DeadNotSleeping said:
Michael-5 said:
DeadNotSleeping said:
|
No one is wrong for disagreeing with me. I am not the measuring stick for correctness. If someone is wrong, they are wrong for what they have concluded. In other words, if you are wrong, you are not wrong for disagreeing with me. You would be wrong simply because you have invested yourself in an incorrect position.
And I do have fears. Fear is a rational emotion that serves a distinct and advantageous purpose for survival. I can deactivate those fears whenever I find it prudent to do so, however, their current parameters are most beneficial. Should I turn off my ability to experience fear entirely, once again I may lose perspective on my limitations and the consequences of my actions. Imagine if you had the ability to deactivate your pain response. Surely it would make some moments a lot more comfortable, but at the cost of awareness to injury. Fear too has its purpose, I have learned.
Perhaps you truly are incapable of mastering your emotions. Maybe my mind is special, a brain able to do more than what some people have the potential of accomplishing. But until I see evidence that my mind is able to complete what other healthy minds are unable to perform, I will not accept that others are arbitrarily limited. If I am wrong, it is because my faith in you is misplaced, not because emotions are beyond human ability to master.
|
If you can "deactivate those fears" at will, those aren't true fears, those are just situations you find uncomfortable.
You do sound like you have an ego, your mind isn't special, I just think what you think is fear, isn't. Fear isn't an emotional response you can control, imagine being married for 30 years and you find out your wife was cheating on you the whole time and she leaves you. You can't just turn off your emotions here and go "no biggie."
Also stop with the ego. How come I can be wrong, but you can't? Why can't you accept it as a possibility that fear is hard-wired into our brains? As a basic premordal no different then hunger. I could be wrong too, but I feel like this discussion was over from the begining because you decided what the truth was before our debate and are completly unwilling to accept that your view is just an opinion, and others disagree.
|
They aren't true fears? Perhaps you can explain the difference between fears and true fears for me, and while you are at it, what is a true Scotsman?
Fear is an emotional response that I can control. Your inability or unwillingness to do is your own limitation; your limitations do not outline the limitations of others. I can also control my other emotions and switch off my response to physical pain. You might not be able to say "Amor Fati." and carry on, but that does not mean that I cannot or that others cannot either. What I do know is that my capacity is not unique. Even you say that my mind is not special--so what I do is within the ability of other people. You may be an exception, perhaps through no fault of your own, perhaps as a result of your choices.
The reason you can be wrong but I cannot is because it is unlikely that my mind is special. What I do is within the means for other people unless there is something about me and me alone that allows this. So I can safely say that emotions are a choice because there are plenty of people where that is so, myself among them. However, to say that humans are incapable of achieving such mastery is simply incorrect. The middle ground is that some people have the potential for self-mastery in this area, and some people--in spite of a healthy and fully developed mind--cannot attain this degree of mastery no matter what they do.
But I have yet to see evidence to explain why some would be unable. Genetics? Neuroanatomy? Psychological development? Without something concrete, some sort of measurable or detectable deficiency, it is safer to believe that you are able than to assume that you are unable. If you are able and unsuccessful, given that this is merely an exertion of free will, I am confident that you are on some level unwilling. Your unwillingness to accept that possibility indeed fits the appropriate pattern for that to be so.
|
You have an ego, I can be wrong, but you can't.... you can shut off your emotions, but what you don't understand is fear isn't something you can control. I'm sure a lot of araknaphobes want to be able to stand spiders, but they just can't. Phobia's are listed in the DSM IV, and it's just a part of the human phyche.
What you're saying to me sounds like telling crazy people to turn off their crazy. You can't, it's something you're born with, and in most cases need to treat with medication. I know people who are afraid of various normal things, have to take medications to calm their nerves. It's not something you develop, like I said I remember being afraid of heights forever, and at this point talking to you makes me feel like you don't understand.
Your whole arguement, to less of an extreme, is a sane person telling a schizo person to turn off their crazy. You can do it because you aren't really bonkers, but the schizo just can't do that. Obviously I'm not crazy, but clearly what you think is being afraid isn't real fear, it's just a situation you feel uncomfortable in.
Anyway, if you're arguing that I can be wrong, but you can't, and maybe you have a "special mind" all I see is a humungo ego who never wanted to debate or discuss with me, but to tell me their opinion as fact.....so..../end discussion.
|
Which is more arrogant, to acknowledge what you have done or to declare something impossible for somebody else to achieve just because you cannot do it?
It is like you are insisting that an archer simply cannot hit a certain target, when he's put five arrows into it already.
But you are right about one thing: I never wanted to debate about this. For the same reason I do not want to discuss whether fire is hot or if rocks are hard. Some things simply...are. /end discussion.
|
It doesn't matter if I can overcome my fears or not, you're declaring your opinion as fact, and that you can't be wrong, but I can be and likely am. That's poor debating, that's not even debating, you're just stating that what you define as fear is absolute, irrelevent of what others believe.
You analogy of an archer is flawed, having a phobia, or being afraid of something, isn't a physical aspect. It's not something everyone can just do. It's a hard-wiring of the brain, a way you're born to think.
A better analogy is taking two people, one good at math, one bad at it. You can't tell the person bad at math to just "do it" they were born less capable to add numbers (this is why people have different IQ's). If you ever took any psychology courses, you'd know that most characteristics have pro's and cons, and that's how they survived evolution by natural selection. So someone bad at math, might be quicker at making decisions, and being uncontrollably afraid of heights, the darkness, or whatever probaby correlated to higher survival rates in pre-historic times. Maybe you have the trait of being fearless (or good at math), but that's uncommon. You're no more special then a person with orange hair for having this characteristic.
I'd have to look around for an article, but I believe that the fear of darkness before the age of 6 is widely believed to be hard-wired into our brains, among other fears. It's not something children learn, it's not a projection of the known onto the unknown. The vast majority of children don't fear the dark because of a bad experience. They are afraid of darkness because in pre-historic times that's when it was most dangerous, and this mentality have been filtered by natural selection for so long, that pretty much everyone is born with this premordial complex.
But according to you, math should be easy for everyone, and fear is completely controllable for everyone, and schizophrenia is a state of mind, which anyone can overcome.....It's not different from water being wet, fear is a physical attribute. 
