My attention is primarily focused on two main points (and one sub-point):
1. Why does emotion enter into the equation when discussing philosophy?
a. Is this a negative, positive, or value-neutral action?
2. That which is quantifiable is the only thing that counts.
1. The initial duty would be to define what is meant by emotion (this is no simple task and I am not up for the challenge of trying to create a thorough definition; there has been debates over the meaning of emotion for centuries and even with complex brain-scanning capabilities we- the human race- are at a loss as to what the phenomenon underlying the brain activity is). This I do know: the word is often straw-man fodder and is employed in order to win an argument by laying bare the other person in an argument by disarming their ideas without interacting with the actual premises.
At the most simplistic form, however, emotion can be construed as a visceral or cognitive reaction to a stimulus that may or may not have an apparent rational or logical explanation.
Who can explain why a person smiles when they see a collage of orange and red, purple and cerulean at sunset? Who can get at the phenomenon behind why some people, no matter how hardened, will experience a release of serotonin while engaging in laughing?
http://hms.harvard.edu/public/news/2010/072810_marci.html
No matter what your MBTI or temperament is the human mind experiences emotion. It is inevitable and an evolutionary fact. Certain types (like my own, INTP) like to detach themselves from their emotions. I have caught myself using analytical methods to decipher my own emotions and why I feel a certain way. Though this can be an advantage at times, it is surely my loss that I am not able to tap in and understand my own emotions. This becomes exacerbated when we believe that our emotions affect us ONLY WHEN we are conscious of them.
It has taken me some years to realize this. It can be quite the strength and asset to have a feeling function in the first two spots of cognitive functions. If someone has Te or Ti in the dominant position, then feeling is in what Jung called the "shadow function." This allows for feeling to manifest itself in very bizarre and even tangential ways. In manners that don't seem to adhere to the situation at hand, but they nearly always have a connection, no matter how tenuous.
1a.
So to me, when discussing philosophy, it is vital to TRY to discuss matters as far from the emotions as possible, but when they do arise, one need not disperse with them immediately, but search out WHY they arise in the first place. I suspect that one of the primary emotions to emerge when discussing philosophy (or any other debate) is fear. Fear can be rational if based on reality (oh, how we could go on and on discussing what reality IS and what is suitable to fear). If you can find agreement on what should and should not be feared then you have really achieved something in debate. In watching politics the past few years I have noticed that the most common and relevant tactic is two –pronged:
1. Make what the opponents fear seem small and unimportant.
2.Magnify their fear, thereby making it seem the most relevant issue
It is not much different in debating philosophy though if you’re with someone you trust, you may be able to find some intellectual rapport.
So, in summation, I think emotion is throughout the thought process, the key is finding the points at which it emerges most clearly. It takes detective work in order to do it since I think it is much more fluid and dynamic than static. Earlier in the thread Norton said, “Emotion is the lubrication of thought”. I think that is quite fitting. The next dilemma is to find out whether that emotion is based on reality, if you can settle on the definition of reality. If you can do that, then you can assign logical value to the emotion and the dispute is arbitrated.
2. 'If you can't quantify it, it doesn't matter.'
I think what your friend is attempting to say is only that which is provable needs our attention. I notice this attitude in no few Te dominant or auxiliary MBTI. Well, this seems to be at odds with the endeavor of philosophy (another loaded word). To use the
known for a springboard into the
unknown is vital. This is how information, science progresses and evolves. If we stuck with what we knew then we’d be happy with the wheel. It reminds me of an oft-quoted aphorism of Henry Ford: “If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said a faster horse.”
Also, our tools evolve as well. Morgain wrote that certain phenomenon may one day be quantifiable. Morgain used brain-activity as an example. I would like to use germs. Before the advent of the microscope germs were thought of as science fiction in many circles- even in medical circuits. Now we realize how closely tied together human and animal sickness is with germ activity. In some ways it was a myth before since we did not have
any way of quantifying it as true. If our tools are correct and it seems they are, then what we need to do is alter our methods, our tools, not necessarily shut out something because it is not able to be proven.
It is a challenge for us all. I am an agnostic-atheist, but many of my close friends are believers. We debate occasionally and I enjoy it. But I have to be careful not to insist that the only valid premises in our discussion are ones that can be ratified by evidential fact.
Your friend does have a point though- we can go too far in possibilities. Some may want to debate something
when all available evidence flies in the face of it. That is much different than arguing whether something is probable or not. An idea is
implausible when all available evidence contradicts its premises. And while I enjoy exploring the
unknown, the
implausible is a waste of my time.
