Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (64450)	10/28/2002 1:25:26 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I think you behave fairly normally, that you delude yourself into thinking that you are above it all. If anything, you strike me as being too touchy......Anyway, absent a clear view of the context, it is not always possible to state what would be appropriate, of course. But emotions are not arbitrary, and people overestimate their self- control most of the time. As for appropriateness, if we did not feel fear when in danger, we would have died out as a species. If we were not angry when injured, we would not get up the adrenaline to defend ourselves. If we were not grateful when provided a boon, we would not develop social reciprocity. And so on......

To: The Philosopher who wrote (64450)	10/28/2002 4:27:29 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Stoicism is all about learning to control emotions to the point that emotions no longer trouble one. Buddhism is about getting past the traps of the apparently physical world, including the trap of emotionalism. I think in Neo's cosmology the emotion thing works, but it wouldn't work for everyone, and emotions are only "appropriate" if you define them that way. "Appropriate" is a very human construct, that varies from social group to social group, based on culture.