Life Without Emotions

Life will continue, the only point in life is to die in the end, but on the way you reproduce more of your own species

 

Like VideoGameNerd246 said, life without emotions would be boring, and there would be hardly a point to life. Emotions are an enormous part in our lives, and even though you can imagine life without it, you surely don't want to experience that firsthand.

 

If we had no emotions, we wouldn't care if it was boring.

 

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but I will continue to do so.

You wouldn't be able to tell us how bad life would be without emotions if you never experienced it to begin with. No human being would be sad, bored, feel like their life is pointless if:

a) They don't know what they're missing
b) Don't have the ability to be sad, bored, or feel like their life is pointless.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that after I've reiterated myself at least two other times before this.

 

a. Okay well you definitely have a point here. Without emotions the person would not know what they were missing. However, they would also possibly be on a level of reactions that are less than that of an insect. They'd be closer to the level of reasoning of an amoeba since well, they'd have nothing to stir their minds or motivate them to do anything at all other than eat and divide.

b. They won't feel life is pointless or really much of anything since emotions also tie into physical aspects of pain or pleasure, as well as emotional reactions to being upset, sad, angry, happy etc. Emotions correlate to the physical reactions from actions as well as the emotional. A being with no emotions would, as you said, not get bored or feel life is meaningless. They'd feel nothing at all.

So when people continuously say that they probably couldn't exist that way, I have to agree with them because scientifically I can't even resolve how it would be possible. How can someone live without anything to react to because the wiring just is disconnected or not functioning? Something would happen and since there is no way to react a cut on someone could cause the person to bleed to death. The only reason the Nobodies in KH could react was by memories of emotions and instinctive reactions. Otherwise it was clear they should not exist and would not. Without emotions something may exist but it is not going to be taking care of itself. It would be a vegetable like someone in a coma or just sitting there, kind of like how Kairi acted in KH1. Emotions are found in anything with the simple drive to live. How deep those emotions go, the complexities of choices and the levels to which expression is delivered increases with the intelligence or sentience level of a being.

If you feel someone could exist like that, I'd be interested in hearing your theory on how that person would get around and function in life at all.

 

i think we would basically be zombies. we would move around like robots, and we wouldnt be able to enjoy anything. also, i dont think agreements, would be made during war. we would just fight because we have to. also, people would be able to refuse to be called up. i think itwould suck. plus.... no intelligent discussion on this forum.

 

I don't their would be any big wars since you would only care about your own area, but its not like we can test it.

 

It's not all that difficult: you get up in the morning, eat your food, go to work, come home, sleep. Repeat. Sure, it's not the life people like us (who are aware of emotions) would like to live, but it's still 'living'--rather peacefully might I add.

You're placing specific expectations or criteria in what is considered living, which is a mistake. Living is an inevitable human action, regardless of quality or experience.

 

Why would you do this? What would inspire a person to go to work? What would motivate a person to do anything of this sort of thing? Why would a person eat? To survive? Why bother? Even some animals have committed 'suicide' simply by loss of something such as a parent dying. This is what I am asking? Where do you think that someone with no emotions to react to anything that happens would do anything at all other than just sit there like a vegetable? Why would a person go to work? Who made 'work' and did they have emotions? What purpose would someone have to bother getting up and living a life in someone else's world with no reactions to it. It's not going to accomplish anything for someone that is unaffected by it.

 

Because that's what what we'd be programmed to do.

Because we'd need money to survive.

Because it's the purpose given to us since before birth.

Physiological need.

Human instinct.

Human instinct.

In a stable society, no one would die for another. Actually, life itself probably wouldn't be valued. No one would grieve if someone else died.

Err.. repeat. Need money. Survive.

In Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World, the the head administrator of all civilization is aware of emotions and basically the world we live in today, however they chose to end it and wipe out all knowledge of such a civilization to create a stable one. So yes, probably there needs to be at least one person with a free-will to implement this system.

Not true. Emotions for the most part, give us our ability to invoke free will. Consequently, free-will would have to be taken away too.

Therefore, we work not because we want to, but because we were programmed to, and because we don't know any better. We can't have a free-will if we have no knowledge of other options. Thus we work without any idea of 'why'.

A lot of your questions were self-explanatory, and could be answered instantly if you thought about it a little more. Eating is a physiological need, we don't need to have emotions or free-will to do that. Survival is a human instinct, it is in all animals.

 

Most animals have no emotions, and they are merely driven by their need to survive.

EDIT: Soushirei-kun beat me to the punch and in a much beter way.XD

 

I still see no proof whatsoever to the claim that animals have no emotions. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support that many do have emotions. As said formerly, many experience pleasure or pain sensory and react according to it. This is held true for many types of animals found in zoos. Some even mourn their dead. Others you can do certain things to and they like it clearly or loathe the action. However, I see we will go round in circles so no reason to continue the debate.

Also, you proved my point that 'someone' somewhere would have to be masterminding a group of emotionless people to do things because otherwise they'd have no reason to be doing it at all in the first place. So in the end, without something to motivate a being with no emotions, they just would possibly do only the bare minimum to survive on an instinctive level, which would be lower in intelligence and reaction than simians. We would not be productive but on an equivalent scale of mental aptitude of a zombie. That is in the end the issue. There would be nothing of importance because there is no willpower to do anything other than what is 'programmed'. So now that this is established, why is it that some people feel this would be a better thing and that just because it is not 'understood' would it be possibly better? Sure, there would be no war unless those with emotions and willpower drive for it and send the 'zombies' after others but what's the point in living with nothing at all to react to?

 

I'm stunned. Why do you insist on bringing in factors that have nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make?

I never said this system would promote human intelligence. I never said it would be productive. I never said it would increase human aptitude. My goodness, you're mixing your life's philosophy with the factual truth that comes from producing a society like this one.

I already said once before that above all else, I do prefer a life that has emotions and free-will, but like I've been trying to say this entire time, repeatedly, might I add, this hypothetical society would basically be what it takes to create a peaceful world.

You may not like it, may detest it, hate it, reject it, but the *factual* truth is that this is the ideal kind of society that will end all conflicts. It's not the greatest, but in theory it would work.

I never said this kind of society is what we should be doing, and I never said this is the society that we should all turn to. All I'm saying is that if humanity wanted to create perpetual peace amongst its own people, quell wars and conflicts forever, this is basically the most ideal path they would have to take. As long as we have free-will, emotions and the like, we'll always be in a world of chaos--that is, war, conflict, sadness, disagreements, hate, etc.

You as well, are making the mistake of defining 'living' and 'existing' with sentimentalities that are in itself, nothing more than human fallacies that we place on ourselves, to give ourselves worth. It's the same principle that makes us cover up our genitals in public. In reality, it's just flesh that covers our body, but our morals and values fabricate this 'sensitivity' around it and make it consequently 'inappropriate' to show to other strangers.

The same thing applies to this.

 

My life philosophy...heh. First off, I am an archeology/anthropology major and have been approaching this whole discussion with science. I have not seen real proof to back up your claims or statements but you refute mine that do in fact have validations and study. Please do not insult. Next will be name calling, which I would assume we could go ahead and not do.

Next, I never critiqued your opinion as to whether you preferred life without emotions or not. Some people have stated that they would prefer such an existence. I did not say anything against you personally or attempt to dis your opinion truly. If I came off in such a way, my apologies. This is a philosophical question and sometimes people's words come off harsher in text translation than they would were I saying them to you face to face.

Also, in the same note, I never once said I detest it, hate it, reject it, etc. Please do not give an 'emotional' accusation where none is prevalent. I said that the only way to maintain this 'zombie' like festivity with humans doing what someone wants them to is to have controllers that are in fact capable of cognitive free will and emotional reactions in order to keep the facade up because otherwise there would be no way to deal with the masses or enforce such things as 'doing work' etc. You agreed with that, did you not? Will it stop war? Sure, as long as the people on the top doing the controlling care to not fight with their neighbors. Of course this also gives that being the right to commit mass genocide whenever he/she wants to clear out people. It's not like anyone would have the will to stop it.

So, my question is this. What happens when there is no controlling factor with society? What happens when no one has a willpower or motivation to do anything? If we want to say, even if I disagree with it, that people have basic instincts still of the will to eat and move about at all, what happens to the people and how could that be more ideal?

 

Science? The last few rebuttals you posted about my posts hardly contained science. I recall poetic sentimentalities about why living is meaningless without emotions or having reason to what we do. Hardly scientific; philosophical at best.

And for the record, the only scientific statements I've seen you write in this entire thread was about animals other than humans having emotions--which I had never refuted to begin with. The only thing I recall us debating about was about whether or not life is meaningless without emotion--which I repeatedly answered with 'we wouldn't know what we're missing'. This is hardly something that requires science to understand.

It's only natural for me to think you're critiquing my opinion when you reply with said posts after quoting mine. If you want to try to take a step back from that insinuation, that's your call.

I agree, a being with 'cognitive free will' would be the one controlling this society. Wars wouldn't break out if the entire world was controlled by the same individual. And also true, he/she would have the ability to commit genocide and no one could avoid it. At the same time, the absence of human ethic wouldn't stir anyone's mind about such an event--if there were any individuals left from said genocide to begin with.

Quite simply, the model I had been proposing this entire time, wouldn't be possible. You can't create any kind of society without a facilitator.

Without someone to facilitate a society, this hypothetical wouldn't work. However, ignoring society as a whole, if we consider a single individual who is immersed in this kind of life from birth till death, it's a very likely possibility that they'll live their life without conflict, fear, sadness, regret, etc. Likewise, they won't experience love, joy, excitement--but their life will be stable, and theoretically, so will all individuals within this civilization.

What I proposed here ignores morality, today's current position on human ethic, and possibly the entire constitution of what the UN stands for.

 

man, these posts are getting long...
ON TOPIC: you guys have interesting view, but i still go against it.

 

Repliku and Soushirei are sure making this intresting, but don't you two start fighting, alright?

 

yeah. because anger is an emotion.

 

I would hope we would not start 'fighting'. =:) I respect his/her views and thought it an interesting debate. This really was a great question to ponder over and I've had fun thinking it through and hearing other people's opinions too. This wouldn't be an 'intelligent discussion' section if we started duking it out.

 

Ok I'll add a question, if we had no emotion what would we do in our own time?