It's one thing to write in theory about how to apply such and such a method in dealing with negative emotions, and it's another thing to actually live and deal with negative feelings. We may know something, but we may not bring ourselves to apply it in our daily lives. This is why I have always said that true happiness is epistemology and ethics, and not simply epistemology alone. Reading my posts in the last week or so, you must have picked up at least one thing about dealing with negative emotions. But are you going to apply it to your daily life? It will take courage and some level of discipline for you to do so. In converting emotions to thought, you would have to adopt a philosophic pose, a contemplative bent. You would have to train your mind to think, to value epistemology.
Many of the emotional challenges we deal with are instantaneous, and we probably don't have the time to treat them like science projects. I mean, in practical terms: how many people actually stop, become conscious of their emotions; allow such feelings to go to the head for analysis, and then choose rationally to act in preferable ways? And what if one was beset with say, ten emotions in an hour - would the person do the same for all ten? Or you might say that in such a case the person would have to take a step down the soul grade and deal with situations (body) rather than the emotions themselves. And so, because our thoughts are too many and the frequencies they set in motion are too unwieldy, we deal with feelings; but when the feelings themselves get too much for us, we deal with physically observable situations.
So I guess a starting point in the war against negative emotions is: watch what you do. Do not act in ways that will come back to cause you grief. So for example you want to deal with loneliness, but you go ahead first and cause your wife to leave you. If you feel lonely after she has left you - did you not cause the situation yourself? Of course you can apply sacrifices and Descartes' Method; but will they work for you? I mean, the whole point of applying sacrifices to solve emotional challenges is so that you can learn something - but when you behave irresponsibly, you cannot be learning anything at all - and so you're committing a fallacy. Your starting premises are wrong; the reasons for the emotions you're dealing with were set in motion by your irresponsible behavior. You're begging the soul question! One of the pitfalls of philosophy which the presence of Aristotle's unmoved mover helps us to deal with is infinite regress. This is the situation where, in the progressive provision of causes for effects, we keep regressing on and on, ad infinitum. In a situation like this, there can be no true knowledge to be had, since everything would be accidental, and there would be no reality.
God's presence as the very first mover, who moves everything but is himself unmoved makes reality possible; for Aristotle, for Descartes, for Berkeley - indeed, for everyone that believes in God. The bible says that God is the one "in whom we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). And so, we are able to have epistemological realism because of God. We should, in applying the theoretical methods for dealing with negative emotions that we have been talking about, always try to make sure that we are learning something, and not just acting irresponsibly and trying to fix our screw-ups. Except of course you do something that causes emotional challenges for you, but you are now sorry and repentant - then, the methods could work for you, based on the premise of remorse for irresponsible behavior. You then avoid infinite regress and actually proceed toward sure epistemology, which will lead to sure ethics, and progress. [Committing the fallacy of infinite regress (use of faulty premises) with regard to applying our methods in dealing with negative emotions is like going to confession knowing that you will commit the very same sin as soon as you leave the confessional. You're deceiving yourself!]
Another pitfall is solipsism. By way of etymology, it is solus ipsus, which means "only I." Solipsism is the case where a person thinks he or she is alone in the world. This is false. We are in this world with other people. The theoretical methods we talked about in dealing with negative emotions are not to shield you from the world and make you some sort of superhero. They are not meant to confirm you in isolationist behavior, or place you in some sort of elitist bubble. They are to free you to participate more fully in society. And so, to begin with the premises of isolationism, superheorism, or autonomy is erroneous. The methods are not for you to apply in making yourself invincible. They are not for sacrificing all your relationships on the altar of ambition or personal gain. Success is not progress in the workplace without good and viable relationships. Success is the whole package: career progress and viable interpersonal relationships. So, I ask you to remain vulnerable. Remain lovable. Remain sweet. You don't have to be a smiley emoticon, but you need to be approachable, and open to the possibility of forming good friendships.
So, what have we talked about today? We have said that the methods for dealing with negative emotions we learned should be used in good faith. Don't go and start a problem for yourself only because you want to use the methods right after that. They are epistemological methods, and if the premises underlying your usage of them are faulty, your results would be faulty too, and chances are that they would not work for you, especially since you would not be able to learn from them, and learning from them is their chief value to begin with. Solipsism and infinite regress are two pitfalls to avoid in the epistemological application of the methods we've so far discussed for dealing with negative emotions. There is need to maintain a philosophic pose, a contemplative bent, so as to perennially make sure that our ethics keep pace with our epistemology.
No comments:
Post a Comment