Critique My Philosophy of Life?

[Bibliofagus]

So because free will doesn't exist we have to choose to behave differently?
How exactly does that make sense?

[Biodome]

So because free will doesn't exist we have to choose to behave differently?
How exactly does that make sense?

In the compatibilist theory of free will, you are able to choose to act on your motives, but you are not responsible for the motives themselves. "You can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will."

[Solitary]

I am simply taking issue with the statement that "all emotions are necessary" for the survival of the individual.  Please point me to just one scientific paper that concludes that "all emotions are necessary for the survival of the individual".

My philosophy is designed for the individual, not for the human race as a whole.  Therefore, whether a particular emotion is evolutionarily advantageous is irrelevant to my philosophy.

Emotions are evolutionary advantageous, and, therefore, necessary for the individual.

Non sequitur.  The fact that (at least some) emotions are evolutionarily advantageous does not imply that they are necessary for the individual.  This fallacy invalidates your entire post.

That is not a Non Sequitur because it is shown to be a fact that emotions are necessary for an individual to survive. If you are driving a car and a car in the other lane is driving toward you fear makes you swerve as an individual to keep from getting hurt or killed. If you don't think fear keeps you from getting hurt as an individual put you hand on the burner of your stove top.  :roll: Solitarty

 If you are being serious, which I doubt, you are being silly.

[Philosofer123]

Thank you for the interesting information.  But as I previously stated:  even if I grant that anger may give an individual a greater chance of survival, this does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival.  And whether anger is necessary for individual survival is what is at issue.

Of course, since this is based on chance, an individual may very well live his life without experiencing a situation where anger is necessary for survival.

Thank you.  This is all I need to make my case that anger is not necessary for individual survival.

[mykcob4]

He's just trolling. His purpose was to promote his underlying theme that all things are destiny and guided by a god. You see he has an enormous ego. He believes that he was born elite a chosen one that there is nothing worth considering that comes from science and nature. His bullshit idea that emotions are to be ignored and actually need to be erradicated isn't reality at all.
The fact is that emotions, positive negative are crucial for human behavior all animal behavior. Controlling those emotions are key to success and happiness (yet another emotion). Emotions are the driving force for everything.
So this troll needed to satisfy his ego (emotion) so he decides that he is a genius concernig philosophy. He can't even live his philosophy on this forum. He also suffers from dismissing valid information. By ignoring it he is acting on his emotion and using a negative emotion to commit such an act.
He is a troll!

[Philosofer123]

Your theory is full of holes.

I will not reply to the ad hominem attacks in the rest of your post, but if you believe that my theory "is full of holes", then please describe a few holes in my document.  If you cannot or will not do so, then you cannot be taken seriously.

[mykcob4]

Your theory is full of holes.

I will not reply to the ad hominem attacks in the rest of your post, but if you believe that my theory "is full of holes", then please describe a few holes in my document.  If you cannot or will not do so, then you cannot be taken seriously.

WHAAAAT!? I already have. I even provided proof.
Attack my ass. Get a clue. You won't reply unless I point out your holes, which I did with a cited reference, and you didn't provide a shred of evidence to support your OP. What a complete ass.
You're the one that can't be taken seriously.
I provided facts and you provided, oh I don't know...BULLSHIT!

[Philosofer123]

Holy fuck 6 pages of this ! :roll:

I wouldn't be surprised if this lasts for dozens of pages. I have to admit that his philosophical work is interesting. Personally I have never given much thought to the concept of free will, and I don't think I ever will, but let's face it - it is a fun thought experiment. His arguments are mostly sound. The only problem is where it clashes with science, as in this case of the necessity of emotions.

On topic though, we don't feel anger because we choose to feel it. We feel it because it is encoded in our evolutionary behavior. This has nothing to do with someone being responsible for something.

The law ultimately is there to protect the individual, not to discuss responsibility, although this method is used in courts. In practice, it is effective, as it helps to filter out potentially dangerous individuals and put them in quarantine. All of this is simply a product of self-defense. It is encoded in our genes and it is not a choice. If someone kills a person you love, you are angry not because the murderer is proximately responsible for the crime (although that's the argument that is used in courts), but because your subconscious perceives the murderer as a threat and activates a response that has evolved to protect you, namely, anger: your heart starts beating faster, you blood flow and pressure increases, you feel the adrenaline etc. - you are preparing to eliminate the threat to your survival. That's how it works ;)

Thank you for some interesting comments.  Yes, I agree that anger is a product of evolution, and that anger may have subconscious elements that one cannot control.  However, I submit that by focusing on the impossibility of ultimate responsibility, one's anger may be assuaged, and it may not last as long as it otherwise would have.

[mykcob4]

Holy fuck 6 pages of this ! :roll:

I wouldn't be surprised if this lasts for dozens of pages. I have to admit that his philosophical work is interesting. Personally I have never given much thought to the concept of free will, and I don't think I ever will, but let's face it - it is a fun thought experiment. His arguments are mostly sound. The only problem is where it clashes with science, as in this case of the necessity of emotions.

On topic though, we don't feel anger because we choose to feel it. We feel it because it is encoded in our evolutionary behavior. This has nothing to do with someone being responsible for something.

The law ultimately is there to protect the individual, not to discuss responsibility, although this method is used in courts. In practice, it is effective, as it helps to filter out potentially dangerous individuals and put them in quarantine. All of this is simply a product of self-defense. It is encoded in our genes and it is not a choice. If someone kills a person you love, you are angry not because the murderer is proximately responsible for the crime (although that's the argument that is used in courts), but because your subconscious perceives the murderer as a threat and activates a response that has evolved to protect you, namely, anger: your heart starts beating faster, you blood flow and pressure increases, you feel the adrenaline etc. - you are preparing to eliminate the threat to your survival. That's how it works ;)

Thank you for some interesting comments.  Yes, I agree that anger is a product of evolution, and that anger may have subconscious elements that one cannot control.  However, I submit that by focusing on the impossibility of ultimate responsibility, one's anger may be assuaged, and it may not last as long as it otherwise would have.

Thats called CONTROLLING the emotion which has nothing to do with YOUR OP or fucked up philosophy.

[Philosofer123]

Your theory is full of holes.

I will not reply to the ad hominem attacks in the rest of your post, but if you believe that my theory "is full of holes", then please describe a few holes in my document.  If you cannot or will not do so, then you cannot be taken seriously.

WHAAAAT!? I already have. I even provided proof.
Attack my ass. Get a clue. You won't reply unless I point out your holes, which I did with a cited reference, and you didn't provide a shred of evidence to support your OP. What a complete ass.
You're the one that can't be taken seriously.
I provided facts and you provided, oh I don't know...BULLSHIT!

You are clearly quite upset.  You know, you could really benefit from some of the methods in my document that reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

And this concludes our conversation, as you have demonstrated that you are not capable of civil discourse.

[mykcob4]

You are clearly quite upset.  You know, you could really benefit from some of the methods in my document that reduce or eliminate negative emotions.

And this concludes our conversation, as you have demonstrated that you are not capable of civil discourse.

HAHAHAHAHA! I'm not upset, but I was able to push you to be upset. I can not only participate in civil discourse, I can clearly converse in logic and facts. It's painfully obviouse to the most casual observer that I out foxed you and exposed you as a fruad, but also clearly proved that you can't live by your own philosophy.
If I had responded to Nelson Mendella do you think that he would have pouted like you, complete with an insult? No he would have turned it around and found the positives. You see you are driven by ego and Mendella was driven by reality and results.
I admit that I baited you but you fell for it hook line and sinker. I wanted to know if you actually believed the crap that you were doling out, and it's obvious that you're full of shit.

[Biodome]

Thank you for the interesting information.  But as I previously stated:  even if I grant that anger may give an individual a greater chance of survival, this does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival.  And whether anger is necessary for individual survival is what is at issue.

Of course, since this is based on chance, an individual may very well live his life without experiencing a situation where anger is necessary for survival.

Thank you.  This is all I need to make my case that anger is not necessary for individual survival.

Umm... no.

You don't get to cut my reply into half and claim that the first half is all that you need, cause it's not. You fail to see the evolutionary point: if anger was not necessary for survival, it would not have evolved. Since it has evolved, it is necessary.

Necessary traits are kept, the unnecessary ones are dismissed. As a biologist I would be happy to explain evolution in detail, but it would be more beneficial for you to read a biology textbook by yourself.

Philosophy does not work on its own. You have to include scientific and experimental context where it is needed. If you fail to do that, your work lacks credibility and I cannot support your work and/or give it constructive criticism.

[Philosofer123]

Of course, since this is based on chance, an individual may very well live his life without experiencing a situation where anger is necessary for survival.

Thank you.  This is all I need to make my case that anger is not necessary for individual survival.

Umm... no.

You don't get to cut my reply into half and claim that the first half is all that you need, cause it's not. You fail to see the evolutionary point: if anger was not necessary for survival, it would not have evolved. Since it has evolved, it is necessary.

You claim that you are a biologist, but your post reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Just becomes something has evolved does not mean that it is necessary for individual survival today.  It may be advantageous for individual survival today, but it may or may not be necessary for individual survival today.  And in some cases, it may not even be advantageous for individual survival today.  For example, each of us has an appendix--produced through evolution--but it is debatable whether the appendix does anything to promote individual survival today.  And it is possible that some of our emotions may be analogous to our appendix--perhaps not even advantageous for individual survival today.

I am afraid that you have completely destroyed your credibility.

[Biodome]

Just becomes something has evolved does not mean that it is necessary for individual survival today.  It may be advantageous for individual survival today, but it may or may not be necessary for individual survival today.

"Advantageous" simply implies that there exist scenarios where having the trait lets the individual survive, as opposed to not having the trait. Even a small chance of such a scenario happening is enough for the genes of that particular trait to be kept in the gene pool.

Talking about humans, chances of dying are very high. And this is not only limited to rapists, murderers and other criminals. You can very well include other animals: snakes, deadly insects etc. This applies to the whole world and this is exactly why the emotion of anger is so wide-spread. If it weren't necessary, it would deteriorate, just as the appendix that you mentioned, although it is a bad example, because there is evidence that the appendix has acquired the function of providing the body with certain vitamins.

The problem is that you completely dismiss anger as a necessary emotion without thinking of the consequences. The reason that anger is philosophically harmful/negative/whatever is not enough. Evolution provides evidence that it is still necessary. You aren't arguing against my opinion here. You are arguing against the evidence that is present in the natural world. You have to rethink your statements and change the tactics. You cannot remove emotions solely on a philosophical basis.

[Philosofer123]

Just becomes something has evolved does not mean that it is necessary for individual survival today.  It may be advantageous for individual survival today, but it may or may not be necessary for individual survival today.

"Advantageous" simply implies that there exist scenarios where having the trait lets the individual survive, as opposed to not having the trait. Even a small chance of such a scenario happening is enough for the genes of that particular trait to be kept in the gene pool.

Talking about humans, chances of dying are very high. And this is not only limited to rapists, murderers and other criminals. You can very well include other animals: snakes, deadly insects etc. This applies to the whole world and this is exactly why the emotion of anger is so wide-spread. If it weren't necessary, it would deteriorate, just as the appendix that you mentioned, although it is a bad example, because there is evidence that the appendix has acquired the function of providing the body with certain vitamins.

The problem is that you completely dismiss anger as a necessary emotion without thinking of the consequences. The reason that anger is philosophically harmful/negative/whatever is not enough. Evolution provides evidence that it is still necessary. You aren't arguing against my opinion here. You are arguing against the evidence that is present in the natural world. You have to rethink your statements and change the tactics. You cannot remove emotions solely on a philosophical basis.

You continue to fail to make the case that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  And that is what is being debated.