4 ms·
A lot of what you said is correct, assuming that 1) all humans have the same goals and 2) all humans are sociopaths. If different humans have different goals,
by dawnbreez 11y ago
A lot of what you said is correct, assuming that 1) all humans have the same goals and 2) all humans are sociopaths.
If different humans have different goals, then your argument falls apart; if one of my goals is "do not rape", then I will feel disgust at the idea of raping someone.
And if not all humans are sociopaths, then your claim that sadness serves no purpose falls apart, as sadness enables us to signal to others that something is wrong, and humans whose goals include "help others" will see a chance to accomplish that goal.
- sridca 11y agoEmotions arise well before any cognitive notions of "goal" or "concience", and it seems you have overlooked this key point. To help others is a considered act, not an emotion. The emotion of sadness can only hamper such helping ... and Miss. Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu is an extreme example of that.
- dawnbreez 11y agoYou have a fair point on emotions coming before goals. However, your definition of sadness seems to hinge on sadness in a void. You assume that the only thing that can act on that sadness is the person who is sad; and you assume that the only reaction to sadness is inaction. I have said it before, but let me be clear: Sadness is a social emotion. It drives you to do things that signal to others that something is wrong--crying, for instance. Assuming you've spent any time around a decent human being, you'll notice that sadness is met with efforts to create comfort, to fix the problem. This leads to a better existence for everyone involved, which is probably why we value the idea of helping each other so much.