is what I meant and that is not emotion. That is the brain doing its job before it applies emotions to the result, hence angry response. The brain does this process very fast.
faster than *snaps fingers*.

It is very difficult to hold ideas with neutral hands. It is very difficult not to have a biased view.

(April 6, 2011 at 2:33 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: It is very difficult (for x group of people) to hold ideas with neutral hands. It is very difficult (for x group of people) not to have a biased view.

I think that's what you really meant.

That is still an emotional argument. I view it in terms of possibility.

I ask "Is this possible?"

(April 6, 2011 at 2:37 pm)Emporion Wrote:

(April 6, 2011 at 2:33 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: It is very difficult (for x group of people) to hold ideas with neutral hands. It is very difficult (for x group of people) not to have a biased view.

I think that's what you really meant.

That is still an emotional argument. I view it in terms of possibility.

I ask "Is this possible?"

I prefer probability.

(April 6, 2011 at 2:49 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(April 6, 2011 at 2:37 pm)Emporion Wrote:

(April 6, 2011 at 2:33 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: It is very difficult (for x group of people) to hold ideas with neutral hands. It is very difficult (for x group of people) not to have a biased view.

I think that's what you really meant.

That is still an emotional argument. I view it in terms of possibility.

I ask "Is this possible?"

I prefer probability.

That's a subset of possibility. That is the second question after "Is this possible".

When I am looking at someone's face it is impossible for me to also view them from their backside. It is one thing to claim to be objective; it is quite another thing to actually be such. I am certainly NOT objective, and I don't try to be anymore because I find it to be an extremely pointless excercise. To me it is like trying to touch everything I want to observe with both hands and both feet to make sure I am not missing something.