This fire has been "good": it resulted via a rational process in a delicious loaf. Fire can also be "bad", and used via a rational process in destruction and misery.Well we have been talking about thinking, haven’t we?
Yes, and we found out that thinking is very important: it leads our activities, or better: it’s supposed to lead our activities, and it’s sometimes disturbed by emotions. Thinking comes up, just like emotions arise. The trouble starts when our emotions instead of thoughts are going to lead our activities . These emotions must do so via thinking again, but not the thinking is the originator of the activity, but the emotion.
Can you give an example?
Before I do this, first this: I assume that every adequately, harmoniously raised and educated adult will know the distinction between good and evil, so to speak. (I assume also that they exist, on which not everybody agrees, especially not many psychiatrists). Books are written about this distinction by great philosophers and scholars, e.g. Immanuel Kant or C.G. Jung, but our thinking alone isn’t able to make that distinction totally. It’s kind of feeling in our minds. A feeling for ethical thinking and behaviour. It’s like Goethe says: “A good man, in his dark urges, is well aware of the right path”. It has also to do with evolution.
Evolution theory? How come?
Let’s first give an example, or rather two, of thinking being led by emotions, by sheer feelings. Because, as we just concluded, a good man is aware of good and evil in his heart, emotions can be good or bad, arising from the heart, the emotional part of the mind. Adolf Hitler let his thinking being led by his feelings of hatred and superiority. Which, in fact appeared to be feelings of inferiority, and he had to compensate this by thinking how, after all, the whole thinking world was wrong and how he, the great leader and artist, would change the world by brutal violence. How good emotions can lead thinking is another story, these people are often led by feelings of love and willingness to help. This can make them sometimes naïve, seeing no danger from powers around, or make them heroes. The “problem” of Mother Theresa was that she didn’t take care of herself, and used all her intelligence to organize things for the better of those she helped. The emotion-directed thinking is mostly troubled, blurred and less affected by logical insight, no matter if the emotions are “good” or “bad”. Only when it comes to elaboration of instrumental knowledge such as planning, organizing, engineering, then the thinking of emotion-led people becomes very clear again.
What about terrorists?
These people are also led by bad feelings, but they don’t recognize them as bad, because they are not “good men” as I explained. They are often extremely intelligent and use their brains for intensive thinking, but their thinking is focused on some aim that they “think” (better ”feel” ) to be the all-justifying aim, allowing them to commit the most horrific acts.
Why is there a distinction between thinking and feeling? Is this distinction that sharp? Don’t you think (I could also say “feel”) that there is a grey area in which we “fink” that is, at the same time feel and think, without being able to say what’s leading what?
Yes, I agree, such an area exists. But the sources are well-distinguishable, and at both extremes we have pure feelings on the one hand and pure thinking on the other hand. To take an example: a woman feels intensive love for a man, and he pretends to have them also for her (he is afraid of loosing her attention). Suddenly, during their love-play, the man, not totally overwhelmed by feeling, remembers that he has a business appointment in ten minutes. Or he whispers in her ear: did you post these payments to the garage already, darling? How do you think the woman will react?
I think she will be overwhelmed by loss of her positive emotions which are replaced by negative ones.
Of course! So we agree on the distinction that can be made between feelings and thoughts. I believe (believing is mostly a result of thinking with one great exemption, we’ll deal with that later on) that we as humans are different from animals because we have to think. We have a thinking ability and are simply urged to use it, just like animals are urged to use their instincts. An instinct is a feeling that leads to an activity in the animal’s mind. In humans the instincts are disrupted, and allocated on the one hand to the feelings (which animals also have), and on the other hand to a new area, namely the area of thinking. This I see as a result of the evolutionary process. Let’s deal with this next time, then we also deal with “the purpose of thinking” as promised last time.
Yes, and we found out that thinking is very important: it leads our activities, or better: it’s supposed to lead our activities, and it’s sometimes disturbed by emotions. Thinking comes up, just like emotions arise. The trouble starts when our emotions instead of thoughts are going to lead our activities . These emotions must do so via thinking again, but not the thinking is the originator of the activity, but the emotion.
Can you give an example?
Before I do this, first this: I assume that every adequately, harmoniously raised and educated adult will know the distinction between good and evil, so to speak. (I assume also that they exist, on which not everybody agrees, especially not many psychiatrists). Books are written about this distinction by great philosophers and scholars, e.g. Immanuel Kant or C.G. Jung, but our thinking alone isn’t able to make that distinction totally. It’s kind of feeling in our minds. A feeling for ethical thinking and behaviour. It’s like Goethe says: “A good man, in his dark urges, is well aware of the right path”. It has also to do with evolution.
Evolution theory? How come?
Let’s first give an example, or rather two, of thinking being led by emotions, by sheer feelings. Because, as we just concluded, a good man is aware of good and evil in his heart, emotions can be good or bad, arising from the heart, the emotional part of the mind. Adolf Hitler let his thinking being led by his feelings of hatred and superiority. Which, in fact appeared to be feelings of inferiority, and he had to compensate this by thinking how, after all, the whole thinking world was wrong and how he, the great leader and artist, would change the world by brutal violence. How good emotions can lead thinking is another story, these people are often led by feelings of love and willingness to help. This can make them sometimes naïve, seeing no danger from powers around, or make them heroes. The “problem” of Mother Theresa was that she didn’t take care of herself, and used all her intelligence to organize things for the better of those she helped. The emotion-directed thinking is mostly troubled, blurred and less affected by logical insight, no matter if the emotions are “good” or “bad”. Only when it comes to elaboration of instrumental knowledge such as planning, organizing, engineering, then the thinking of emotion-led people becomes very clear again.
What about terrorists?
These people are also led by bad feelings, but they don’t recognize them as bad, because they are not “good men” as I explained. They are often extremely intelligent and use their brains for intensive thinking, but their thinking is focused on some aim that they “think” (better ”feel” ) to be the all-justifying aim, allowing them to commit the most horrific acts.
Why is there a distinction between thinking and feeling? Is this distinction that sharp? Don’t you think (I could also say “feel”) that there is a grey area in which we “fink” that is, at the same time feel and think, without being able to say what’s leading what?
Yes, I agree, such an area exists. But the sources are well-distinguishable, and at both extremes we have pure feelings on the one hand and pure thinking on the other hand. To take an example: a woman feels intensive love for a man, and he pretends to have them also for her (he is afraid of loosing her attention). Suddenly, during their love-play, the man, not totally overwhelmed by feeling, remembers that he has a business appointment in ten minutes. Or he whispers in her ear: did you post these payments to the garage already, darling? How do you think the woman will react?
I think she will be overwhelmed by loss of her positive emotions which are replaced by negative ones.
Of course! So we agree on the distinction that can be made between feelings and thoughts. I believe (believing is mostly a result of thinking with one great exemption, we’ll deal with that later on) that we as humans are different from animals because we have to think. We have a thinking ability and are simply urged to use it, just like animals are urged to use their instincts. An instinct is a feeling that leads to an activity in the animal’s mind. In humans the instincts are disrupted, and allocated on the one hand to the feelings (which animals also have), and on the other hand to a new area, namely the area of thinking. This I see as a result of the evolutionary process. Let’s deal with this next time, then we also deal with “the purpose of thinking” as promised last time.
2 comments:
HI,
I am a mom of a 10 yo and I homeschool her. I am about to cover a lesson on decision making. I came accross your blog In my search of trying to back up that feelings are good and bad. Most psychologists today would say feelings are neither good or bad; I disagree. After reading your entry I think that you are right there is a distinction and also a correlation between feelings, thinking, and also actions. You say "The emotion-directed thinking is mostly troubled"... I also agree.
As adults (hopefully) we can make the distinctions. IN other words when I receive a stimulus, rather than acting upon the feelings it provokes; I need to take time in between the two, to think, and then choose a reaction.
It is my hope that the thinking part of my brain will help me take the right action... gotta go.
Dear mom, thank you for your comment, by a 10 yo son's father!
Post a Comment