"Flowers are restful to look at. They have neither emotions nor conflicts" - Freud
Flowers indeed are very pleasant to look at, but I'm not sure if we can attribute to their being inanimate. But I have often wondered about the merits of emotions and what purpose they serve us in general.
Which brings me to a topic I have been intrigued by.
In a world where every person but one was completely devoid of emotion, would the power of emoting be considered a superpower or a liability?
At a very base level, an emotional response is the result of hormonal triggers, which are in turn influenced(?) via social conditioning and/or are predisposed to genetic influence. For e.g.: The amount of anger or fear a person feels towards a certain event or stimulus, is subjective to that very person and their experiences. Hence, I may get very upset if someone is dishonest with me, whereas my friend may assume that people come in various shades of grey, and thus brush the matter off. Interestingly, the chicken or egg debate can be brought in here. Did the hormonal trigger happen and hence you exhibited that degree of response or did the social conditioning kick in, and trigger that much of a hormonal response? (Need to research.)
The level and complexity of emotional responses varies across species, with the non human species exhibiting the basic emotions: Fear, anger, sadness, surprise etc. And largely, for them these base emotions are a means of survival. (Whether they fall under the category of behaviorism or otherwise, would be another debate). These base emotions help them detect threats, survive that threat, nurture their off springs, decide whether to live in packs or in isolation, etc. However, things start to get interesting once more complex emotions come into existence. We hear about dogs being possessive of their masters, cross specie nurturing of off springs and similar events in the animal world. In humans, things like jealousy, contempt, sympathy, empathy come into existence. (Insert examples for the spectrum - delve into the pros and cons)
Now, keeping aside the evolutionary benefits of the base emotions, how do the base and complex emotions serve us? (need an example of the desirable effects of complex emotions.)
Often, I have noticed that a lot of conflict unresolved, due the logic and reason being over-ridden by a tide of emotions. This can be on a large scale, where people of different religious ideologies are at odds with each other for perceived slights to their deities, way of life etc, or simpler things like an individuals inability to admit to wrong doing and their reluctance to be open about certain aspects of their lives. In both those cases, if the emotional response is suppressed, then a more rational line of thought can be inculcated, which can in turn lead to a more desirable outcome.
Even in daily interactions, emotions play a large role in determining the general environment and state of mind. Say you are at a work place - you get a promotion. This results in you being happy, and an under performing co-worker experiences jealousy. He or she is then faced with a choice - to understand the underlying reasons why that led to this undesirable situation coming about, and taking corrective measures like enhancing their skill set, taking up more responsibility and things of that nature. Or he/she decides to sulk instead, backbites about you, and generally adopts a pessimistic and defeatist attitude. I'm not saying these are the only two choices, just two of the many I am considering.
In the first scenario, the emotional response is over-ridden eventually by rationality, and gets that person a step closer to their desired outcome. In the second, the chances of a desired outcome are significantly less.
Flowers indeed are very pleasant to look at, but I'm not sure if we can attribute to their being inanimate. But I have often wondered about the merits of emotions and what purpose they serve us in general.
Which brings me to a topic I have been intrigued by.
In a world where every person but one was completely devoid of emotion, would the power of emoting be considered a superpower or a liability?
At a very base level, an emotional response is the result of hormonal triggers, which are in turn influenced(?) via social conditioning and/or are predisposed to genetic influence. For e.g.: The amount of anger or fear a person feels towards a certain event or stimulus, is subjective to that very person and their experiences. Hence, I may get very upset if someone is dishonest with me, whereas my friend may assume that people come in various shades of grey, and thus brush the matter off. Interestingly, the chicken or egg debate can be brought in here. Did the hormonal trigger happen and hence you exhibited that degree of response or did the social conditioning kick in, and trigger that much of a hormonal response? (Need to research.)
The level and complexity of emotional responses varies across species, with the non human species exhibiting the basic emotions: Fear, anger, sadness, surprise etc. And largely, for them these base emotions are a means of survival. (Whether they fall under the category of behaviorism or otherwise, would be another debate). These base emotions help them detect threats, survive that threat, nurture their off springs, decide whether to live in packs or in isolation, etc. However, things start to get interesting once more complex emotions come into existence. We hear about dogs being possessive of their masters, cross specie nurturing of off springs and similar events in the animal world. In humans, things like jealousy, contempt, sympathy, empathy come into existence. (Insert examples for the spectrum - delve into the pros and cons)
Now, keeping aside the evolutionary benefits of the base emotions, how do the base and complex emotions serve us? (need an example of the desirable effects of complex emotions.)
Often, I have noticed that a lot of conflict unresolved, due the logic and reason being over-ridden by a tide of emotions. This can be on a large scale, where people of different religious ideologies are at odds with each other for perceived slights to their deities, way of life etc, or simpler things like an individuals inability to admit to wrong doing and their reluctance to be open about certain aspects of their lives. In both those cases, if the emotional response is suppressed, then a more rational line of thought can be inculcated, which can in turn lead to a more desirable outcome.
Even in daily interactions, emotions play a large role in determining the general environment and state of mind. Say you are at a work place - you get a promotion. This results in you being happy, and an under performing co-worker experiences jealousy. He or she is then faced with a choice - to understand the underlying reasons why that led to this undesirable situation coming about, and taking corrective measures like enhancing their skill set, taking up more responsibility and things of that nature. Or he/she decides to sulk instead, backbites about you, and generally adopts a pessimistic and defeatist attitude. I'm not saying these are the only two choices, just two of the many I am considering.
In the first scenario, the emotional response is over-ridden eventually by rationality, and gets that person a step closer to their desired outcome. In the second, the chances of a desired outcome are significantly less.
