chronozon wrote:
The problem i'm having though is the same one another poster just mentioned. You seem to believe emotions are a voluntary mechanism we can just switch on/off at will. If so, I don't see how you came to that conclusion. I think emotions just manifest themselves differently (or in some cases....not at all) in different people. We don't seem to able to readily pick and choose how we respond emotionally to any given situation.
I probably come across as that way because i have no emotions to speak of for myself. Wether they are completely missing or i am alexithymic i do not know. I do actually understand that emotions are involuntary, but people can learn to suppress them. Merely having an emotion doesn't make the emotion have meaning however, even if you can't ignore it. That's what i was getting at.
marshall wrote:
That's exactly what it is. I don't feel sad. I feel revulsion.
Revulsion would serve a purpose if it prevents you from doing said action in the future.
marshall wrote:
Maybe emotions that don't serve an immediate purpose are pointless to you, but they aren't pointless to the person experiencing them.
I disagree, their involuntary nature does not automatically equate them to being useful. There are useful emotional responses and un-useful ones, just as there are useful and un-useful thoughts.