2+2=5: A Case For Agnostic-Atheism

[Tejwant Singh]

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

I am a Sikh which means a student, a learner, a seeker. So, I do not mind being ignorant. You said the same thing in your earlier post. It shows a lot more about you than about anyone else.

Now you are twisting things again and have concluded that it is only you who knows what Philosophy means which is nothing but shows your arrogance and self centeredness. It seems that you live in your own cocoon which you call logic. You have failed to understand what I have said which is not surprising because for you to have the ends in your mind you have to twist things to concoct means which is not logical.

Once you define what Ik Ong Kaar is according to Sikhi which has been asked to you many times so you can be proved wrong again, then we can move this discussion further, otherwise it is over for me. I have no idea why this fear of learning!

Is this logical?

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Caspian]

Because if a logical god is pointless, so is logic. And anyone can just reverse your argument and argue that logic is pointless and be just as right.

If i was slightly more pessimistic. I might just say "yup, everything is either illogical or pointless" and leave it at that lol. But this is the first valid point i've run into in a while (im not counting the 1+1=windows and mis-understandings of proof by contradiction).

Lol i also said a logical god is a beutiful thing but u opted not to pick up on that . I've explained why I called god "pointless" i assumed you have read up on it but I assumed wrong (its not your fault, theres alot of messages in this thread). Anyways "Pointless" is a placeholding nikname I have given because I dont see a point for a logical god to exist. A logical god cannot sustain heaven and hell, does not require your prayers, hasnt given us an absolute moral system and he cannot punish us for not believing in him... pretty much every way in which you can think of him, he is not. Hes essentially the figuritive embodiement of logic, math, and science then. And if thats case, why not cut the middle man and get straight to the logic, math and science.

To use an anology. The role of "God" in the creation of the universe is "pointless" if the big bang theory is right. The question is "what created the big bang" to which the answer by many religious people is "God." But that answer begets the question "what created god" and w/e answer you can think of to explain that can be instead, directly used to explain the creation of the universe. Therefore the concept of God is pointless in the creation of the universe.

Essentially what im saying wen i say pointless is "not needed." I think a logical god is "not needed" if that makes more sense to you. Because we can jus eliminate god from the picture entirely and deal with logic directly. If you think otherwise, i would love to hear what reason a logical god may have for existing?

Descartes asks himself where he received the idea of God. He “believes” (emotional basis) that his idea of God was innate in him just as the idea of him is innate in him”. Descartes dubs this the pre-containment principle. He then goes on to say that all things must have a cause and that all causes may affect another thing, (deemed the principle of universal causation). So using all this Descartes states that he has an idea of God, and the only possible cause for this idea is God himself, because only God contains enough formal reality to cause the idea with that much objective reality.’ (Cartesian circle)

Its too bad that whatever Descarte's preached (famous as he was) ended up being largely ignored in favor of John Locke's empircism which makes no mention of God. If this is a debate about Descartes Rationalism vs Locke's Empiricism we wont agree with much . I'm an empiricist, i believe in "innate truths" like you do. But I don't believe God is one of those innate truths—but if he is, I have no objection, he just has to be logical like i said.

Morality, a form of logical analysis is essential for survival. Religion is an exercise in morality that may just improve emotional self-being and chance of survival. (which would aptly explain the existence and long term perpetuation of such beliefs in an omnipresent deity…and the political organization of religion)

If morality is a form of logical analysis, it can be at times—largely flawed. But i agree with the general idea that Religion can be seen as something that once had the ability to increase the survival rate. But i think its defunct now but that has more to do with religion and god being out-dated evolutionary off shoots.

Pointless things are redundant and thus are energetically unfavorable to be perpetuated in a social medium. The perpetuation of pointless in society is not only detrimental/counterproductive one could logically argue that it is impossible and it would be rooted out through an evolutionary process such as natural selection. (or perhaps never have even come into existence)

Yuh, i think the God of yesterday is, today, largely redundant and energetically unfavorable to be perpetuated in social medium. I think the concept of god is detrimental/counterproductive and I believe it is slowly being rooted out (not through natural selection like a gene, but through a similar process whereby society/culture is naturally selected). The reason why it is being rooted out seems (in my mind) to coincide with the better educating of the public. Thats why the concept of god didnt die out to begin with, people who were unarmed with basic logic simply accepted the concept much like a child willingly accepts the concept of santa clause. But its a good thing that the human race is growing up now .

The woman who looks at tea leaves to determine the future is illogical or maybe logical to others (emotion based)? But she is not pointless.

Likewise a logical god is not pointless. And god is innate.

Again

Does the existence of truth require belief?

She herself is not pointless to others, in the same way that Santa clause is not pointless to childern. But the idea of lookin at tea leaves to tell the future and the idea of santa claus itself is pointless. Neither of the two things are true—you have to will urself into believing them to be true inorder for them to mean anything to you. God is in the same boat. For people like me, once you realize that a logical God cant send u to hell, cant put u in heaven, cant really do anything that God was advertised as doing—then he becomes pointless. For others, ones who believe there prayers work, that an after life awaits them, that they have morals to uphold in his name—the concept of god is not pointless to them, but their god is not logical in the objective sense, its only logical to them and for no other reason then "they believe hes logical"

Is truth dependant on belief? No. I could believe god does exist, and i could be wrong. Similarily, I could believe god does not exist, and i could be wrong. I can believe in alot of stuff, but I dont know if that stuff is true or false. And of the stuff I know to be true, like 2+2=4, that stuff cannot be false so I cannot say that "I believe 2+2=4" becuase belief (like the word faith) implies a liklihood of being wrong.

I believe in the theory of evolution, I believe its possible for god to exist although I believe god does not exist and I believe the canucks will win the stanley cup (but i can be wrong about all of those, thats why its more fitting to say "believe"). However I cannot say the same for 2+2=4, proof by contradiction, or the laws of physics (i do not believe in those concepts in the same way I believe in the earlier concepts because These concepts cannot be falsified—they are not theories, or idea's, which can be falsified). That stuff is true regardless of belief—innately true.

 

[Sinister]

Is truth dependant on belief? No. I could believe god does exist, and i could be wrong. Similarily, I could believe god does not exist, and i could be wrong. I can believe in alot of stuff, but I dont know if that stuff is true or false. And of the stuff I know to be true, like 2+2=4 cannot be false so I cannot say that "I believe 2+2=4" becuase belief (like the word faith) implies a liklihood of being wrong.

theres the rub in your argument ... you are an externalist

for many, the internalists, the existance of truth is dependant upon belief (which is triggered by emotion). if you do not beleive 2+2=4 it will never =4. a justified true belief for the internalist is entirely dependant upon the subjective mind...subjective reality

and chosing one side of the dichotomy is not wrong or right (like you try to justify) but it leads to the construction of a very different reality in different people. and people sometimes chose both..shifting from one to the other (extranilism to internalism)...continously contradicting themselves.

this is epistemological gridlock. accept it.
:meditation:

 

[Caspian]

Justified True Belief refers to what you can classify as knowledge. For "P" to consider "X" to be knowledge "P" has to satisfy 3 conditions

1) X is true
2) P believes X is true
3) P is justified in his belief that X is true

But if your familiar with the "Gettier Problem" even the JTB definition of knowledge is insuffecient. Its usually the "justification of the belief" that is at fault in a gettier problem. If your unfamiliar with the Gettier Problem, id be willing to explain but I'll assume that if you know wat JTB is then you most likely know wat the gettier problem is (although i didnt no about the gettier problem myself until recently ).

Perhaps this is epistamalogical gridlock then. Yes, there are rationalist's out there like you and there are empiricist's out there like me, but we both cant be right at the same time and neither of us will budge in either case. But the empiricist world view lead to this computer I'm typing on (amongs other things lol). You know, even Descartes own views held him back from making break throughs that Newton would later achieve (although he would deny them because he was also madly religious and going crazy due to mercury posioning from alchemy experiments). I forget if it was you who mentioned Zeno's paradox (in a earlier post) but Newton's calculas and concept of the limit lead to solving the paradox—although he, himself, denied it outright because it conflicted with his world view just like Descartes, himself, denied some of the idea's that lead to this breakthrough. Rationalism (or wat u call internalism) has a history of stifling progress. Modern science is entirely empiricist. But ight, if this is a matter of epistomalogical gridlock, so be it. However my original argument is entirely in Formal Logic (the same system of logic used in the Gettier Problem to show the insuffeciency of JTB) so my original argument still stands regardless of epistimology. (Afterall, the logic behind the Gettier Problem is as much a problem for a rationilist as it is for a Empiricist; Similarily, the logic behind my argument is a problem for certain religious people [has nothing to do with rationalist/empiricist althought i must say, religious people tend to be reationalists]. I'm saying that cuz most refuse to achnowledge a problem.). Atleast we agree that God would have to be logical though .

 

[BhagatSingh]

Sinister Ji, interesting take on emotion, a few posts back.

 

[Sinister]

Perhaps this is epistamalogical gridlock then. Yes, there are rationalist's out there like you and there are empiricist's out there like me, but we both cant be right at the same time and neither of us will budge in either case. But the empiricist world view lead to this computer I'm typing on (amongs other things lol). You know, even Descartes own views held him back from making break throughs that Newton would later achieve (although he would deny them because he was also madly religious and going crazy due to mercury posioning from alchemy experiments). I forget if it was you who mentioned Zeno's paradox (in a earlier post) but Newton's calculas and concept of the limit lead to solving the paradox—although he, himself, denied it outright because it conflicted with his world view just like Descartes, himself, denied some of the idea's that lead to this breakthrough. Rationalism (or wat u call internalism) has a history of stifling progress. Modern science is entirely empiricist. But ight, if this is a matter of epistomalogical gridlock, so be it. However my original argument is entirely in Formal Logic (the same system of logic used in the Gettier Problem to show the insuffeciency of JTB) so my original argument still stands regardless of epistimology. (Afterall, the logic behind the Gettier Problem is as much a problem for a rationilist as it is for a Empiricist; Similarily, the logic behind my argument is a problem for certain religious people [has nothing to do with rationalist/empiricist althought i must say, religious people tend to be reationalists]. I'm saying that cuz most refuse to achnowledge a problem.). Atleast we agree that God would have to be logical though .

WOW! you study cognitive science and then you say modern science is entirely empiricist? I guess einstein was wasting his time with his thought experiments.

Sometimes I think you actually have grasped something but then you say something really really absurd...which raises doubt about your understanding of philosophy.

care to explain how internalism stifles progress in a coherent manner?

internalism is the belief that all knowledge resides within the mind (doesnt exclude sensory input) and externalism is the belief that all knowledge resides outside the mind.

no belief whatsoever at any point hinders the process of attainment of knowledge.

"Externalism in the historiography of science is the view that the history of science is due to its social context - the socio-political climate and the surrounding economy determines scientific progress.

Internalism in the historiography of science claims that science is completely distinct from social influences and pure natural science can exist in any society and time given the intellectual capacity."

 

[Caspian]

Okayy.... well this might be my fault. I assumed when you meant "externalism" and "interanalism" you were equation that to empiricism and rationalism (even i mix empiricism with rationalism (they both have strengths and weaknesses) [mixing the two is called pragmatism i think].) My bad, false assumption.

But im essentially going by this wikipedia description of Externalism

"Externalism is a group of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that the mind is not only the results of what is going on inside the nervous system (or the brain) but also of what either occur or exist outside the subject. It is often contrasted with internalism which holds that the mind emerges out of neural activity alone. Externalism articulates the hunch that the mind is not just the brain or what the brain does."

Your description of externalism doesnt sound anything like it? Particularily when you say.

nternalism is the belief that all knowledge resides within the mind (doesnt exclude sensory input) and externalism is the belief that all knowledge resides outside the mind

Because u leave urself the option of including external sensory input but you dont leave the externalists with a similar option of including internal process. Having said that, the wikipedia definition simply says "the mind is not only the result of what is going on inside." it doesnt take the extreme position of "all knowledge resides outside the mind" if that was the case i wouldnt call myself an externalisit.... i realize that truth resides outside the mind but beliefs (if they can be considered knowledge) reside completely within the mind. So again, im a bit of a pragmatist?

Apologize for the false assumption. Hopefully we can get this discussion back on track (i still think all of modern science is empiricist. But with regards to externalist and internalist—i'd say im both. Im part rationalist as well, you kind of have to be when debating about religion especially. But wen we were talkin about ethic's, moral's and the like, i take an empiricist stance.

So summarizing here.

Logic = rationalist stance
Ethics, morals = empiricist stance
And im equal parts externalist and internalist. Knowledge resides both inside and outside the mind for me

 

[Sinister]

my definition is better because it is simpler to understand.. and if you read it again it is exactly what I have said...I have studied this philosophy for years

what about internal sensory input? (brain in a vat?)

absurd but just as true...and it does not hinder the attainment of knowledge in any way shape or form.

that is if you can still call it knowledge "DUN DUN DAAAAAA!" :rofl!!:

 

[Sinister]

so lets get this straight

you have come around and changed your position and are now

an internalist and an externalist

you are both a rationalist and an empiricist

you believe that ethics and all morals are learned ENTIRELY through experience? (which is clearly debatable)

and you believe that logic is attainable only through rationalism. (which is also debatable)

wow you are pretty illogical and pointless

Goodnight!:tongue:

 

[Caspian]

you have come around and changed your position and are now

an internalist and an externalist

I havent changed my position. I clarified it. It was my fault though and I apologized for making that original assumption.

I would say I'm a moderate externalisit. Yup yup. I'm not going to hold the position that "all knowledge is outside the brain" but if were talking about truth then yes im completely externalist. The reason i mentioned both is because you intertwine truth with belief and for reasons I have stated (like the falsity of belief) I dont think you can do that. Beliefs reside inside the mind but the "truth is out there" (dun dun dun dun dun *xfiles theme* lol)

And LOL @ any brain in the vat position. I guess you must have really enjoyed the Matrix?

you are both a rationalist and an empiricist

you believe that ethics and all morals are learned ENTIRELY through experience? (which is clearly debatable)

and you believe that logic is attainable only through rationalism. (which is also debatable)

Strictly speaking, im an empiricist. To be scientific demands empiricism. And i think ethics and morals all have evolutionary roots (there is nothing a-priori about them—they are not inately true so they are best understood through empirical methods). Logic on the otherhand (like math) can be "a-priori" or inately true and if religion contends to have some a-priori truths, then i'll debate with a rationalisit approach. Its not illogical and pointless, its a valid position (although your use of ad-hominid attack is pretty illogical and pointless in and of itself but all is far in fun and games, wouldnt it be awesome if we really were brain in vats? ). The position itself is called Pragmatism as I have said before.

 

[Sinister]

"the mind is not only the result of what is going on inside." it doesnt take the extreme position of "all knowledge resides outside the mind" if that was the case i wouldnt call myself an externalisit.... i realize that truth resides outside the mind but beliefs (if they can be considered knowledge) reside completely within the mind. So again, im a bit of a pragmatist?

Apologize for the false assumption. Hopefully we can get this discussion back on track (i still think all of modern science is empiricist. But with regards to externalist and internalist—i'd say im both. Im part rationalist as well, you kind of have to be when debating about religion especially. But wen we were talkin about ethic's, moral's and the like, i take an empiricist stance.

Um sorry, but no. What you are positing is not pragmatism as much as it is cognitive disonance. Because pragmatism involves denial of fact-value distinction (and here you are doing the complete opposite) and not to mention pragmatism involves practicality. In no way can believing in both internalism and externalism lead to any practical outcomes!(do not confuse these with rational and empirical)

According to logic you cannot both believe in both externalism and internalism. What you can say logically and pragmatically is, “I do not know whether the existence of truth requires belief” (it is what a pragmatic person would say) but to be both sides of such a dichotomy is not pragmatism it's just cognitive dissonance…lunacy and it is illogical.

And that is a case for Agnosticism <?"urn:

None of this 2+2 business makes much sense

Im gonna take you back to the Socratic roots of logic: the only thing I know is that I know nothing at all.

And no finer words have been spoken for the Agnostic.

you are not an agnostic if you do not honestly believe this...and neither are you an atheist

let me tell you about my understanding of sikhism (cause for some odd reason you clearly wish to avoid the sikh concept of god...even after the respective member Tejwant Singh numerously told you to analyze the mool mantar):
to be agnostic is to be uncertain about the existance of god (in sikhism god is equated to truth). so for a sikh an agnostic is someone who is uncertain about the truth. and logically to be an atheist would be to deny the truth (equivalent to some sort of neitzschean nihilism or even 'brain in a vat').

to be a true agnostic means 'no certainty', which means, you cannot be certain of the uncertainty of truth but you must be uncertain about the uncertainty of truth (ad infinitum).

now,
you do not deny the existence of truth, according to your replies 2+2 does indeed =4....but neither do you seem to be uncertain of the truth you seem certain about the 2+2=4 (judging from your posts)...

so in effect you are neither an atheist nor an agnostic...nor an atheist-agnostic but just another sikh because you believe in existence of truth...
and because God=truth
you also believe in god

welcome to club!

 

[BhagatSingh]

I am confused as to how God = truth.

Truth = a verified or indisputable fact
God =/= a verified or indisputable fact


PS I was thought Satnam meant God's name is true..

 

[Sinister]

I am confused as to how God = truth.

Truth = a verified or indisputable fact
God =/= a verified or indisputable fact


PS I was thought Satnam meant God's name is true..

Sach Khand vasai Nirankar
of the concept of god dwelling in the realm of truth ('Sach Khand')

Not only is gods name truth, god is truth (for a sikh)

SATnam -- god is both Sat and Satya

Aad Sach

Jugaad Sach

Haibee Sach

Nanak Hosi Bee Sach

so you are right God just does not = truth

god = truth
Sach Khand - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

what happens to reality if god is the verified indisputable fact? (if such a thing could exist to being with)
clear?

 

[spnadmin]

I am confused as to how God = truth.

Truth = a verified or indisputable fact

Bhagat ji

I have tried in the past, albeit unsucessfuly, to convince you that truth need not be, and is not always taken in philosophy, to mean a correspondence with facts. You continually reject this argument. I did not make it up. It has been a constant theme in both science and philosophy for centuries.

Try this Test of Truth in Philosophy by the acclaimed philosopher Mortimer Adler.

ADLER ARCHIVE: Tests of Truth in Philosophy, by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D.

In that context God need not equal an indisputable fact. Logical tests of God as Truth have been offered since the time of the ancient Greeks (see other threads on this point). These tests are not scientific of course. But tests of truth in philosophy are not limited to scientific tests.

P/S Sat Nam is in some versions translated to mean God's name is truth. That translation is a good as agreement or disagreement as to whether Truth is the Name of God. Or, conversely whether God is the Name of Truth. These sentences are not based on an identity argument such that:

T = NG is not the same as G = NT

 

[Lee]

IMO The concept of God arose from biological roots I would love to explain if you want me to, but in a different post! Cuz that has nothing to do with philosophy and more to do with biology, psychology and neurology.

Well yes of course all thoughts from mankind ultimatly stem from biology as they come from the brain.

The issue I wish to address though is your insitance tha the concept of God is illogical.

What do you mean by this? I have already outlined how the concept of God can have arose via a process of logical thought, do you then disagree with that, or do you mean someting differant?

 

[Lee]

I added an explanation above, i dont think you had a chance to see it so ill repeat:

Explantion: (very stripped down explanation)

Your argument
Premis: God is omnipotent, God cannot die, Jesus is god, Jesus has died
Conclusion. If God cannot die as a result of his omnipotenance then Jesus is not god or omnipotenance cannot exist.

My argument
Premis: God is omnipotent, God is logical, God can make 2+2=5, 2+2=5 is illogical
Conclusion: If god can make 2+2=5 then he cannot be logical (he is illogical) or he cannot make 2+2=5 and thus he is logical (but not omnipotent).

So both of our conclusions are consistant

As you see, in both of our arguments "Gods omnipotenance" is a premiss. Along with other premises that through contradiction arrive at one of two conclusion. One of which for both of us is that "God cannot be omnipotent" (or god has to be logical in my case). The way your arrived at ur conclusion is the exact same way at which I arrived at my conclusion but my argument is more general then ur argument, thats all. My argument was meant to be general. In case your wondering if you can even do this kind of an argument in logic—yes you can, its called "proof by contradiction" where if u want to prove that God is illogical (or god is not omnipotent in ur case) then you start with the premis "God is logical" (or god is omnipotent in ur case). And you try to contradict that premis to come to the conclusion that god cannot be logical (or god cannot be omnipotent in ur case)

Having said that. Ethics (morality) does not breed logic. Logic can be used create morals. But morality is not absolute in the same sense that logic is.

Caspian Ji,

Tejwant ji is correct you know, about defining what God is first. Look at your premise.

'God is omnipotent, God is logical..'

If God is indeed omnipotent, then anything is within God's power to do, including anything that our limited minds may pecive as contradictionary.

So you inital premise brakes down after the first two words. If we accept God's omnipontancy then the the part which reads 'God is logical' must be false, yes?

 

[Lee]

I have a theory...Only those who hear the music, dance.

In the mammalian brain.

first comes sense (sensory reflex/autonomic responses..most primitive)

then comes emotion (emotional centers are located in older areas of the brain)

then comes purpose, strategy or higher level logic or reason and Morality. (all in the same step)

then it wiggles back...first sensory (skipping emotion)... realization and analysis of outcome from sensory centers which feedback to adjust emotion.

even something as simple 2+2=4 requires emotion to trigger purpose (intrigue/curiosity/Longing/Trust)... without these no human can solve 2+2=4.

Morality, like logic, is conceived through emotion because emotion gives birth to purpose. Realization and even Social communication of both morality and logic can impact emotion in a feedback loop.

Therefore I posit that just as those who emotionaly feel that they have to solve 2+2=4 are using the same emotions to give purpose in defining and constructing reality which innately constructs god.

In conclusion, god and logic are both bred from emotion and are both subserviant to purpose.

and like you said before...if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then its a. therefore god and logic are the same thing. therefore god cannot be illogical....because the illogical serves no purpose.

Soprry my freind I disagree.

Emotion is the enemy of morality. vengance comes from emotion, yet moraly and logicaly vengance serves very little porpouse except to stem the emotion of hatered(not that is is very suscesfull in doing so).

Morality needs to be approached coldly and rationaly, sans emotion.

 

[Lee]

I am confused as to how God = truth.

Truth = a verified or indisputable fact
God =/= a verified or indisputable fact


PS I was thought Satnam meant God's name is true..

That is interesting Bhagat Ji.

But what then is Gods name? Is it literaly 'True', do when then whorship an entity who goes by the name 'true'? This seems kinda silly to me. SIll because God is all that there is, so we can then call God earth, tree, river, or perhaps even Mr Bill Gates. God cannot be rendered down to just the one name, 'Ik onkar' remember, so perhaps God is truth?

Yes this makes sense to me. We are warned about duality, what can be the only way out off duality? To seek the truth, the one and only objective truth that we have, which can only be God. 'Ik onkar, sat naam'

1 God, who's name is truth. Heh perhaps?

 

[Sinister]

Soprry my freind I disagree.

Emotion is the enemy of morality. vengance comes from emotion, yet moraly and logicaly vengance serves very little porpouse except to stem the emotion of hatered(not that is is very suscesfull in doing so).

Morality needs to be approached coldly and rationaly, sans emotion.

<FONT face=Arial>You have not only misunderstood emotion you have gravely underestimated the extent to which this primal psychological force/agent plays in creating humanity:
<?"urn:

Emotion is NOT the enemy of morality…it is the enabler of morality.

Hunger is a physical emotion…It sustains life

Not all Emotions are not autonomic responses because cognitive emotions can be controlled and directed with the help of reason/logic and rationality. But that does not mean that they cannot influence reason themselves.

Emotions are the primary reactive force to external sensation…logic is not privy to this.

Love sustains life
Joy, trust, fear, surprise, anticipation, anger, disgust, sadness, etc … all sustain life

Will or willpower… which gives rise to the very ability to perform an action is an emotion based upon an emotion.

Emotions ARE humanity.
Morality is a product of humanity
Therefore
Morality is a product of emotion.

Ask yourself this

What governs taste? (that’s what an individuals moral convictions can be summed up as…taste)

Is it emotion? Is it reason? Or is it both?

Case study

A man sees an unknown woman being beaten by someone else, and he decides to intervene and put a stop to it. (this ‘decision/action’ not only reduces his chances of survival… it in no way can help him perpetuate his gene pool)…so from a rational biological point of view the best option would be to flee and tell the authorities what had happened. But he confronts the assailant to protect the woman (moral conviction).

This man reacted from primal emotion. (fear, anger, rage, empathy a convulted mess of emotions that directed an impulse of decision and then prompted action)

Knowing fully well what would happen if he did nothing…guilt (another strong emotion)

In fact Morality and the emotion of Guilt are COMPLETELY intertwined.


You see now how important emotions are in the creation of morality?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

You have not only misunderstood emotion you have gravely underestimated the extent to which this primal psychological force/agent plays in creating humanity:

Emotion is NOT the enemy of morality…it is the enabler of morality.

Hunger is a physical emotion…It sustains life

Not all Emotions are not autonomic responses because cognitive emotions can be controlled and directed with the help of reason/logic and rationality. But that does not mean that they cannot influence reason themselves.

Emotions are the primary reactive force to external sensation…logic is not privy to this.

Love sustains life
Joy, trust, fear, surprise, anticipation, anger, disgust, sadness, etc … all sustain life

Will or willpower… which gives rise to the very ability to perform an action is an emotion based upon an emotion.

Emotions ARE humanity.
Morality is a product of humanity
Therefore
Morality is a product of emotion.

Ask yourself this

What governs taste? (that’s what an individuals moral convictions can be summed up as…taste)

Is it emotion? Is it reason? Or is it both?

Case study

A man sees an unknown woman being beaten by someone else, and he decides to intervene and put a stop to it. (this ‘decision/action’ not only reduces his chances of survival… it in no way can help him perpetuate his gene pool)…so from a rational biological point of view the best option would be to flee and tell the authorities what had happened. But he confronts the assailant to protect the woman (moral conviction).

This man reacted from primal emotion. (fear, anger, rage, empathy a convulted mess of emotions that directed an impulse of decision and then prompted action)

Knowing fully well what would happen if he did nothing…guilt (another strong emotion)

In fact Morality and the emotion of Guilt are COMPLETELY intertwined.


You see now how important emotions are in the creation of morality?

Sinsiter ji,


Guru fateh.


No body could have explained this better than you. You have a natural knack for going deeper in to the ocean of human psyche like a perfect pearl hunter of the within.


Kaam,krodh, lobh , moh Hankaar are all emotions that according to Gurbani rob us from our true potential of what we can really be. We can not eliminate them because they are what make us humans but we can control these five thieves from robbing us so that we can use them to our advantage to better ourselves as human beings.


So, as the saying goes," Keep your friends close but your enemies even closer so we can keep an eye on them". The above five thieves come in the latter category.


Thanks for sharing this lovely and deep thought.


Regards


Tejwant Singh