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 . . .

sixx if you dont mind ill just boil it down to the simplest

obects (physical and conceptual) and interaction

emotions are conditioned responses to stimuli(s), from an evolutionary aspect they are a competive advantage if they were not they would not be around.

Sixx I dont buy the desire idea, how can I desire a beer until I have had one and developed a feeling about it (all social conditioning aside)? Is desire not the result of emotions? My thought is that emotions are invoulentary and have been with living things since the primordial goe that became life. Those organisms that had emotions responded more quickly to a situation and survivied and on and on ect

No, you're not think abstractly enough. That's not what the philosophy of desire pertains to. You have to think about its evolution. Take me for example:

I desire Siberian Stout (a nice, thick, creamy dark beer from Russia). Why? Well, because I desire a good beer. Why? Because I desire to quench my thirst and/or quench my "desire" (for lack of a better word) to have a nice beer. Why? Because I don't like crap beer . . .

Why?

Because my taste in beer became more refined and experienced and blah, blah, blah. But the real point is . . .

"How can you 'desire' a beer without having one and developed a feeling about it?"

Think back to the first time you had a beer. Why did you drink it? Was it a desire to quench your thirst? Probably not. Was it a desire to quench your desire for a beer? Perhaps. Did you desire to try this beer because of peer pressure, or curiousity, or because of some manner left known to you?

For whatever reason, you're desire for a beer now is because you desire a beer! At some point in time, it's also a desire to quench your thirst. But that first beer, it was a desire brought forth by some other reason. Desire is the root of all action. Why you desire THIS or THAT is because of your knowledge of THIS or THAT...but remember, at one point in time you were ignorant of THIS or THAT. So, at some point in time you desired to be knowledgable of THIS or THAT.

I strongly recomend that book I suggested. And, the philosopher I studied with wrote a book concerning desire. William Irvine Philosophy of Desire.

But, for what reason do you argue that emotions are as old as life itself? This isn't true. There are more species on Earth without any emotional context whatsoever (yet, the ability to desire can still be present) than there are with emotional contexts.

I have been thinking about this question . . .
Maybe . . . it's that humans always question everything . Never satisfied with a simple answer . Always looking for something more . . . does that make any sense at all !?

Sixx your example includes pre convcieved knowledge, Before I ever had a beer I had some preconcieved notion of what a beer is what to expect from drinking it, as such my desire to try it came from those preconceptions. Your argument here I think would be it was your desire to know what it is so even knowing nothing about it I still might try it to fulfill my curosity, so what about trial and error? not all species have the abailty to cognitivly understand curioisty they are simply programed to explore the world through trial and error, this too could be argued as being desire but its based on a reward system, I new baby is born it is programed to desire breast milk (through evolution) what if it wasnt programmed the baby would be hungry but it wouldnt understand hunger it wouldnt desire breast milk because it has no knowledge of breast milk at this point fear is born, the mother puts her breast in the babies mouth it gets breast milk its nolonger hungry and now when it gets hungry it both understands the problem and the solution thously desire is born. Now you will say the baby is afraid because it seeks the contentment it knew in the womb thusly is desires that contentment I would say isnt contement an emotion?

Emotions are instinctual respnses to stimuli and have been there since virtually the begining of life we just understand them and name them but there shared in some fashion with the lowest life forms (I dont think they need to be understood to be felt)

An my attitude wasn't "smarter than you" this is just the way I write.
I try to write things clearly.
And I don't know turak, I just agreed with a post of his.
Hope you'll see that time that I'm not his "affiliate" or whatever.

I just made this categories to serve a purpose in the future discusions. I just wanted to split the world in this way. I included to the human his material body. I understand what you mean about physical/metaphysical relation.
The physcal aspect of thinking is the electric and chemical impulse of the neurons. And the phisycal thing behind the feelings are the chemical transmitters.

When I meaned "laws of physics" I meaned all the rules of the material world. So I included laws of gravitaon, shadow etc.
Yeah gravity is the results of objects with mass.
But they are just the cause of that rule. The rule could sound like an object with mass attracts other objects with a force equals to blablabla.

And you wrote a lot about why is the human different than animal.
I don't wrote on my post about this issue.
I don't know why you try to fiind out a major difference to divide humans of animals. Maybe it isn't.
Maybe the human is very similar to an animal.
And about this subject I don't have anything to say about it.

And emotions versus will. Maybe it isn't enough to just contemplate it, maybe to understand it better you should also try it.
And I didn't mean just emotions versus will. I meaned all your mind versus will. All your mind says to do, all your mind says that is god to do, all your mind says that you should do. You won't do it, and you will do exactly the opossite.

And by the way is good that this thread started doing something.
You want something more specific and less teaching I will try to do this in the next post.

!

does a cheetas abaility to run really fast seperate them? An abailty birthed through evolution over time does not an anyway separte us from the animal kingdom, the traits presented in other species have the same orgin. To be diffrent we must have been created outside of these rules, we were not and as such we are no more no less animal. We are diffrent just as a whale is diffrent from a hippo.

agreed

You make a good point there !
I'm just starting to read up again on philosophy , my brain has been unused for a couple of years .
I'm a sales assistant . . . not a lot of brain usage needed !