Would you ever want to not feel?

[Euloria]

The problem with this is without feelings, there is no reason to continue. Sure, you could make logical and rational decisions without feelings. But why? To what point? What reward does staying alive give to you without emotions? We are driven to increase happiness, or driven to achieve some goal that we have set our lives after. Without emotions, there is no reason to continue because there is no reason to do anything.

Even with emotions, life has no purpose. We just need to assign a purpose to life, and a philosopher, a logician or even a random number generator can do that as well as emotion. (Though I would prefer the philosopher or logician)

There is no reason to. Those purposes that are assigned to life have some goal, and achieving that goal is supposed to deliver pleasureful feelings. Without a desire to do things, there is no reason to do them. If life has no purpose, as you say, and someone was to create a reason for existence, than that reason provides comfort and joy if achieved. Without those feelings, nothing matters.

[Ancient Magmia]

As tempting as that would be sometimes, no I wouldn't.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

In my culture it's very easy to be geeky, especially if you are in the autistic spectrum, and people will overestimate you, and when you fall, you do.

What's your culture?

Suburban worker and lower middle class Rio de Janeiro.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Even with emotions, life has no purpose. We just need to assign a purpose to life, and a philosopher, a logician or even a random number generator can do that as well as emotion. (Though I would prefer the philosopher or logician)

Logic isn't everything, ethos and pathos also play a part in the human psyche.

[Utceforp]

Even with emotions, life has no purpose. We just need to assign a purpose to life, and a philosopher, a logician or even a random number generator can do that as well as emotion. (Though I would prefer the philosopher or logician)

The purpose of life is to feel satisfied when you die. There are multitudes of ways to accomplish that goal.

Emotions are the end, but they cannot be the means. If you feel your way through life I doubt you'll be satisfied when you die. In any case, the goal of life is for everyone to be satisfied when they die. Why is your satisfaction more important?

[Frisivisia]

If I were to be very depressed, it would be nice to throw out the lows that were left unsatisfied by the lack of highs.

As someone currently overcoming depression, I wouldn't take it. I'd rather feel terrible than not feel at all.

I think that's wrong, because not feeling means you wouldn't feel anything about not feeling anything. I think people make that mistake when considering this.

[Utceforp]

Even with emotions, life has no purpose. We just need to assign a purpose to life, and a philosopher, a logician or even a random number generator can do that as well as emotion. (Though I would prefer the philosopher or logician)

Logic isn't everything, ethos and pathos also play a part in the human psyche.

Ethics are an extension of logic, and pathos is simply the goal. Logic is the means to an end.

[Euloria]

The purpose of life is to feel satisfied when you die. There are multitudes of ways to accomplish that goal.

Emotions are the end, but they cannot be the means. If you feel your way through life I doubt you'll be satisfied when you die. In any case, the goal of life is for everyone to be satisfied when they die. Why is your satisfaction more important?

Except if you take the pill, even for a limited time, you will not want to do anything. You have no drive to, no desire to do something. Logic and rationalism are important tools for humans, but emotions are part of what drives people, for good or ill.

[Shnercropolis]

The purpose of life is to feel satisfied when you die. There are multitudes of ways to accomplish that goal.

Emotions are the end, but they cannot be the means. If you feel your way through life I doubt you'll be satisfied when you die. In any case, the goal of life is for everyone to be satisfied when they die. Why is your satisfaction more important?

I will be much more satisfied when other people are satisfied, due to the social nature of humans. If I were perfectly logical I wouldn't give a flying fuck about other humans. And you're right, emotions are not necessarily the means. But you need them to experience the end.

[Euloria]

Logic isn't everything, ethos and pathos also play a part in the human psyche.

Ethics are an extension of logic, and pathos is simply the goal. Logic is the means to an end.

Logic cannot achieve anything without emotions.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

As someone currently overcoming depression, I wouldn't take it. I'd rather feel terrible than not feel at all.

I think that's wrong, because not feeling means you wouldn't feel anything about not feeling anything. I think people make that mistake when considering this.

I wasn't aware I was depressed when I was depressed. Hell, I wasn't aware I felt hatred, and thought that my sincere suicide threats were fake.

[Shnercropolis]

What's your culture?

Suburban worker and lower middle class Rio de Janeiro.

Well then get rid of it. Or ignore it. Who gave that culture the right to overestimate you? Screw them.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Logic isn't everything, ethos and pathos also play a part in the human psyche.

Ethics are an extension of logic, and pathos is simply the goal. Logic is the means to an end.

I would argue from a philosophical perspective they are all interconnected.

You need logic to make sense in an ethical decision, and your pathos is how you feel about your decisions; if we were to decide everything by logic then logically we should let old people starve since they would be utterly useless to us once they have reached their old age. And, since we don't need them we can dispose of them because they are interrupting with the resources of other species. Logic doesn't concern itself with the emotions you have towards the old people, or even how much of a moral character you have by applying said logic, it just resolves itself in the most efficient utilization of resources.

[Frisivisia]

I think that's wrong, because not feeling means you wouldn't feel anything about not feeling anything. I think people make that mistake when considering this.

I wasn't aware I was depressed when I was depressed. Hell, I wasn't aware I felt hatred, and thought that my sincere suicide threats were fake.

From what I've cobbled together from personal experience with family members and myself with depression, the part that's life-destroying is just feeling shitty and apathetic all the time. I don't think I'd mind leaving that behind.

[Utceforp]

Ethics are an extension of logic, and pathos is simply the goal. Logic is the means to an end.

Logic cannot achieve anything without emotions.

Wow, you sound like a slogan from a movie. That makes no sense. Logic is completely independent from emotions. If A then B, A, therefore B, does not require you to feel that B exists.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Suburban worker and lower middle class Rio de Janeiro.

Well then get rid of it. Or ignore it. Who gave that culture the right to overestimate you? Screw them.

I already had gotten ~responsability~ and had ~pressure~ to comply and stuff and felt bad for myself and people boogeyman'd me about the future me that btw is identical to the actual present me

Now I can't give a fuck about being a 19yo high school dropout and that is why I'm so fucking happy

[Shnercropolis]

Well then get rid of it. Or ignore it. Who gave that culture the right to overestimate you? Screw them.

I already had gotten ~responsability~ and had ~pressure~ to comply and stuff and felt bad for myself and people boogeyman'd me about the future me that btw is identical to the actual present me

Now I can't give a fuck about being a 19yo high school dropout and that is why I'm so fucking happy

You can't? How?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Logic cannot achieve anything without emotions.

Wow, you sound like a slogan from a movie. That makes no sense. Logic is completely independent from emotions. If A then B, A, therefore B, does not require you to feel that B exists.

Decisions in life are more than one-dimensional as well.

[Euloria]

Logic cannot achieve anything without emotions.

Wow, you sound like a slogan from a movie. That makes no sense. Logic is completely independent from emotions. If A then B, A, therefore B, does not require you to feel that B exists.

How does that not make sense? When use logic alone, there are only two conclusions. The first is that life has no purpose, as there is no enjoyment, and thus everyone should. The second states life also has no purpose, therefore we must invent one that brings us enjoyment.

Using only logic gets us nowhere.

[Utceforp]

Ethics are an extension of logic, and pathos is simply the goal. Logic is the means to an end.

I would argue from a philosophical perspective they are all interconnected.

You need logic to make sense in an ethical decision, and your pathos is how you feel about your decisions; if we were to decide everything by logic then logically we should let old people starve since they would be utterly useless to us once they have reached their old age. And, since we don't need them we can dispose of them because they are interrupting with the resources of other species. Logic doesn't concern itself with the emotions you have towards the old people, or even how much of a moral character you have by applying said logic, it just resolves itself in the most efficient utilization of resources.

I admit that the purpose of life is inherently an emotional concept. However, I would not want to feel, because emotions would be a hindrance to achieving that goal. Letting old people live makes them more happy than killing them would make other people happy, so there's a net gain of happiness.

[Bojikami]

So, having just watched the movie equilibrium...

I pose to you this question, if the possibility existed to utterly suppress your emotions. Say, in the form of a pill taken once a day. You would feel nothing. No anger, no sadness, no happiness, no joy, no guilt, Absolutely nothing... You'd be the stoic. Only more so.

Would you take it? Would you sacrifice the highs of emotion, in order to suppress the lows?

Now, again what if it were something that, if done once, you could never feel again, rather than something that you could choose to stop?

That is practically how I am emotionally.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

From what I've cobbled together from personal experience with family members and myself with depression, the part that's life-destroying is just feeling shitty and apathetic all the time. I don't think I'd mind leaving that behind.

Shitty and apathetic is really general. I was too immature to really comprehend what the hell was happening. Much of it was confused with normal things of puberty, and having to adapt, and the general shittiness of having puppy love and extreme allergic rhinitis does to your humor.

[Frisivisia]

Wow, you sound like a slogan from a movie. That makes no sense. Logic is completely independent from emotions. If A then B, A, therefore B, does not require you to feel that B exists.

How does that not make sense? When use logic alone, there are only two conclusions. The first is that life has no purpose, as there is no enjoyment, and thus everyone should. The second states life also has no purpose, therefore we must invent one that brings us enjoyment.

Using only logic gets us nowhere.

But logically, one needs to survive and reproduce. If this is fulfilling in and of itself, then logic has accomplished everything it needs.

It all depends on how you define fulfillment, and I'm of the belief that that's cultural, not inherent.

[Utceforp]

Wow, you sound like a slogan from a movie. That makes no sense. Logic is completely independent from emotions. If A then B, A, therefore B, does not require you to feel that B exists.

How does that not make sense? When use logic alone, there are only two conclusions. The first is that life has no purpose, as there is no enjoyment, and thus everyone should. The second states life also has no purpose, therefore we must invent one that brings us enjoyment.

Using only logic gets us nowhere.

The second one works. Logic is the means, emotion is the end. Including emotion in the decisions that are part of the means to the end is what is a problem.

[Euloria]

I would argue from a philosophical perspective they are all interconnected.

You need logic to make sense in an ethical decision, and your pathos is how you feel about your decisions; if we were to decide everything by logic then logically we should let old people starve since they would be utterly useless to us once they have reached their old age. And, since we don't need them we can dispose of them because they are interrupting with the resources of other species. Logic doesn't concern itself with the emotions you have towards the old people, or even how much of a moral character you have by applying said logic, it just resolves itself in the most efficient utilization of resources.

I admit that the purpose of life is inherently an emotional concept. However, I would not want to feel, because emotions would be a hindrance to achieving that goal. Letting old people live makes them more happy than killing them would make other people happy, so there's a net gain of happiness.

Except that happiness doesn't exist, because you cannot feel it. And there is the question, why is happiness desirable? If it is, whose takes priority, if anyone's does?