Dear, dear, Depressif...

First and foremost, as Wicked stated, your "smarter than thou" attitude is not wanted nor needed. We already get enough of that from this Turak jack-off. And on that note, I am leary of you and have it in my mind that you are in some way affiliated with Turak . . . so, we'll see.

But let us assume for just one second that you're just some youngling who is actually trying to delve into a philosophical discussion.

As I said earlier, it's best that you just pick an idea and run with it, rather than trying to play teacher . . . for it is much easier for those of us who DO KNOW how to rationalize philosophically (namely, everybody but Turak) to aid in said discussion.

Yes, very good. It's wrong, but you're on the right path.

In philosophy, we don't label these two realms into a category of "material" and "human." They are divided into a real of "physical," and "metaphysical." You had a vague notion of this, but there are errors.

First: 2. and rules of interaction betwen matter - the laws of physcics
(Exemple the law of gravity, of movement, of electricty, etc, and all the laws of physics) . . . physical anomalies aren't always THEMSELVES physical. Like gravity and motion. Gravity is the result of other physical objects. It's epiphenomenal (note: epiphenomenalism is a philosophy pertaining to the mind). Epiphenomenal entites are things like: a shadow. A shadow only exists because of an object and a light source. It's the only way one can achieve a shadow. And it's not really physical either. Yes, you can "sense" it (much like you can sense gravity) . . . but you can't really lump it into the physical category. A shadow exists, but for what purpose?

Now, onto the second half of your . . . um, thing. Most of what you labeled isn't really needed. Thoughts and the like are lumped into the metaphysical realm. Furthermore, when lumped with "actions" and "feelings" and some other tid-bits of human life (such as language, rational thought, etc.), there arises what is known as "sentience." Sentience is just a fancy way of saying "self-aware." We know, through philosophical reasoning and scientific mumbo-jumbo, that humans, as well as a number of other species (specifically dolphins, elephants, certain orangutans) are all sentient creatures. And how is it that us humans still consider ourselves outside the animal kingdom and them within it?

Is it language? Well, dolphins have a very intricate language system. Elephants have a basic one. Is it emotions? Well, elephants are extremely emotional creatures (probably more so than humans) and experience the extreme cases of it: hate, love, sadness, anger, and can even suffer from post-traumatic stress (a symptom often affiliated with soildiers returning from a war). And, coincidently, dolphins and orangutans have been known to have sex for fun . . . and there's evidence to support that all three species have the ability to fall in love!

So why are we humans so evolved and worthy of being outside of the animal kingdom?! Is it our intelligence? Our technological advances? Our ability (or lack thereof [considering certain people here]) to possess abstract thought?
Who knows . . .



Now, onto the beef of your dicussion.

First and foremost, I found it quite interesting that you tried to take it upon yourself to catergorize emotions. Emotional philosophy is still relatively new (if even existent at all [the only things to come to mind is The Philosophy of Hate {whom the author is, I can't recall} and the idea of negative/positive inforcement via emotional opposition {obviously not the title}: such as, I'm sad, you feel sympathetic, I turn feel loved, you feel better about yourself, etc. etc. etc.]) . . . But there are no categories and for the most part such categories probably won't be needed.


As for the "emotions to actions for survival in this world" section . . . I highly suggest Robert Wright's The Moral Animal which helps cover some of the theories in the philosophy of desire. After all, it is desire which compells us to act, not the emotional state. Despite whether we are angry, upset, happy, apathetic, or whatever, it is desire to be or to not to be within said state that compells us to act. Further more, evidence suggests that desire is what actually enstilled emotional states in the first place. Such as: fear via a desire to survive by man avoiding that big toothed creature which man witnessed devouring another man!


Overall, what philosophy there is concerning emotion seems to be more in league with the philosophy of the mind. For those of us who still follow a physical/metaphysical aspect concerning the mind (for example: substantial dualism), then perhaps emotions are the pathway between the two? Who knows . . .

And last but not least . . . emotions versus will. Interesting. I'll contemplate it.


So yeah . . .