POLL: Are all emotions valid?

Remove all ads!

Basically - do you believe that all emotions (including negative ones) are worth experiencing, or are there some which should be suppressed, are shameful, or are otherwise not valid emotions for people to experience?

Why/why not?

*sits back for a bit - because while I think I have an answer, it's not set in stone, so seeing some other's answers/points might be helpful*

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 36 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Are all emotions valid? (36 votes.)

Are all emotions valid? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 69% (25)
* No - 17% (6)
* Oook? - 14% (5)

 

How can an emotion not be valid? It might not be productive, it could be harmful, but I don't see how any emotion could be invalid. There are quite a few emotions that I would prefer not experience, but I still see them as valid.

 

I voted yes for pretty much the reason Brallrock gave. Emotions should be controlled or even sublimated but not repressed. Repressing an emotion can be more damaging than allowing oneself to experience it.

 

Yes of course they are valid. Experiencing (bad) emotions is what makes us human after all. We need them lest we're not humans. And IMO there is no such things as bad emotions.

 

all emotions are valid and importent to experience both to be human and to grow as a human. and both good and bad are importent.
to say it short, a world without sorrow is a world without joy

 

Unless your definition of "valid" differs significantly from mine, I believe what most other people said to be true - that all emotions are valid. In fact, I cannot conceive of a way that an emotion could not be valid. Going by the limited information you provided, if you are really asking: "Do you believe that all emotions (including negative ones) are worth experiencing," then I have to ask you for more information on what you mean. I think it is good that we experience emotions, and that all emotions should be experienced in one's life, but I wouldn't want to be experiencing strong emotions all the time.

 

Yes, all emotions are "valid." They shape people to be what they are. They are as "valid" as an arm or a leg, no matter how harmful they might be at times.

 

"Dealt with," would be the expression I'd use rather than "suppressed". Negative emotions are to be dealt with. It's good to vent, but it's not good to take it out on people or inanimate objects. Besides, they're a waste of energy, anyway.

 

Hmm, okay, maybe I should've given a bit more context.

I was reading a thread on another forum with a topic of 'Do you hate?'. The general consensus was that hate was a stupid emotion to feel and should be avoided, negated, or generally not felt if you can at all help it. So, I'd say that these people don't believe hate to be a valid emotion.

Maybe SP just has a totally different culture from there and agree that it's totally fine and maybe even useful to feel emotions like hate, or maybe I just didn't phrase the question very well.

Ofelix's and Equester's answers are very much what I'd expect from the 'yes' side, mind you. Chev's is more to the 'no' side. I'm not sure that the others answered what I was asking.

 

An emotion it something to be experienced, whether it be positive or negitive. Supressing an emotion would be destroying part of what makes us human.

(Oook? Been reading Diskworld have you?)

 

I'd be quite willing that certain emotions in certain unstable individuals are not something that should be validated regardless how much "a part of them" it is. The blinding paranoia of someone who is psychotic has a very good potential of being a very dangerous feeling of fear if validated (specifically since someone whose experiencing intense neurosis and psychosis aren't in a position to cope with their feels).

Emotions that produce wildly anti-utilitarian consequences I feel would be pretty hard to say are emotions that we should experience.

 

Balance between positive and negative is better than eliminating negative altogether. Both are necessary to function in society, as there times appropriate for all emotions we are capable of feeling. Its just a matter of not letting one side overwhelm the other, as being too positive or too negative are dangerous. Its just like the D&D alignment thingy...true neutral is probably the 'wisest' way to live...although Im definitely Chaotic Neutral...so I guess Im unwise??

 

if there were a way of training my mind to suppress all emotion, i think i would do it, imagine how much easier life would be

 

I do not believe all emotions are worth experiencing and therefore voted "no". It doesn't however mean they are invalid emotions, just ones that I'd rather not experience again.

 

Natajara: Why is balance important? You seem to believe strongly that it is, but I'd like to know your reasoning.

 

@Aikanaro (and others perhaps): It looks, on second thought, like I should have delved more deeply into the distinction between positive and negative emotions. I don't want to say with 100% certainty that some specific emotion is not worth experiencing because there can always come a positive experience from negative emotions and, who knows, experiencing let's say, hate, could perhaps make someone a better person after providing a shock.

Hate I would call a feeling rather than emotion, although I think I can grasp the concept. I've never really thought much about hate as a minute emotion, though I've given some time to anger as emotion and as a prolonged feeling. Anger as an emotion was valid, whereas continual anger, the desire to deny the other person happiness (or salvation or God's grace if speaking theologically - and my reflection was a theological one) was wrong.

Let's say you're angry with someone. Or you're frustrated by your government's policies. Those emotions may well be valid in the sense that they are natural, human, have legitimate causes and deserve being taken into account and dealt with by not only you alone (we're social beings, after all). However, the farther we move on the negative scale, leading to permanent feelings whereby you want to obliterate someone, kill him, maim him, bury him in a crate 10 metres under the ground or something like that - that's not valid. Aggression is not valid. Hate is not valid.

I think I pondered the problem when dealing with mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution methods at uni. Mediators were most typically lawyers or psychologists and there were some obvious differences between the two. We were told that emotions were taken into account in mediation, which was good, and it couldn't really go in a court of law, which made some people happier with mediated agreements and not happy with court verdicts. So, I thought, okay, it's a great thing, but a lawyer would never recognise aggression or something like that as a valid factor entitling someone to anything in mediation. For example, "X will stop chasing Y and calling him bad names or beating him, Y will donate $N to X," is not a valid agreement because aggression is not a legitimate interest and doesn't deserve to be treated the same as interests protected by the law. Therefore, promising to abstain from aggression is what one ought to do and it doesn't create any entitlement to compensation. As a result, while some psychologists-mediators might let go of an agreement deciding that X would discontinue some antisocial practices and Y would add some lucre, I would never agree to put hate or aggression on an equal footing with anything legitimate.

Of course, this doesn't mean that I never feel aggression. Or that I think it's always irrational and generally worse than anything that might have caused it. By far not. For example, provoking someone into aggressive behaviour on purpose is worse than the beating up the aggressor will offer, in my humble opinion. Similarly, verbal abuse does not always rank below physical. But we're talking about acting aggressively rather than aggression per se, so the legitimate motive here will be being offended or annoyed or, well, abused, and the consequent desire to interrupt it (IMHO perfectly legitimate, but one should mind the means used) or make it right (which is better left to courts or at least some superiors). The other consideration is that in such a case, the aggression should be blamed on the one who caused it rather than the one who experienced it, especially if it was done on purpose.

So, while "valid" and "negative" remain tricky words, I trust you get my opinion more clearly now. I realise I haven't given you a very clear explanation as to "why", but if you'd like to hear more, I'll think on it a bit more and try to assemble something sensible. As a rule, what's destructive is wrong and not valid and should be controlled, while what can be constructive in some cases should be used constructively instead of destructively. This rests on the principle that we're responsible for ourselves (self-destruction) and for other people (destruction) and the society (destructive, antisocial behaviours). Further, I stick to the moral category of good and that good is to be done and evil to be avoided.

 

Montresor: Why not? Why does, say, 'happiness' need to be compared to a negative counterpart in order for it to be felt? How is it not possible to just be happy without needing your happiness to be relative to something?

This seems to be one of those axioms that people like to use, but I'm not entirely convinced here. Why - if we waved our magical wands and got rid of negative emotions - would we not feel only positive ones?

Chev: Nice post - I'll keep it in mind when and if I get around to making a point

 

I voted oook. Even after reading all the comments and the clarification, I'm not sure I understand the question at all.

Emotions, to me, are just there, like body temperature and blood pressure - related to those two, now that I think about it.

It's what you choose to do with your emotions that becomes significant. I'm not a believer in expressing every emotion that flits across my inner landscape. I would have committed murder several times in my life if I were, and I assure you, I never have.

I suppose, if the question is, are all emotions to be nurtured within oneself, then no. The specific example given of hate, for instance, is both self-destructive and other-destructive, IMHO.

But on the whole: oook?