Logic dictates that great events impel emotions or emotional responses. In any event the proper emotion must be conveyed as to not contradict what befalls the senses. A loss of material objects necessitates particular emotions just as gain of objects necessitates an opposite emotion. That is to say, every event in time and place has in it a concurring emotion. For example, if a person has his automobile stolen, emotional responses that would follow immediately consist of sadness at the loss, anger at the perpetrators, frustration about the coming future without said automobile. Although some are not materialistic and the loss of material objects sways little or no emotions, in this case replace the object with something of value that, when lost, would spur emotional uprisings. It would seem foolish for a materialist to feel an emotion that does not coincide with the event, that is, feeling happiness or joy. Because of this, it is clear that emotions have some form of logic underlying their very principles. Emotions are like beasts in the wilderness, running wild and rampant, without guidance or training. These emotions on their own cannot lead to good, this is the reason for the human mind, to capture the beast, hold its reigns and guide it to do the mind’s bidding. Without the mind, emotions are lost, with the mind emotions can be controlled and utilized to their full potential. To simply suppress an emotion would not be sufficient for a human and it would be putting a needless handicap on oneself. Does one lock a strong steed in the barn to never tarry in the fields because its very nature leads it to folly? Never I say, so why lock away emotions when the fields are ripe for the harvest?
Internal Emotions vs. External Results of Emotions
One must realize that emotions are perceived through the mind and travel outwards through the body. Tracing the emotion back into the mind, since the only proof of emotions lies in the external conveyance of the emotion; it comes to pass that the emotions start with no object. By this I mean there is nothing to emotions until the mind acknowledges the emotion’s existence. Upon the apprehending of the emotion, the mind puts to the emotion an object (an event, a person, etc.) and thus the emotion comes into being from nothingness. Now that the mind has a grasp on the emotion, it must convey it externally through the physical body. This is done in many ways, some subtle others extreme. Facial expressions, voice tonality, body language, etc. are signs of emotions within the human mind attempting to flee from nothingness into existence. The stronger the internal emotion is, the stronger the external effect on the body. Not all emotions erupt into the physical world, that is, there must be sufficient force behind the emotion in order for it to be felt. Dormant emotions remain unseen to an onlooker and sometimes unknown to the individual in whom the emotion lies. This does not mean that these innate emotions do not exist, far from it; it just means that they have not been noticed or acknowledged.
It is the will that suppresses the emotion but it is the intellect that controls it, guides it with logic to utilize the potential of the emotion. One must, by the natural order of the world, first subdue the emotion with the will in order to conquer it with the intellect. A practical question to ask is, what benefits do emotions offer a human existence if controlled as opposed to other ways of dealing with emotions (suppression, allowing them complete autonomy, etc.)? My only answer is that harnessing the ability to control one’s emotions is simply like adding another tool to the repertoire of a fulfilled human life. If one finds use of the tool, then it can aid in some kind of creation, if there is no discernible way of utilizing the tool then it lies unused and the tool by proxy is unfulfilled. It can be said that a tool has many uses, sometimes obviously built into it, other times simply by the human ability of ingenuity a use for the tool other than its prescribed terms arises. Why should emotions be any different? A controlled emotion will only be shown, that is become an external response of itself, if and when it is logically appropriate, if and only if the use of reason dictates that emotional response is the most adequate response possible in the given circumstance and also if no other equal or greater avenue for a different response is available. Beyond this, a controlled emotion must remain healthy and in existence, so as not to slip into some form of cruel tyranny of the will over the intellect. For if the will has its way unhindered by the intellect, a dictatorship of the mind shall form. A good ‘manager’, to use a business term, the intellect is, for through its abilities it has some form of wisdom regarding the best course of action for future states. Sometimes emotional responses will do more harm than good, and in these cases the intellect must ‘check’ the emotion, discern its origin, its rationality, justify its existence, and so on.
I wonder if all emotions require an object, or is it that in order to explain the emotion in detail one allots an object to the emotion. If events in life force into the mind an emotion (that is before one expresses it externally, before the intellect does the ‘check’) the object is clear, even if the emotion is hazy. But when emotions are brought into the mind without any apparent cause, an object is put to them in order for a single mind to comprehend either its origin or the emotion in it of itself.
Emotions are like clouds that move across the sky of the mind, they come and go at their own pace, some remind us of various ‘things’, while others force us to ponder ideas seemingly unrelated. One must not be attached to something so transient. One must simply accept the nature of emotions, utilize this very nature and the abilities that arise from its nature, but understand that the emotion in it of itself is fleeting, it will last no longer than a single cloud in the sky, and emotions may take just as many shapes as the clouds. Do not attempt to change nature unless you are prepared to suffer the unknown consequences.
Human Emotions to Compulsively Kill
It would seem that humans are the only animal on this planet that engage of acts of destruction and killing unrelated to survival. Most animals kill for food, that is, they kill only that which they eat, or they kill in self-defense or defense of the collective. Man is the only one that kills for the thrill or enjoyment; man kills for sport. Beyond that, man kills out of an emotional rage, for no apparent external physical reasons. An even stranger concept, killing ‘legally’, that is by state mandate or in what is known as ‘war’. Humans are the only creature that can justify killing in the name of ‘something other’ than survival. Perhaps a more complex mind necessitates more complex reasons for killing; it just seems strange that beings of self-proclaimed intelligence would continue to latch onto killing in the same manner as untamed beasts as a means to an end greater than that of the lives extinguished. It also seems that by relying on this method of extermination, humans cripple the greater humanity, which leads me to believe that the mathematics used to theorize that killing in the name of something other than survival leads to a greater end than the loss of life is flawed. There is a clear means to achieve the greater end you seek; the means is not killing if the end is, in fact, greater. All justifications for killing for reasons of something other than survival find their basis in emotional response. Without utilizing the intellect, these internal emotions breech external sovereignties thus leading a man to folly.
Objects Evoking Equal and Opposite Emotions Simultaneously
On some occasions, an object, or the particulars of an object, can have multiple effects on the creation of internal emotions. These effects can be similar, that is, an object can evoke emotions of happiness and love, although these two emotions are not necessarily entwined with one another, both would be considered good. If an object can spur multiple like emotions, can it not also impel two distinctly opposite emotions simultaneously? The simplest example would be the particulars of an object that lead to an individual emotion; love. Those same particulars could, within the same mind, lead to love‘s opposite; hate. Concurrently, two contradictory emotions are observed, both goaded by one particular. One may argue that, if one is to concede that a single object can stir multiple opposite emotions, that these emotions are, in fact, not simultaneous. Scientific evidence suggests, in theory, that two different forms of matter cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Because thoughts rely on the existence of matter (and thus emotions simply being a process of thought) it would seem that emotions cannot occupy the mind at the same time. It is clear though, that a single object, or particular of an object, can have many effects on thoughts leading to emotions. Whether or not the scientific theory applies to emotions is not the issue, neither is whether the opposite emotions are at the same place at the same time. The important matter is that a singular object can lead to what could be dubbed ‘mixed emotions.’ Because of the inherent intricacies in object-emotion relations, it seems that a direct emotional response to any object is irrational and possibly illogical. By this I mean, that because emotions vary not only from object to object but also within an object itself, internal emotional responses cannot be the first choice of action.
Social Standards Dictate Emotions
Because of the nature of emotions and man’s awareness of them, various social constructs have been created in order to either stifle or guide emotions. These constructs consist of appropriate manners to express emotions, time and place of emotional responses, even proper emotions to hold and/or express. With this attempt to pull the reigns of emotions, mankind has only succeeded in attempting to suppress emotions; in no social construct is there an emphasis on controlling emotions for the purpose of superior utilization of the emotion.
Emotions vs. Intuition
Intuitions are very similar to the concept of foresight. Both involve a sort of foretelling of things to come. Foresight, at its core, is simply visualizations of future states of being. Clearly or unclearly perceived in the mind, foresight could be an extension of the human’s sense of sight and not some poppycock sixth sense tomfoolery. If one studies much of the ancient writings, it would seem that many of the oracles, fortunetellers, etc. were blind, that is, without the use of the sense of sight of the external world. Yet, these predictors of the future could ‘see’ into this unknown future and gather information to tell others. It is more likely that, because the mind must perceive what the eye sees, so must the mind work to discern what the eye cannot see, but inherently should see. It is only apparent that any event that has not occurred yet that will occur is already on its way to meet you. Because events happen in time and space a person can see them as they occur but not before (or after), then a person that has no ability of eye sight of the now could effectively see future states of being that one is ‘on course’ to collide with. A human life revolves around many objects, like the planets revolve around the sun, each new encounter opens new orbits for us to obtain, each new orbit comes closer to either destruction or the good. We can change what it is we revolve around at will, but understand that once one has set a course for a particular orbit, to continue the analogy, one moves closer to an un-occurred event only unbeknownst to those that can see beyond the ability of the eye and to the capability of the mind. Intuitions do not involve the sense of sight. The most logical explanation for intuition itself is the sense of touch. Just as foresight allows for the sight of the not-yet-seen, intuition is the feeling of that which is not-yet-felt. Events one is ‘on course’ for can be discerned either by foresight or intuition and once the course has been changed, one can no longer discern the particular future event of the previous course. It seems that, because humans have sensory organs that gather data of the physical world and also a mind to perceive this data, the human mind has thus formed a primitive way to use the abilities of the senses to perceive that which the sensory organs cannot by their very nature acquire; a state of future being. Often, one can confuse an emotional state of being with intuition because of the inherent non-use of particular sensory organs to engage in either act; intuiting or feeling. Let it be clear that internal emotions about the future are not the same as intuitions. Emotions come from the mind’s direct apprehension of a particular state of being in an object as it is or as it could be whereas intuition is the mind’s attempt to utilize its sensory perception beyond that of the sensory organ itself.
Why Does an Object Evoke Any Particular Emotion Instead of Another?
It seems odd that objects, or events, force upon the body a particular emotion. Although the emotion itself with regard to the object can change, the fact that the emotion is evoked still remains. How is it that events, objects, relationships, can evoke only particular emotions? Why one emotion over the other?