Feeling is being alive

I always found it intriguing that our display of emotions can cause someone to love us or hate us. While assessing the different levels of EQs having a high score is not necessarily a good sign. People believe that what makes us humans is our ability to feel. However, when someone shows that they do not feel why do people get a negative perception of that person? Is it because we think they do not care or is it our subconscious feeling distant from the human side of the person. I personally do not know, but I believe our subconscious does not feel a human tie to the person causing us to believe they are odd or even inhuman.
Albert Camus's most famous piece of literature The Stranger explores the life of Mr.Meursault a character who simply can not feel. His mother's death does not seem to cause any sort of sadness it appears as more of an annoyance since it disturbs his routine. Mr.Meursault does not feel the indifference in getting married or not, he is numb. As the novel progresses the reader gradually feels as if the protagonist is inhuman, because of his ability to not display any emotions. However, why do we see it in a very abnormal way. The ability to not let emotions effect your ability to reason can be viewed as a positive thing. A person uses their ability to reason to potentially make wise decisions that could be considered rational, rather than acting according to anger, or jealousy.
Some people are involved in situations because they describe the emotion derived from the activity makes them feel alive. What we call as adrenaline junkies seek to go sky diving, drive very fast, jump off mountains, to link the satisfaction of the emotion they feel to drugs. Another example is people who self mutilate themselves to feel pain. As a result of depression the pain they experience is a way to cope with all the emotions they have been dealing with. It shows us how far people can go to derive emotions as a way to heal other emotions, as an ability to feel alive, and get satisfaction.

The Value of Emotion

Emotion can be seen as a hinderance to obtaining knowledge in a scientific manner through theories, laws and to achieve the ultimate goal of absolute truth. As we learned in the perception unit, our senses create our reality for us and therefore distorting it, making them unreliable as a way of knowing. The same goes for our emotions, they distort our perception which in turn distort the reality. This is a problem because reality/knowledge is not what is created for us through our senses/emotions but what is actually there. So therefore relying on emotions and senses as a way of knowledge would be faulty way of arriving to knowledge. The knowledge that I am speaking about above is absolute knowledge, truth about the world around us. However, emotions are very important if not the most important medium on how to obtain a different type of knowledge, personal knowledge. Because no one is the same as anyone else our emotions are different from everyone else's, that does not mean that everyone likes different things though. Emotions tell us what we like and what we don't what makes us feel good and what does not. Only in the middle of writing this blog post did I come to a realization, emotion is the ultimate knowledge acquisition medium. I say this as a personal opinion and it is open to disagreement and debate. I say this because because I believe that the ultimate goal in life is to be happy, and do things that you enjoy doing. This cannot be done without emotion as a way of knowing, actually using emotion as a way of knowing is the only way to attain this goal. I can only think of one instance when emotional knowledge and absolute knowledge might come into conflict. If one is made happy/ is pleased by knowledge in it's most absolute and pure form, one will have trouble reaching the goal of conducting a happy life because of all the obstructions caused by emotion and the personal senses. If you do not agree with me, or see a flaw in my argument feel free to point it out!

Is Emotion a Legitimate Path to Knowledge?

According to Merriem Webster, emotion is a conscious mental reaction (such as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body. Notice how this definition depicts emotion as an internal feeling that occurs within one's consciousness. Emotion therefore, contains no instrumental value and therefore I believe is not a legitimate path to knowledge.

This blog focuses on knowledge about the real world such as the motion of atoms and scientific theories. Knowledge about the world around us relies on our perception of the world, not our interpretation of our world. I believe that knowledge should be absolute and I also believe that emotion contains a factor of relativism, which hinders the knowledge obtained through it. This relativism derives from the fact that some people react with different emotions to the same cause. For example, an 80% on an exam could excite a slacking student, while it may disappoint another. Knowledge of whether or not that was a good grade could be obtained through emotions, yet the truth is relative. On the other hand, perception is almost the same for everyone; grass appears green for everyone and therefore knowledge on the color is not dependent on the individual. 

            Emotion is also easily manipulated and therefore isn’t reliable. Individuals can change other people’s emotions through use of deception and propaganda. During Hitler’s reign, he utilized language to transform peoples’ emotions towards the Jewish race, and therefore their knowledge of Jewish people was false. Emotion’s susceptibility to manipulation adds to this factor of relativism. Past emotional experiences could also impact your current emotions. For example, an individual who was traumatized by the horrors of war will view it as abominable as a result of his past emotional experience. On the other hand, an individual who hasn’t experienced the situation emotionally will view it to be less abominable, which once again adds to its relativism. The other ways of knowing such as reason and perception are legitimate because the majority of individuals use them in the same fashion and obtain a similar result.

Emotion and Music

Ask anyone, and they will tell you the music they listen to sparks a certain emotional response inside them. It seems completely normal; however, it is extremely difficult for musicians to light up certain emotions in people through their music. Not all people respond to the same music. Therefore, pleasing huge numbers of people is challenging for artists. However, what generally happens is that artists make music that emotionally appeals to them, and transfer those emotions to their audience. If those emotions don't transfer, musicians try again, until they can get their audience to emotionally appreciate their music. As Leo Tolstoy said, "Music is the shorthand of emotion". This phrase is self-explanatory. Music sparks emotion. Music makes one feel with more intensity, with more feelings. Music is, in a way, an emotional escape to another world, where the person listening to the music feels a connection to the music, and can explore and exploit their emotions fully. Music can even put people into trances, which are intense emotional "fade-aways".

Music is very unstable when it touches one's emotions. Different songs from maybe the same artists or the same song covered by different artists can inspire different emotional responses in people. Also, different songs reach different "depths" of the human psyche. A song is sad because it makes us feel sad. A song is happy because it has reminded us of a happy memory. In a way, music empathizes with the human psyche to activate different emotional responses in the brain. One must be careful with music, for one never knows to which emotional depths it might take one. Music hurts because it reminds us of a tragic event in our past, or music gives one shivers because it is so beautiful, or so inspiring that the person's emotional response is too strong.

Finally, music can calm, excite, sadden, brighten up, and spark many other emotions in a person. When one has found the style of music that best "fits" emotionally, that person has found the music that will make them feel the most. That can be a good or bad thing, for emotions are uncontrollable, and music makes people loose and harder to control. Music is one of the bases of all emotion. Music is magical in a sense, for not many things can make a person feel the way music does.

“Religion is the opiate of the masses” - Karl Marx

In Marx’s attempts to account for the world and its workings, he often encountered the subject of religion, as would any theorist. Generally, religion is primarily analyzed with a purely theological and religious aim and process, leaving it isolated from the general world; kept as a sort of parallel universe. Marx’s more naturalistic approach to the world left him with a greater, more comprehensive understanding and interpretation of the world. One of his major legacies is the phrase: “religion is the opiate of the people”. Instead of vilifying this phrase as many have done in the past and continue to do today, marking it as an inappropriate and Satanic remark, it is more useful to look at this objectively, as was Marx’s outlook on the world. 

To Marx, religion is an embodiment of peoples’ experience in economic and social injustice, as well as an expression of their realities as different as they may be. Opium/opiate is an addictive drug with morphine-like effects, constituted to attenuate the harsh every day realities. People often bury themselves in religion to escape the reality that they would otherwise need to face without any support. 

Another interpretation is also available. Religion is not the disease, society is. According to Marx, religion is brought to existence by the economic and material situations of a society. Ultimately, religion is, again as Marx states: “the reflex of the real world”. Without the real world, religion has no purpose nor meaning and therefore is irrelevant to our world and experiences. It is only by understanding the sum of peoples’ experiences of reality that one can understand the purpose or the means that people enact to acquire religion. 

In Marx’s opinion, there are three main reasons to regard religion with distrust. The first is that it is irrational, bringing us back to the question “are faith and reason incompatible” (which is debatable in itself, but nonetheless..). Religion is a sort of parallel haven, where one loses touch with the troubles and toils of reality. This seems ideal, but it means that religion is a buffer against reality, turning it into a sort of circling delusion. The second reason is that religion acting as a shield against real life makes people more inclined to accept the toils and state of the world as it is instead of leading them to better themselves and their surroundings. Marx believes religion becomes the focal point of a life instead of making people more accepting and creating a moral code; which is rendered useless by religion because religion becomes the purpose of a good act whereas the good act should be done for the purpose of one’s morals with religion only as a medium. This defies the purpose of a moral code as ‘said person’ is now acting upon a selfish basis rather than a selfless one. The third reason is that religion is a hypocritical entity as it is more inclined towards the principle than the act. In practice, this theory has been proven to be true in throughout the ages, where the Church has taken part in the enslavement and the exploitation of those they are supposed to protect.

I have conflicting thoughts on Marx’s outlook on religion. Although I do believe that religion is an effect of our social and economic toils, and that religion does (to a certain extent) act as a buffer against reality, I also find that the positive/negative results (or just results in general) of the aforementioned suggestions on our human world is subject to interpretation and is relative to situations. Although many may disagree, I think that religion was created as a suggested (and highly recommended (to different degrees)) interpretation of the world. Now, the effects of the buffer is more controversial in my opinion. I do not think that the shield/opium effect of religion is terrible, neither do I think it is a valid reason to excuse oneself of reality’s obligations. Religion is an aid/buffer to life; helping people skirt reality, but for different people, this could be good or bad. What I do not condone is the use of religion to oppress or to completely retire from reality. In terms of his phrase : “religion is the opiate of the masses/people” , I do agree. Religion is used to skirt economic injustice and material and social structures of our realities. It is an ongoing illusion (no offense or negative connotation intended) that provides a reason and a manner to allow society to keep operating as it is and distances us from this reality. It is true that religion has often been used as an excuse to oppress and exploit the masses (whom religion is supposed to support), but I believe that religion also has a lighter side, aiming to make a person better and more selfless. 

I also have conflicting feelings about religion itself. Although I believe that some stipulations of the different religions come from a different time and thus may not entirely be relevant to our world today, the ideals of religion are still valid to me. Being a better person, religion or no religion, is the most important. I think that the moral standards set by religion are a positive influence on the world and its virtues are as well. Although these should be carried out regardless of religion, they aren’t and since religion is a means and unfortunately also a purpose for them, religion is an overall positive influence on the world. However, I still do think that religion is a barrier of protection against reality, which isn’t necessarily a good or bad thing.. it just is what it is, and it is important to keep that in mind to avoid being blinded and one-sided. 

-this post should be with the rest of the Faith posts but I couldn't access the blog earlier and the comments won't let me post more than 4096 characters.

-I thought this idea was particularly interesting. I hope you do too! 

EQ or IQ: the heated debate

Although many people do think that IQ and EQ work independently to form a successful person, and have been participating to an ongoing debate which is present worldwide, I believe that they actually work together. IQ is the intelligence quotient, which helps you reason logically. Without reason, we must concede that we would not be a very efficient population. We would be ultimately controlled by our whims and impulses and not be able to think from a third perspective. The thinking process would be much different if it consisted solely of emotions and we would be without an essential part of our learning and growing process. EQ is the opposite. It is the emotional quotient, which measures the extent to which different people can manage their emotions and use them to their advantage. Without EQ, we would be robots, with little or no emotional expression, or constantly think logically rather than emotionally. Could you imagine thinking rationally at a sibling's wedding or at a graduation? Humanity would be Mersault from the Stranger (to those in HL English). Although it is a different perspective and is quite interesting, life would be void of emotion and thus empty of all that makes it worthwhile. Mersault himself was a means to reflect the meaninglessness or life, and it is his character that most helped us see this throughout the novel.
I think that intellect is definitely a virtue. Without it we would not have much of our society's intellectual heritage. Without it there would be no Einstein or other historical figures like him. We would not have math, and would be similar to an aneurism; clumps of matter ready to explode at any opportune moment.

But at the same time, wouldn't emotion be a virtue as well? Emotion has long been seen as a burden because of its association with extremes; extreme anger which leads to violence and happiness or satisfaction, which if it were never ending would lead people to not do anything in their lives. But both of these show low EQ. EQ is the ability to control and manage your emotions and be able to express them without being overwhelming.
Just like IQ, EQ has its own representatives. These would include Nelson Mandela and Mahathma Ghandi. The ability to empathize, to help others, to feel pity, pain. All of the previous gave these influential people the will and the drive to fight for their beliefs which made the world a better place.

As I have read through the blog, I realized that most posts about EQ and IQ were interpreting them as two wholly different things. On the contrary, I think that they are very similar. To be able to use your intellect, you need emotion to arouse your interest in something and to push you to use your skills for an aim. Similarly, to be able to express your emotions, you need intellect and reason to guide you as to not offend or shock others. Without EQ, would Einstein have gone towards physics and math? Without IQ, would Ghandi or Mandela have had the ability to convince others and to change the world? Although  I have set these people to represent IQ and EQ independently, they could not have become who they were without their intellectual or emotional counterpart. Overall, I believe that EQ and IQ work together to make you who you are and are two parts of you which could not exist without the other. So I do not think that we would be better off with one or the other. It would be impossible to exist without either. 

 

Emotions - Are they a human weakness?

        Much like memories, emotions are what define us as humans. They give us the ability to empathize and sympathize. By being aware of our emotions we are able to use them to our advantage. However, this often turns into manipulation, where people exploit you due to their awareness of your emotions. A simple example would be a person trying to emotionally blackmail you. They rely on your emotional response to what would happen if they did something to manipulate you. 

       Every choice we make is either propelled by emotion or has an emotional outcome. People are killed out of anger and spite whilst others suffer from sadness and depression.  On the other hand, we perform good deeds because it makes us feel good about ourselves, and we continue to do things we enjoy because we are passionate about them. No matter how hard you try it is impossible to void yourself of emotion while reaching a decision. 

      You often find that your heart and mind do not always agree with one another which causes us to be conflicted by our emotions. This conflict can cause struggles which then result in us having a negative view of emotion. We also live in a society where emotional expression discomforts the people around us. For instance, why is it when someone cries they apologize for crying afterwards? Why do we bottle our emotions in order to hide them from other people? It is the fact that emotions make others and not ourselves so uncomfortable that we feel forced to fight against them. It is as if they are dangerous since we are constantly repressing our emotions instead of embracing them. 

      Furthermore, emotion gives us the means to exist since it compels us to act and make decisions. Without emotion we would not be able to make a single decision since reason cannot replace emotion. It is impossible to discuss emotion separately from humans as it is an integral part of being human. Your emotions do not make you weak. It is in fact the complete opposite. By feeling your emotions for what they are and learning from them you are able to overcome weakness. We often associate emotions with vulnerability and assume that it makes us weak. Being vulnerable has nothing to do with being weak but rather involves taking risks and getting back up when you take a fall.

Emotions, Color, and Fast Food

For most of my life I've been able to associate different colors with different emotions. Some basic examples probably everyone's heard include blue with sadness and red with anger. I was always curious about what the rest of the colors in the visible spectrum represented. On this website (http://www.do2learn.com/organizationtools/EmotionsColorWheel/) there is a color wheel organizing different emotions with the different colors (included below).

Each of the basic 6 emotions are classified with the basic prime and secondary colors (anger/red, surprise/orange, fear/yellow, happiness/green, sadness/blue, and disgust/purple). The site explains that the stronger the emotion, the darker and closer toward center of the wheel it is, as seen with emotions like despair and obsession. The weaker the emotion, the lighter and farther from the center it is. These emotions are also different degrees of the basic emotions in each section of color.

Now for a real-life example of the influence color has on emotion. In large fast food chains, the most abundant colors you see are probably red and yellow (McDonald's for example). You might have heard of a correlation between anger and hunger (described by a slang term "hangry"). Some studies have shown that red is used in many restaurants because it induces hunger. Now, there is an obvious correlation between three factors:hunger, the color red, and anger. 

As for other colors of the emotional spectrum, think about how many BIG restaurant chains you know that have the colors blue or purple in large amounts in their logos. In my observations, I can't think of any that use blue without the presence of red (hunger in this case) or yellow or orange while I can't think of any that use purple (disgust) at all! This is probably a little obvious as to why these chains don't use purple as, who wants to feel disgusted while eating unhealthy fast food with sketchy origins?

The Power of Emotions, and the Danger of Repressing Them

Through the discussions we have been having and the films we watched in class, I learned and realized how powerful emotions are. For instance, critics and studies tend to disregard the value of emotion when evaluating it as a way of obtaining knowledge of the empirical world. This is because when our emotions are applied to our thinking when we attempt to make important decisions, our way of perceiving the potential benefits and disadvantages of that decision is highly filtered by the emotions in question, which in turn can lead us to make choices which could be seen as irrational. When we let our emotions take control of ourselves, and fail to think with reason, we become more vulnerable to making bad decisions, some of which can have irreversible impacts on our lives.

Since examples are always more powerful than simple declarations, here is a little story that happened to me and that made me question the legitimacy of emotions in acquiring knowledge. I was once in a restaurant and at the end of my meal, had a short discussion with the waiter. He told me that he had lived about ten years in Russia, teaching engineering at a university after having studied there. Right away, I was surprised by seeing him there and asked him why he had come back. He answered that he came back for his family and had been unable to find an equivalent position to the one he had in Russia. This is a perfect example of how a weak control of one’s emotions can lead to life-changing consequences. Because he did not think rationally and see the disadvantages of coming back to Morocco and trusted his emotions more than his sense of reason, he was now working as a waiter, whereas he could have stayed a professor. 

On the other hand, after leaving the restaurant, I asked myself a few questions. What if he was happy with his new life? After-all, what seemed irrational to me might be completely logical to him, and who was I to judge? If he is content with his new life, then can we still say that emotions are unreliable and untrustworthy? What if the disadvantage of being away from his family outweighed the inconvenience of having a lower-paying job for him? Using this point of view, it becomes harder to say that emotions should be repressed. Indeed this experience made me realize that in the contrary, we should give our emotions a lot more attention. Although emotions like love, hate and jealousy can make us do regrettable actions and are, to some degree, causes of human conflicts like wars and crimes, emotions are part of who we are and make us human. Indeed,  it is the complexity of our emotions which defines us from other animals. Without emotions, we would not have art, nor would we have music, or literature. Every single action or thought that we have is impacted by our emotions, and if they are repressed, we can lose our sense of ethics.

The movie “Equilibrium”, directed by Kurt Wimmer in 2002 explores the danger of repressing our emotions to the point where emotions become illegal. In a world that was decimated by a third world war, emotions are outlawed because they are seen as the source of all human vice and evil. However, being essential parts of humanity, emotions can not be repressed that easily and always end up coming back. Any person caught feeling, in what is called “sense-offense” is “processed”, or executed. The following scene shows the execution a former police agent guilty of sense-offense, who is terminated because he read a book of poetry. This shows the danger of repressing our emotions. As seen in the documentary “Flight from Death”, we cause evil by trying to label something as evil and trying to eradicate it by all means. In “Equilibrium”, emotions are labeled as evil, which in turn only leads to evil itself.

Dimitri Richard

Emotions and the way we make right decisions.

I agree with the psychologist, Peter Goldie, that this topic about emotions has two different sides. To start with, an emotion is “a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one’s circumstance, mood, or relationships with others.” It plays a vital role in our daily lives in several ways. We can say that our emotions are trustworthy by offering a good source of knowledge. For example, if a boy and a girl are having a discussion and the boy is uncomfortable, then the girl may learn, through her emotions, that the boy is shy. On the other hand, as described in the TOK textbook, ‘emotions could easily be obstacles to knowledge’ (p.151). For example, there is emotional coloring. This is a type of emotional bias, in which you exclude the awareness of something in order to focus on a particular aspect. An example could be that when you detest somebody, you will see only that person’s bad side. However, if two people have a strong affinity towards each other, then they might only look at each other’s lovely side. This example of emotional coloring clearly shows that emotion could affect the way you receive (or perceive) knowledge about someone’s looks or characteristics. Furthermore, another example that shows how emotions are sometimes obstacles to knowledge is when reason plays a role in cementing the situation as well. For instance, if one is attached to the idea that ‘soccer is the best sport in the world’, then one is more unlikely to be open-minded about this topic, and will even find reasons to defend this point of view (known as reason skewing). Another consideration is the role emotions play in the way we talk; language. For instance, “a person in the grip of a powerful emotion is likely to use slanted and emotive language,” (p.151). These various examples of emotions explicitly show that emotions help us make ‘rational’ judgements. 

Intuition could also be considered as a type of emotion that may be a source of knowledge. Intuition and emotion are linked together. There are three types of intuitions. Primarily, there is the core intuition, which is the main intuition about the universe and the world we are living on. This type of intuition may exist on the decision we make many times in our lives. For instance is one says that a six year old boy says that he has travelled all around the world by driving a bicycle, then one would have a strong intuition that what the six year old boy has said is wrong and that it is impossible for someone at a very young age to travel all around the world riding a bicycle. In my opinion, this is the most important type of intuition that leads us to be differentiate between what wrong or right. Secondly, there is the ‘subject-specific intuitions’. This type of intuition is when it occurs around the area of sciences and other ways of knowing. Intuitions could sometimes be false and leading you to a wrong piece of information. For example, “the desk I am sitting at strikes me as an obstinately solid object, but according to the physicists it consists mainly of empty space. Many of the mainstream ideas of modern physics – such as quantum mechanics – are so contrary to our ordinary ways of thinking that even physicists struggle to make sense of them,” (p.161). This example clearly shows that intuitions do not always serve as a source of knowledge. I think that this type of intuition is the most confusing one since it sometimes leads you to a different understanding of the topic and therefore leading you to be wrong. Finally, there is the social intuition, which is the way we look at others. This type of intuition may lead to false acquired knowledge since every single person has their own way of seeing one another. This is why friends and enemies exist at the same time. In my opinion, intuitions could be very useful sources of knowledge especially when faced with danger, trying to make rational decisions. However, intuitions might become tricky when trying to think deeply about a situation such as in physics.

http://zapaydin.edublogs.org/2013/02/20/can-we-trust-our-emotions-in-the-pursuit-of-knowledge/

           The link above is one that shows the post of a person from another blog. I agree with this person that emotions could sometimes be very unreliable. This is due to the fact that the situation that one is in could have a role in determining your emotion, which could mislead you. This person says: “when the situation being evaluated is knowledge or fact-based, it is usually best not to let emotions interfere, because the pursuit of knowledge is about discovering information that will benefit not only an individual but an entire population.” This person is totally right on this point because people usually tend to link their emotions with fact-based knowledge, which is not a very good idea. This is because the emotion just keeps on backing your invalid argument instead of being open-minded.

          While commenting on this, a question came up to my mind, which is: Could reason and emotion be linked together and generate a rationale solution to the situation? In my opinion, yes, reason and emotion can be linked together in order to generate a rationale solution to the situation one is in. This is because I think that the reason side of your mind plays a larger important role in one’s decisions than one’s emotional side.

The infinite debate between emotion and reason

For ages, people have argued whether being an emotionalist or a rationalist is better. But as you will see in this video they are "strange bedfellows". Emotional bias does exist in rational decision making, but without any emotion, your decisions will end up being a disadvantage, and though you may not think it, your rationality is driven by your emotion. Emotion and reason cannot be separated from each other.

They say that opposites attract...

After our discussion in class about to what extent we can control our feelings and what impact they have on us, I was wondering why we like the people we like ? Often, this has to do with the connection we have with that certain person and how close we feel to them. However, sometimes we develop feelings for people that are very different from us.

Have you ever met a couple with a very calm husband and a short-tempered wife or two best friends, one very social and outgoing but the other very shy and introverted ?

They say that opposites attract, but to what extent is that true ?

According to the following article "http://www.psychicsuniverse.com/articles/astrology-horoscopes/love-horoscope/making-love-work-why" opposites DO ATTRACT. It is said that "opposites do attract for a very good reason: we see qualities in others that we lack in ourselves."

We often do not control who we fall for; however, there are some factors that contribute to our feelings towards a certain person. I have personally witnessed at different occasions two very different people fall in love. No one would have never thought that this would happen, but it did.

Some people speak about finding the “perfect man” or the “perfect woman”. Others get together with people based on their physical appearance or how successful they are. Little girls are raised to believe that one day they will find their “Prince Charming”. However when we grow up, we realize that such things will not happen. There is no such thing as a “perfect man or woman”. Therefore it is up to us to find that one person who might not be perfect, speaking overall, but is perfect to our eyes. That one person who is the best match for us, the one person who makes us a better person.

This brings us back to the question of why people with different personalities are attracted to each other. As mentioned in the article, we might like someone who is different than us because we are attracted to the new elements each one brings into the other’s life. In this case, we are mostly controlled by our emotions. When two people share the same beliefs, agree on everything and have very similar personalities, there is nothing new that one can learn about the other. One might feel like their partner is a female/male version of them, which can become boring. However, when two people have different personalities, there is always something new and exciting.

From this example, even if we can speculate about why, we must still conclude we do not have any control over who we might develop feelings for. At times, emotions are hard to explain. If you ask yourself about why you like a certain person, you won’t find a precise answer to this question.

Do you think you can control who you develop feelings for ?

Emotions: Intelligence Quotient vs. Emotional Quotient

Intelligence Quotient vs. Emotional Quotient

The intelligence quotient, more widely known as “IQ”, is a measure of a person’s ability to solve problems using logic, and reasoning. This is widely acclaimed as one of the top ways of measuring a person’s true intelligence, and our society favours people who are able to solve problems by using logic, rather than by intuition, or blind faith. On a daily basis, and in the core of all our human interactions, reason is one of the largest factors, which enable us to make weighed, and wise, decisions.

Although very rarely thought of, emotions are another very large factor in our daily lives. They are the basis on which humans interact with each other. Emotions are an amalgamation of all of our internal feelings, moods, and passions. Emotions, in most people, are intuitive, and often expressed impulsively. This is because humans are instinctively built to have, and express emotions. Without emotions, humans would not be able to forge the complex relationships, and maintain the interactions between each other, that they do on a daily basis.  Although largely irrelevant to measuring someone’s intelligence, emotions may be more important in terms of their use in society.

The emotional quotient, or “EQ”, a measurement developed by psychologist Daniel Goleman, measures the ability to manage one’s emotions effectively, and not let emotions take control. Many argue that “EQ” is “better” than “IQ”, but in terms of what exactly? The “IQ” is said to measure one’s ability to reason, and therefore one’s intelligence. The “EQ” is a measure of one’s ability to harness emotions, and to control them intelligently. These two measures take into account very different factors, but the question is, which one is more valuable to society? For a society to function properly, there must be critical thinkers. These are the people who reflect on important issues and current problems, and try to find solutions using reason. An example of a critical thinker would be an engineer, or an inventor, who uses logic, and processes all of the issues, to work out a possible solution. Many would say that these people are, or require intelligence, which is an ability to use reason, which ultimately, translates into a higher “IQ”. Without these great thinkers, society would not have been able to come up with all of these technological advances, and all of the responses to our changing environment. On the other hand, a society also needs person-to-person interactions in order to function. During many of our interactions with others relationships are built, no matter how large or small, and emotions are involved. Emotions can be any type of feeling such as anger, jealousy, envy, happiness, intrigue, surprise, and curiosity - to name a few. Whenever we interact with others, consciously or subconsciously, we are exhibiting one or more of many emotions. When working in a team, people have to strengthen, and put forward their compassion, and kindness.  At the same time, they will have to harness any feelings of envy, jealousy, or anger. The ability to do so, gives people the necessary skills required in order to live in society. If one cannot control one's sentiments, and reacts impulsively as soon as one feels a strong emotion, one will not be able to function properly in a society. For example, a person who does not have the ability to control feelings of anger will not be able to build long-term relationships, as people  tend to prefer more stable characters, who exhibit less emotions. So to answer the question of whether “IQ” or “EQ” is more valuable in society, it is evident that “EQ” is the answer. A society can exist with people of low “IQ”. The only disadvantage to this would be that advances would most probably be slow, and ineffective. A society with people unable to control their emotions could not exist, as a society is an aggregation of many people living in an ordered community. Without proper emotional restraint, a society would not exist, and there would be total anarchy.

Our emotions and our control over them

Almost all definitions of the word "emotion" describe it as a "conscious" mental reaction. However, how can we possibly be conscious of our emotions and yet let them control us instead of controlling them? Emotions are what define our actions. Some of us might prefer to believe that we always base our actions on logic and reason. Nevertheless, those who tell themselves that emotions do not take control over them are simply lying to themselves. There are multiple examples of emotions taking over us in our every day life. For instance, take a person who has just been humiliated by two other people who are must bigger and stronger than him. He is angry at them and punches one in the face without thinking about it twice. Logically, his actions were not based upon reason since, if they would have been, he would have thought of the following facts: they are more than him and they are capable of inflicting more damage than him. Our actions can't always be based upon reason. Even so, sometimes we can decide how we want to use them. In today's society, those who seem to succeed the most are those who do not allow emotions to control them. Instead, they decide to do what is more advantageous for them. For example, think of the Marshmallow Experiment we went through during class, where a group of children were given a marshmallow and were told that if they were able not to eat in x time, they would receive another one. Those children who did not eat their marshmallow and waited for the time to pass were proved to be more succesful later on in life than those who could not control themselves and ate it. 

Someone once told me that we can't control our emotions since our emotions are part of our body and we are our body. At first, I did not understand. This puzzling statement has stayed in my mind for years and a few weeks ago everything suddenly made sense. What this person meant was that our body does things even if we do not want to. I realized this when I paid a compliment to a friend. I could tell she did not want to blush. However, she was unable to control her body and flushed. What this proves is that some of our emotions are strong enough to control our body. In other words, some of our emotions caused by what is around us or what we think of can control us. Biology attempts to find logical explanations for this and come up with hypotheses such as that of chemcials in our bodies being the ones that make us blush. 

I believe that emotions do have the power to control our bodies but not our actions. What I mean by this is that they may be able to make us blush or other such things but they can't force us to do something. Yes, they might be the ones giving us the thought of doing it but they are not the ones deciding what we do, we are. Our subconscious tells us about things we possibly wouldn't have thought of consciously but then it is up to us to decide what to do with this information. What is your opinion on this? 

Do you agree with the bold statement above? Why/not?

Do you believe we let emotions control us or this is simply something we invent in order to be able to provide simple but irrational explanations to our actions?



“I don't want to be at the mercy of my emotions. I want to use them, to enjoy them, and to dominate them.” -Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Emotions and Reason in Relation to Ethics

It is often hard to understand how one could acquire knowledge through emotions since we are used to rationality and logic as ways of knowing. However, in the production of knowledge, emotions are crucial in order for our reason to work. Many believe that emotions hinder our rational thoughts and prevent us from making a decision purely based on logic. If we look at this relationship from an ethics perspective we can clearly discern the importance of emotions in making the right decisions. Naturally, it is normal to feel bad after murder or after doing a wrong act. Therefore, you are relying on your emotions before acting. Furthermore, we cannot neglect our moral intuitions that certain actions are wrong and others are right when making a decision. This is the reason why sociopaths are often very good liars. In fact they do not feel any remorse after deliberately lying to someone. They can also murder a person or commit a horrible crime without feeling any emotion after. As a result, their rational thoughts are not enough to prevent them from doing something wrong. Even though I am aware that we should not adopt the prevalent assumption that reason and emotions are opposites, I still believe that we should try to control and conceal our emotions. Although emotions can be very powerful, they are often too short. For this reason, I constantly try to hide my emotions when making a decision because acting based on emotions may have a long-term consequence. However, what distinguishes me from a sociopath is that as much as I try to mask my emotions, they still manage to emerge at the last moment whether consciously or not and affect my decisions. Other theories suggest that emotions are simply physical states and responses. For example, happiness is merely an elevated heart rate, accompanied with a smile and an illuminated facial expression. Then each emotion is distinguished from another by the set of bodily responses associated with it. I think that this concept does is irrational because emotions such as hope, love, happiness or excitement all have similar bodily responses. Therefore emotions are far more complex than we think they are and play a very important role in our daily lives. Let us now imagine a world without emotions. You would not feel any love towards your parents, you would not have any friends, and you would not see any purpose in life. You will be able to live a successful life based on rational decisions but your world would be meaningless. There would be nothing to stop criminals from committing crimes and if a person was able to justify a wrong act he would just carry it through. On the other hand, a world without reason would lead to complete anarchy. In fact, life will not be possible if people only felt emotions and were not able to think logically. There would be no justice to stop wrong doings, wars would erupt at any occasions and you would not be able to think and solve problems. When combined, emotion and reason work together in order to ensure a meaning to our lives and guide us towards the right decisions. Once a person is able to control the power of his emotions and create a fine balance between these two concepts, he/she will be able to recognize his emotions, monitor his actions, nurture a positive attitude or even achieve goals he has set himself. Thus, it is essential to think of emotions and reason as a unified way of knowing instead of two opposite ways of knowing.