It's just that i always have a dream of a person. emotions killed humanity. And yet he said we don't to be perfect, but get rid of enotions and act more like ants. Tell me how you. I can defend this topic so watch out.
I don't think it's feasible for a functioning society to be completely emotionless. Perhaps it's possible to tinker with an individual's brain so that they lack emotions, but I don't know... usually, the closest you get to that is "lack of empathy," "lack of shame," or just emotions that crop up at times that a "normal" person would be feeling something else.
Your dream told you humanity must be more like ants. But consider this: while ants may be a dime a million, drones created to do their part, what makes them actually do their part in their colony? It's the desire to keep their colony alive. It's why they will work themselves nearly to death and why they will die defending the colony.
Now, for humans, if you want to make a group of people selfless, loyal, and dedicated to upholding society, think about what you need. You need emotion to produce that amount of drive in a human. It's unlikely that you will be able to remove emotions from the equation and expect humanity to just complacently do their jobs, because that's not how ants even work.
Also, consider where emotions come from. They are not a human creation; they manifest themselves (albeit a bit more simply) in other animals, and they're to respond to the environment around you. It's meant to aid your survival. That fear is to keep you from getting eaten. The anger is to give you an edge in a direct confrontation. Happiness points out what's good for you and your survival. And without emotion, can a person really tell for themselves- without society giving them the answer- what is the difference between right and wrong? They'll just accept whatever's told to them because there's no "gut feeling" to tell them otherwise. Enter an easily implemented dystopian system that makes human life suck.
Get rid of emotions, and you get rid of people's capacity to care. Do you really want a society made up of people with the same emotional state as a lobotomy patient?
Well, I don't see this going anywhere based on your last post, but the plain and simple fact is that emotions are for survival. We don't feel emotions because we choose to. We feel emotions because we need them to survive the day to day. This is an evolutionary process that has taken place in all animals.
They are not only internal cues for how we are feeling, but also may provide clues to if we are sick biologically and mentally. They also help us respond to external cues and respond to them appropriately.
Humanity would have long been extinct if we had no emotional instincts to direct us, no self-preservation skills to keep us from running away from a dangerous animal or enemy trying to kill us.
I won't get biological or psychological with this. You probably care very little about the amygdala's role in emotional expression and learning.
But to be honest, I'm not too certain what you are trying to convey in your first post. A dream? Are you still bummed about that girl or something?
Well, it sounds like your friend's claim...Yes, those are bad emotions but they have useful applications. Jealousy and envy are useful in discovering what we really want and inform us there is a problem with a relationship or situation. If you are feeling jealous, then there is a clear trust issue that needs to be dealt with.
Anger is terrible, but it can help people say things that would often be left unsaid. Anger is also healthy because it, again, shows that there is some kind of problem that needs to be fixed.
It is not the emotions that are bad, but the actions people take to express those emotions.
War is not born of anger, it is born of aggression and greed or misunderstandings.
I've seen and heard of detestable actions humans have done without being driven by anger or jealousy. Remember what I said before, about how some people feel emotions that most people would not in response to an event? Think about people who enjoy torturing or murdering other living things, people who have ruined lives for profit. Removing hatred would do nothing to eliminate these kinds of people and their actions.
The most evil people in this world don't need anger to sustain themselves.
I won't deny that anger is often the basic driving force behind conflict... but commit an atrocity. See what happens when people learn about it: they will become angered. Outraged. They will demand that it be set right. Outrage and indignity towards an inequity is the opposite of indifference or complacency.
Anger makes you care, just like any other emotion. Would we really have a drive for justice or equality if we couldn't feel anger towards what's gone terribly wrong? If we all were placid and docile, what's to stop the kind of evil person I mentioned earlier from just doing whatever they please? Who's going to have the desire to stop them from murdering, maiming, or ruining other people when no one can feel that kind of passionate anger towards those actions?
Basically, without anger, who would be able to give a damn?
I wouldn't say most wars are started by anger. They're usually started because the government wants something, whether it be land, resources, etc. They are also commonly started for religious reasons, which a lot of the time are also fueled by self-interest. The poor little pawns of people just think it's anger because they themselves are angry, but we all work for the government.
If you got rid of emotion, you'd also get rid of empathy, and then we really would be in a mess.
In the light of the conversation, wouldn't our morals come into play on right or wrong, regardless of our emotions? And where does instinct fall into the equation? I'm mostly asking out of curiosity, and because I find this a fascinating topic.
I suppose one's morals become vastly different if they don't feel emotion. Empathy sometimes operates adverse to our own logic. Say I adopted a kitten because I wanted the companionship. Seems logical, but at the same time: that kitten is going to cost me in many ways, and in the future I'm setting myself up for a world of hurt when it all ends.
If you didn't feel emotion, only that hard logic would remain. Companionship is based largely upon our emotional dependency or need for others. But if we didn't have that need? We would only see the expenses and all, thus making it a poor decision. Sociopaths lack empathy this way, so they would see the situation in a similar light.
As for morals: those are going to be based on many things. Emotions can have a hand in them. But logic also does. Say you held a door open for someone who needed the help because they were carrying groceries. Maybe you felt sorry for them? Put yourself in their shoes...or don't. Empathy is the ability to do that. So say we can't feel that connection. Maybe we could make another: holding the door open because we want them to feel in debt to us. To manipulate them. (I hope holding doors open never comes to blackmail lol What a poor example)
But yeah, you can have morals without emotion, but they'd be founded on different things. At least, that's where logic has taken me in this train of thought.