Love is bad.

[pgt1027]

Simplistic title, but pretty much sums it up. In fact, all emotions are bad.

Why?

Because all emotions are a form of irrationality. Sure, if you reason something out you can change an emotion, but in the end there is really no rational rhyme or reason to why you feel the way you feel. Hell, most psychological theories as to why we feel the way we do basically admit that the reasons are wholly irrational.

And it is from this irrationality that perhaps the most human-created problems spring.

Any person who wants to call themselves a "rationalist" or whatever should take a pill to deaden their emotions or shut the hell up.

Before anyone says it, yes I was in love before. It was awful. I hate not being in control of myself. What scares me is that there are people who not only accept it, but embrace it as a high virtue.

[Aelius]

Emotions are evolutionarily necessary for our survival. Rationalism isn't incompatible with emotions, it just dictates that emotions don't rule your thinking. Emotions are instinctively-driven and hardwired in our limbic system, and are to a large degree helpful in many areas such as productivity and ambition. You're confusing the different areas of the brain and their functioning. Taste is instinctive, but that doesn't mean it's irrational. Rationality has nothing to do with it.

What separates a rational person from an emotional person is the workings of their cerebral cortex, not their limbic system. So in a life-threatening situation, the limbic system largely takes over and initiates an aggressive response and various defense mechanisms. You can't change such a response which is deeply rooted and hardwired in our genes, but what you can do is add on to it with reasoning. A rational person when faced with such a situation will have the same limbic response to it as an emotional person, but the rational person may exercise more reasoning in addition. If he's a soldier, he may attempt to calm down and remember his training. If he's calling 911 for something, he may remember to stay calm. If he encounters a certain aggressive wild animal, he may stop and recall that the best response is to feign death.

When it comes to love, that's another hardwired instinct. While an emotional person may explain it in a transcendent manner, a rational person may understand the biological role of love and its evolutionary importance. You can't control who you love, that's another hardwired instinct, but again you add on to that instinct with reasoning. Myself, for example, I'm sure I could fall in love if I wanted to but I recognize how unreasonable it is and how negatively it would affect my life, so I simply avoid a situation where I might meet girl I like. Even if I did love a girl, I'd still exercise a heavy dose of reasoning when dealing with the situation because I know how powerful the instincts are.

[pgt1027]

Emotions are evolutionarily necessary for our survival. Rationalism isn't incompatible with emotions, it just dictates that emotions don't rule your thinking. Emotions are instinctively-driven and hardwired in our limbic system, and are to a large degree helpful in many areas such as productivity and ambition. You're confusing the different areas of the brain and their functioning. Taste is instinctive, but that doesn't mean it's irrational. Rationality has nothing to do with it.

What separates a rational person from an emotional person is the workings of their cerebral cortex, not their limbic system. So in a life-threatening situation, the limbic system largely takes over and initiates an aggressive response and various defense mechanisms. You can't change such a response which is deeply rooted and hardwired in our genes, but what you can do is add on to it with reasoning. A rational person when faced with such a situation will have the same limbic response to it as an emotional person, but the rational person may exercise more reasoning in addition. If he's a soldier, he may attempt to calm down and remember his training. If he's calling 911 for something, he may remember to stay calm. If he encounters a certain aggressive wild animal, he may stop and recall that the best response is to feign death.

When it comes to love, that's another hardwired instinct. While an emotional person may explain it in a transcendent manner, a rational person may understand the biological role of love and its evolutionary importance. You can't control who you love, that's another hardwired instinct, but again you add on to that instinct with reasoning. Myself, for example, I'm sure I could fall in love if I wanted to but I recognize how unreasonable it is and how negatively it would affect my life, so I simply avoid a situation where I might meet girl I like. Even if I did love a girl, I'd still exercise a heavy dose of reasoning when dealing with the situation because I know how powerful the instincts are.

Interesting, but there ARE pills that deaden that instinct.

Basically, a cure to all human vices in my opinion.

Would you take it?

The stimuli isn't irrational, true, but the thought process you go through because of said stimuli is. Regardless of you're training, if you see a wild predator, your first gut reaction is "oh shit, I gotta run for it" which is an irrational thought.

Also, your limbic system only has influence over a few emotions, like fear and agression. It by no means controls all of them.

[Aelius]

Interesting, but there ARE pills that deaden that instinct.

Basically, a cure to all human vices in my opinion.

Would you take it?

The stimuli isn't irrational, true, but the thought process you go through because of said stimuli is. Regardless of you're training, if you see a wild predator, your first gut reaction is "oh shit, I gotta run for it" which is an irrational thought.

Also, your limbic system only has influence over a few emotions, like fear and agression. It by no means controls all of them.

I'm not sure there are pills that suppress the limbic system but even if there were I wouldn't take them because there's nothing inherently wrong with emotions and it's part of what makes us who we are. It's not necessarily irrational, either. Your first response if you see a wild predator isn't an irrational response it's an "arational" response, if you will, it is without reasoning. That doesn't mean it's irrational, it's in fact a very rational response which is part of the reason it's been embedded in almost every animal to ever live.

I can't say for certain that the limbic system controls all emotions, I'm not a neurologist, but I know that a huge portion of them including love, affection, mood, pleasure, along with many other primal responses. Reasoning is out of the picture with respect to the limbic system.

[iwpoe]

Because all emotions are a form of irrationality.

It does not seem self-evidently correct that rationality is good in the way you think it is, or that irrationality is bad in the way you think it is. That is to say, you need a better argument than the mere bald assertion of this as a moral fact.

[merle234]

Simplistic title, but pretty much sums it up. In fact, all emotions are bad.

Why?

Because all emotions are a form of irrationality. Sure, if you reason something out you can change an emotion, but in the end there is really no rational rhyme or reason to why you feel the way you feel. Hell, most psychological theories as to why we feel the way we do basically admit that the reasons are wholly irrational.

And it is from this irrationality that perhaps the most human-created problems spring.

Any person who wants to call themselves a "rationalist" or whatever should take a pill to deaden their emotions or shut the hell up.

Before anyone says it, yes I was in love before. It was awful. I hate not being in control of myself. What scares me is that there are people who not only accept it, but embrace it as a high virtue.

Love is just as important as rationality.

[Aelius]

Love is just as important as rationality.

What makes you think so?

[Proley]

I think love is one of the elements of life which makes it pleasant. I should be able to find some satisfaction by consorting with my family without it, I suppose, but those chemical reactions which make me feel included and love them are quite nice, I'd rather not do without them. A world of pure logical thinking is a cold, cold place. Passion, love, these things seem to be a part of the human condition which most people find fulfillment in.

[merle234]

What makes you think so?

Rationality can help us achieve our goals, but it can't create goals in the first place, that's down to emotions.

[Aelius]

Rationality can help us achieve our goals, but it can't create goals in the first place, that's down to emotions.

You're absolutely right. Without emotions, we'd never do anything. We'd lay in bed all day. Now, like I asked before, what makes you think love is just as important as rationality?

[merle234]

You're absolutely right. Without emotions, we'd never do anything. We'd lay in bed all day. Now, like I asked before, what makes you think love is just as important as rationality?

Love is one of the most motivating emotions, e.g. I love doing certain things that aren't laying in bed all day.

[Aelius]

Love is one of the most motivating emotions, e.g. I love doing certain things that aren't laying in bed all day.

So you're not limiting your use of the word "love" to romantic love? If so, then fair enough, but I'd consider that loose use of the word especially without that qualifier.

[merle234]

So you're not limiting your use of the word "love" to romantic love? If so, then fair enough, but I'd consider that loose use of the word especially without that qualifier.

You can limit the word love to romantic love if you like, it's still very motivating, I'm sure you don't need me to explain how romantic love can motivate people.

[Aelius]

You can limit the word love to romantic love if you like, it's still very motivating, I'm sure you don't need me to explain how romantic love can motivate people.

Except romantic love only motivates you to do things for the person you love. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you didn't fall in love in the first place it wouldn't be detrimental to lack that romantic love emotion and indeed your productivity would be significantly higher if you hadn't fallen prey to romantic love.

[merle234]

Except romantic love only motivates you to do things for the person you love. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you didn't fall in love in the first place it wouldn't be detrimental to lack that romantic love emotion and indeed your productivity would be significantly higher if you hadn't fallen prey to romantic love.

Same with anything else, if you weren't born in the first place then you wouldn't mind not existing. And succeding in life would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, you only want to exist because you do.

So according to your logic, it's better to have never existed and never "fallen prey to" life and it's motivations, than to live a highly successefull life.

I think that's absolute bullshit, it's much better to have goals and succede in them than to never of had them.