Often in life we face challenges, and for some it can come down to a simple yet trying question; "Do I put my feelings aside for this task?" We all work for something at one point or another, and it's almost never easy. At what point do you find balance? Or do you choose to not find balance? To you is it the knowledge or is it the emotional experience that comes from a task make it all worth while?
Perhaps a question that deserves to be addressed, is how emotion can be separated from any task that we're motivated to complete. I suppose you could say that we're not always driven by fierce, lively passions - but I think it's true that any sort of incentive is going to be established on at least some degree of emotion. A lack of emotion simply leads to a lack of conviction and resolve, which might culminate in apathy. Personally, I find it difficult to see something through until the end, unless I have a firm desire to complete it. Usually, this desire has to be sustained by some kind of emotion. There are many things that I could potentially be interested in, but in order to become perpetually attracted to particular things instead of others, I need to be able to attach some sort of emotional incentive to them. This is particularly true for my education. It's difficult to receive enthusiasm from the abstract concepts of 'money' and 'job' when you enjoy the contentment provided by a middle-class background. I have to be willing to learn things that I find to be truly nourishing; otherwise, I'll never be consistently induced to study. On the other hand, it'd be a falsehood to boast that I'm one of those rare few who experience an almost religious dedication to knowledge and achievement; periods of laziness are just unavoidable. So I guess you could say that I'm balanced. I undertake things, but always with a steady, perhaps slightly subdued, amount of emotion. Otherwise, I'm bored and disengaged.
I think being contentment is another large aspect of life that requires careful balance. I am certainly happy with the life I live right now, but I realize I have quite a future ahead of me. It can be all about finding what to strive for while still being grateful. In fact just a few days ago on Christmas I was dealing with this. I have a loving family, but at times I still can be prone to lonesomeness. It can be hard to discuss this with the people who love you most with out sounding ungrateful, and I really am. I need to accept what I have is great, but I still need to continue forward on finding a companion, I can't give up.
So do you consider apathy to include lack of concern for emotion, or lack of emotion in general?A lack of emotion simply leads to a lack of conviction and resolve, which might culminate in apathy.
I think apathy would be a lack of emotion in general. People without a conscious concern for their emotions, still experience emotions.
Do they though? Is not the experience of an emotion the realization (or concern) of that emotion?
I don't think so. We're constantly receiving sensations towards which we are inattentive. This is particularly true for emotions. People don't always recognise their own feelings and inducements; very often, the thoughts and ideas that are conspicuous within our minds, are pervaded by a sort of undercurrent of feelings of which we are scarcely aware. You could imagine it like being in the presence of conversation that you aren't appropriately listening to. You're probably perceptive of same vague feeling that corresponds to sound, but besides that, you can't determine what the speakers are discussing. You're experiencing something that you're ignorant of. So, no, experience is far removed from concern.
This is very interesting, I don't know that I've ever thought of emotion in this way. I suppose I've always just thought that the emotions I'm fully aware of experiencing at a specific moment are the only ones I'm feeling at that moment. But what you're saying is that like on a smart phone, there are "background emotions," if you will, that run even without us being fully aware of them. This definitely explains why a person could feel anxious, and have not a single clue as to why.
It depends on the task. For my job over the summer (chemistry-related) there wasn't much emotion, it was more of a do what is asked of me and occasionally take up other tasks out of curiosity. For the organization that I help lead during the school year, it's much different. There is passion involved, and I do what it takes to make other groups happy and most importantly -to get what I want for my organization-, it is not worthwhile unless the absolute best outcome is realized.
I agree that it depends on the task. Primarily, I believe, the goal of the task. Say you're starving, and need to work in order to get some food. You'd probably set aside whatever emotions you have toward the task and just do it because it'd be essential for your survival. Now, if you have plenty of food in your fridge, and you know where your next meal is coming from, then you'll pay more attention to your emotions. I'd rather do something that would directly help a person be happier than a job where I'm pushing buttons all day, or what have you.
But will you put your emotions aside when it's really necessary? For instance they tell you to kill a man for food. And not just any man, let's say he's got cancer and he'll die soon 100%. He also begs people to finish his life and not let him suffer. Imagine the ammount of emotions in your head when you're faced with that bad-case scenario? Would you be able to dismiss them? Would you still do it? But that gets me to the point, that not having emotions is not so bad also. The common sence or your moral standarts come into play. They will let you do something that's not considered good or bad but what is really necessary. Let's look at the example like in the TV-show Scrubs. So doctors there sometimes deal with the patients who have no medical insurance. Now, faced with it what are your emotions: one side we have compassion for another human, on another we have fear for loosing our job. Now the emotions might vary your judgement towards one or another outcome (if you like or dilike the person you're more/less willing to help). Now if we dismiss them the common sense stays and tells you the way you could deal with this issue in a most efficient way. Your clear thinking might even tell you not to help the person because you are being closely watched and get fired if you break the rules hence you won't be able to help anyone anymore.
So my idea is, emotions distract or cloud your judgement (sounds like something a Jedi would say lol), but your cold calculations let you make the best deision.
I don't think in that case it's about dismissing any emotion, but rather letting another kind take hold. Instead of dreading to kill the man, possibly I'd find peace in helping his soul move on (if he's been begging for people to finish his life). I have no idea what'd really happen. I don't think being emotionless is possible because I think apathy is an emotion in and of itself. Have you personally ever felt emotionless in that you could use "cold judgement?"
You cannot feel nothing when dealing with such a...delicate situation. Only some sort of psychopaths have that. But you have to dismiss them. And yes, I had fucked up situations in my life when it was essential to put emotions aside and do the right thing. Also, what's important: you cannot let them get to you afterwards. Or you shall suffer from it, really.
I'm still curious as to what it'd be like to not feel any emotion whatsoever. I feel like it's such a vital park of living.
You mean like a cyborg? Reminded me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v... I dunno, as a human I think we would be bored without emotions. They are such a big part of our lives after all.
But I feel like that guy felt emotion too.I would like to express gratitude...
I feel to be grateful requires some sort of emotion.