I suspect the original person may be one of the many who are unfortunate enough to have the "wrong" emotions that hinder their daily life.
They are not an unalloyed good - while happiness is (tautologously) what makes us happy, uncontrolled anger and despair can destroy lives, and not just those of the person who feels them.
There is no such thing as a 'wrong' or a 'right' emotion. Emotions simply exist. They are by their nature and definition involuntary. It is our behaviours in response to those emotions that can both build and destroy lives. We cannot control our emotions (supressing them is dodgy - western philosophy, esp. Descartes has a bloody lot to answer for) but we can control our behaviour. It is vital to recognise the difference.
And to pass judgement as to the 'state' of the original person is patronising and possibly hurtful.
We cannot control our emotions (supressing them is dodgy - western philosophy, esp. Descartes has a bloody lot to answer for) but we can control our behaviour.
I disagree about 'cannot' but since I have not managed to do so I cannot comment on the outcome of doing so.
We can indeed control our behaviour, and we *should* control our behaviour. A lot of people seem to have forgotten this, and go arround acting like their emotional response to Thing X should be the driving force that decides whether Thing X is good or bad rather than a rational investigation of the benefits or otherwise of Thing X.
"Uncontrolled" almost anything can destroy, not only emotions, in the way that "too much" of everything is bad, for me that's just a language thing you're saying, not a subject thing.
I hope you don't mind me stating the following, if you don't like talking about emotions? Hopefully that's not so strong an objection, when considering emotions as a class. I'll try to explain my reasoning (which is really post-hoc rationalisation of how I'm reading this), so that you can refute it. I present them because presence connotes the corresponding absences, which are therefore lightly suggested.
The impression I get from the above is that you think that emotions are difficult to control, particularly negative ones.
I think this because I assume that you mean something non-tatuologous by saying "uncontrolled" can destroy, and the best meaning I could come up with was an implicit connotation of "the following have the feature of". Like when people say "I hate dismal accountants" to mean "accountants, who are dismal", not "those accountants who are dismal", as nobody likes dismal anythings.
I get the impression that you believe that emotions are principally the property and responsibility of the person experiencing them.
I think this because of the way you use "feels" in that last paragraph, which has very much an "owns" structure for me. (Try substituting "feels" for "owns"). This is because you say "just", which distinguishes the person feeling them from others, and also suggests that the feeling person may be closer, in an ownership or control sense, to those emotions as, assuming a vaguely liberal framework, we are more permitted to do much more which might otherwise be seen as destructive to us and our own.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ewx
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 02:35 pm (UTC)They are not an unalloyed good - while happiness is (tautologously) what makes us happy, uncontrolled anger and despair can destroy lives, and not just those of the person who feels them.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 03:42 pm (UTC)And to pass judgement as to the 'state' of the original person is patronising and possibly hurtful.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 03:50 pm (UTC)I disagree about 'cannot' but since I have not managed to do so I cannot comment on the outcome of doing so.
We can indeed control our behaviour, and we *should* control our behaviour. A lot of people seem to have forgotten this, and go arround acting like their emotional response to Thing X should be the driving force that decides whether Thing X is good or bad rather than a rational investigation of the benefits or otherwise of Thing X.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 10:14 pm (UTC)I hope you don't mind me stating the following, if you don't like talking about emotions? Hopefully that's not so strong an objection, when considering emotions as a class. I'll try to explain my reasoning (which is really post-hoc rationalisation of how I'm reading this), so that you can refute it. I present them because presence connotes the corresponding absences, which are therefore lightly suggested.
The impression I get from the above is that you think that emotions are difficult to control, particularly negative ones.
I think this because I assume that you mean something non-tatuologous by saying "uncontrolled" can destroy, and the best meaning I could come up with was an implicit connotation of "the following have the feature of". Like when people say "I hate dismal accountants" to mean "accountants, who are dismal", not "those accountants who are dismal", as nobody likes dismal anythings.
I get the impression that you believe that emotions are principally the property and responsibility of the person experiencing them.
I think this because of the way you use "feels" in that last paragraph, which has very much an "owns" structure for me. (Try substituting "feels" for "owns"). This is because you say "just", which distinguishes the person feeling them from others, and also suggests that the feeling person may be closer, in an ownership or control sense, to those emotions as, assuming a vaguely liberal framework, we are more permitted to do much more which might otherwise be seen as destructive to us and our own.
There is other stuff, but I'm waffling.