are emotions just tools to spur man into action?

examples:
Anger - destruction of competitors, extra effort, etc
Love - protection of progeny and allies, reproduction

or inaction.

I'm going to have to go and ponder this one for a while as it is so complex. Immediately brings to mind the scenario of someone being confronted by massive fear. Instinct dictates fight or flight but some people freeze. People don't respond in a predictable way to each emotion.

Maybe emotion is to spur us to thought not to action.

i agree with soulfull.....thought perhaps, actions i do not quite know.....however, at the same time, actions do call for emotions.....like a person being sick causes their being upset, while it cause another to have sympathy......so maybe it does spring both ways, i mean, if you have an emotion, then something about you very well might change, hence is an action.....

To true. Is a change in perception considered an action?

Emotions must simply be instincts for survival. Why else would we have them? Anger to crush the weaker, love to make sure we stay with our partners and rear our young etc...

technically, i don't think so... since thought and act are generally seperated despite the fact that neurons firing could be thought of as an act...

Why do we think at all? So we can act better, of course. I see emotions basically as complex shock therapy. When we feel sad, we are less motivated to do that thing which made us feel sad again and vice versa with happiness.

I think psychologist have run the gambit of theories that emotions cause action, actions cause emotion, or neither.

Yeah, Errant, that's what I thought but some can be pedantic.

And, whoa Black_Thrym, even though some emotions have instinctual reactions I believe our emotions are far to complex to categorise into such basic motivations. Even the examples you gave would not have the same response in all people. Some do go back for more pain. Why would the question even have been posed if the answer were so basic? Why do we paint, dance, sing? All seem motivated by emotion but have no instinctual benefit.

So the conclusion is? They don't know. Do you think maybe it's because they study what is only in their little boxes and not the dynamics of the bigger picture? Maybe there are other influences they are not taking into account?

Some psycholgist do study whole, patterns, dynamics, cultures etc etc. It's a broad field. They find that overt actions are associated with reported emotion in a complex and context-embedded manner -- pretty much as you'd expect. Sometime emotions help, sometimes they screw you up -- like phobias.

Painting, dancing, singing...What, do you assume they are motivated by the same emotion in all people? Some do it to impress people, some do it to stimulate themselves, some do it for cash...It all benefits you somehow, right? Anyways, it may be more difficult to be so general nowadays, but originally I'm sure our emotions had a much more basic purpose. Our priorities our very different now that we no longer spend every minute trying to survive...

If Emotions are only tools, it wouldn't make a difference to me, because that's how i use them... Actually, not so much tools as drugs. I get high on my rage, my spite, i evoke memories of happy times to feel good again and again...

Cool, Veinglory, I knew there had to be some reasoning out there.

Black_Thrym, I was speaking in more emotional terms, the need for self expression through the arts. I would also assume emotions were initially developed in accordance with instinct, but something has changed. My thoughts were, why?

Guy babe, didn't know you were so passionate.

i am?





fucking sweet.

Why? Because we aren't stuck in the 'circle of life' that other species are. We can have a purpose to life other than 'live' and we can comprehend it.

in my personal opnion, i believe there should be another characteristic of philosophy other than mind and body, that being emotions.....they too have there own seperate "essence" when one thinks about it....um, i remeber reading a book called the The Moral Animal for a course in desire i was taking; anyway, it was suggesting that emotions were a basic drive behind many actions...yet, only primary emotions.....for example, as humans we can diferentiate between instinct and thought....both have similar objectives (a means to an end) yet thought requires more....so goes for emotions....for example, certain species do not feel desire to eat, rather they just do; however, that certain animal may have fear....or, is this too instinctual? anyway, emotions are far too complex, more so for a human (since our emotions are like our mind, far too advanced for other animals).....so, it almost comes into questioning.....are the mind and emotions connected?

see: limbic system, prefrontal cortex injuries, Phineas Gage...

Like most scientists I am a materialist-- mind, behaviour and experience, no mind, soul etc.

Also a bit of a functionalist -- tend to see everyhting as having a purpose and therefore able to be called a 'tool'. Of course a few things don't have much purpose, like the human chin.

you might want to reword that a bit...