The finest philosophical quote awaits you inside.....

[Pauliesonne]

Behold the wisdom of one of the greatest fictional minds of all time;

...


"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

-Yoda

anymore from y'all?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Yoda says that like it's a bad thing.

ETA... and wouldn't a better thread title have been "Awaits you inside, the finest philosophical quote does"?

[Pauliesonne]

Yoda says that like it's a bad thing.

ETA... and wouldn't a better thread title have been "Awaits you inside, the finest philosophical quote does"?

clipped round the ear, smart ***'s like you eventually get.......

[joller]

Behold the wisdom of one of the greatest fictional minds of all time;

...


"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

-Yoda

anymore from y'all?

My favourite yoda quote is this:
"No, try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."

[Scott Haley]

I HATE that quote. Children learn to walk by trying and trying until they succeed. Everything we deliberately do is an attempt. The attempts often succeed. The simplest thing you try to do, there's some small chance you'll fail.

[Piscivore]

We eat, sh[rule 8]t, sleep, and get up;
This is our world.
All we have to do after that
Is to die.
-Ikkyu

[Cecil]

*points at sig*

[EnanMyHero]

Death comes to us all, just to some in messier ways than others. -me

[Marquis de Carabas]

If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball. --Phil Jackson

[Dr Adequate]

Did you ever wonder about Yoda's grammar?

Here's a guy whose mental powers are so highly developed he can levitate things, who's five hundred years old ... and who hasn't yet grasped the simple fact that English syntax is subject-verb-object.

Another thing ... their civilization can travel faster than light but they haven't figured out that if they put up a few guard railings they'd be less likely to keep falling over the edges of things.

Great quantum physicists, rubbish at Health & Safety.

I'm just saying.

[Wudang]

Another thing ... their civilization can travel faster than light but they haven't figured out that if they put up a few guard railings they'd be less likely to keep falling over the edges of things.


I think travelling faster than light must mess up the brain somehow. Look at Star Trek - a weapon hits the hull so control panels on the bridge explode. Why haven't they fitted some fuses?
Will noone think of the ensigns?

[hipparchia]

Did you ever wonder about Yoda's grammar?
I'm just saying.

Ah, but reversed grammar may be the key to supernatural powers.

Ever read the Anastasia books? She is supposed to be a gorgeous blonde living in Siberia. She can visit other planets, has masteres teleportation and so on. The series of books are written in a really reversed yoda-type grammar (that's how they sound in Russian and Bulgarian).

In the preface to the book series, the lady is specifically quoted saying the books are written this way because it will affect positively the world's vibrations or something. If translated in English, they should sound like yoda-talk.

Remember- reversed grammar to higher jedi skills might take you. :)

[brodski]

Great quantum physicists, rubbish at Health & Safety.

I'm just saying.
Mybey they are all so smart beceasue of poor health and safety measures, the stupid die early in the empire, mainly through industrial accidents. ;)

[Tricky]

anymore from y'all?
"Hokey weapons and ancient religions are no match for a good blaster at your side Kid!"
--Han Solo

[UrsulaV]

Did you ever wonder about Yoda's grammar?

Here's a guy whose mental powers are so highly developed he can levitate things, who's five hundred years old ... and who hasn't yet grasped the simple fact that English syntax is subject-verb-object.


AND they let him teach small children, too!

"Learn good grammar you must!"

Somewhere, in a galaxy far far away, there are a great many Jedi who get out of first grade ill prepared for standardized Imperial testing...

[c4ts]

Latin word order Yoda likes. Find the nominative, you can? Hmmm?

[JamesDillon]

Did you ever wonder about Yoda's grammar?

Here's a guy whose mental powers are so highly developed he can levitate things, who's five hundred years old ... and who hasn't yet grasped the simple fact that English syntax is subject-verb-object.

Having given this far too much thought in my lifetime...

1) I believe that Yoda was nine hundred years old as of Return of the Jedi.
2) Maybe the syntax thing was a way of illustrating his age. Think how much the English language has evolved over the past nine hundred years. Someone who learned the language in 1106 would sound very odd to us today. (Ok, we probably wouldn't be able to understand a word they said, but we can assume that Lucas needed to tone down the linguistic differences for dramatic purposes so that we could all understand what Yoda was talking about). So perhaps Yoda's odd syntax was an indication that the Basic language had evolved significantly during his lifetime?

[Jimbo07]

2) Maybe the syntax thing was a way of illustrating his age.

Maybe he actually knew better, but like a curmudgeonly professor, refused to change his ways.

[rocketdodger]

I HATE that quote. Children learn to walk by trying and trying until they succeed. Everything we deliberately do is an attempt. The attempts often succeed. The simplest thing you try to do, there's some small chance you'll fail.

Yes but yoda was talking about controlling the force, not the material universe.

I happen to think that this statement is very insightful. Is telekinesis possible? Maybe. Has anyone done it? Of course not.

Why? Perhaps it is something that we must have 100% faith in our ability to do before we can do it at all. In other words, maybe we could all fly if we could just remove all doubt in our ability to do it. Is that possible? I dunno -- I certainly can't.

[Dark Jaguar]

Riiiight.

Isn't the force PART of their material universe? I mean, it seems to exist and have a measurable effect on it. Myself? I would have built force absorbing engines to drain all the jedi and sith and sent out giant "force tech" robots to take over the universe.

[EnanMyHero]

"Life isn't fair, deal with it" -friend from work

[fuelair]

We eat, sh[rule 8]t, sleep, and get up;
This is our world.
All we have to do after that
Is to die.
-Ikkyu

Or, in the same spirit from BluLips: All I do
the whole day through
Is eat and poo.:o

[surrealdesi]

You know we've got problems in this world when we're quoting some brainless shriveled up fictional character from a damn movie. Here's a quote for you from a thinking man who changed the world:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." -- Karl Marx

[c4ts]

You know we've got problems in this world when we're quoting some brainless shriveled up fictional character from a damn movie.

I dunno. People quote Jesus all the time.

[Piscivore]

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." -- Karl Marx

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
- Groucho Marx

[surrealdesi]

I dunno. People quote Jesus all the time.

Jesus quoters are no different from Yoda quoters. Just because something is popular does not mean its worth paying attention to or taken seriously. American Idol is a perfect example of this.

[UserGoogol]

Riiiight.

Isn't the force PART of their material universe? I mean, it seems to exist and have a measurable effect on it. Myself? I would have built force absorbing engines to drain all the jedi and sith and sent out giant "force tech" robots to take over the universe.

Jedi manipulate the Force by "thinking." Thus, one of the most important skills in developing Jedi powers is sheer force of will. Therefore, in that context, "do or do not, there is no try" is perfectly reasonable, because the most important thing is to believe that you have the powers.

Also, I don't think the Force works in such a way that it can be stored in machines, but of course (except for the Midiclorian comments in Episode One) Lucas generally kept the Force quasi-mystical and I don't really know if the expanded universe changed that, so it's hard to say.

That said, I too find it annoying when people apply that quote to the real world. As Scott Haley says, all you can do is try.

[Piscivore]

Just because something is popular does not mean its worth paying attention to or taken seriously.

Just because something is popular does not mean it is not, either.

[This Guy]

"We are all responsible for where we are"

Expanded - Where we (each individual) are is the result of decisions we made along the way. We are responsible. No one else!

These words came from a Navy Chief that instructed a class I took back in oh 1980 or so. Those words have stuck with me since. The more you consider them, I think you'll find the more they are true.

Where you are, and your condition (wealth, happeniss....), is the direct result of decisions you made.

Obviously there are some physical/mental conditions that invalidate this, but for most "normal" adults, this is a true statement.

[joller]

"Hokey weapons and ancient religions are no match for a good blaster at your side Kid!"
--Han Solo

Just in case you're testing me, i feel obliged to point out the quote is actually the other way around:
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid

[JamesDillon]

You know we've got problems in this world when we're quoting some brainless shriveled up fictional character from a damn movie. Here's a quote for you from a thinking man who changed the world:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." -- Karl Marx

Your lack of faith... disturbs me.

[rocketdodger]

That said, I too find it annoying when people apply that quote to the real world.

Except that Lucas ripped off the ideas of Qi from the thousands of years of chinese culture, so actually any quote about the force IS about the real world. Well, at least woo that real people believe in.

[RandFan]

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia". --W.C. Fields

[Katana]

"The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others."
-Bertrand Russell

[ceo_esq]

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

-Yoda

Just goes to show that the old Jedi master wasn't above resorting to a slippery-slope argument.

[JamesDillon]

Just goes to show that the old Jedi master wasn't above resorting to a slippery-slope argument.
Unexpected, this is. And unfortunate.

[Beleth]

Another thing ... their civilization can travel faster than light but they haven't figured out that if they put up a few guard railings they'd be less likely to keep falling over the edges of things.
Or make prosthetic limbs that didn't look like they were made from bumpers of '57 Chevys.

[Imaginative]

OK. I know I'm late to the table but here's one I either heard or I made up, you decide because I can't remember.

Quote: We're all mad, some are just madder than others.

[Piscivore]

OK. I know I'm late to the table but here's one I either heard or I made up, you decide because I can't remember.

Quote: We're all mad, some are just madder than others.

I think that was on an "Alice in Wonderland" themed stoner shirt, IIRC.

[American]

All 3 cause-effects are not the least bit supported in reality, nor in philisophical argument (of which none is even provided).

Even less so as a linked path from the first condition to the last.

Like all bumper-stickers, it is sensationalist nonsense.

[HeyLeroy]

You know we've got problems in this world when we're quoting some brainless shriveled up fictional character from a damn movie. Here's a quote for you from a thinking man who changed the world:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." -- Karl Marx

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
- Groucho Marx

"Television is the opiate of the masses." - Bill Watterson, in Calvin And Hobbes.

[rocketdodger]

All 3 cause-effects are not the least bit supported in reality, nor in philisophical argument (of which none is even provided).

Even less so as a linked path from the first condition to the last.

Like all bumper-stickers, it is sensationalist nonsense.

Oh really?

Then I challenge you to provide a single instance of someone (or something) being angry with someone (or something) where they are not in some way afraid of that which they are angry with.

I challenge you to provide a single instance of someone hating someone (or something) where they are not in some way angry with the object of their hate.

And I am not even going to bother with the last part, because common sense takes care of it.

[American]

Then I challenge you to provide a single instance of someone (or something) being angry with someone (or something) where they are not in some way afraid of that which they are angry with.

Parent angry at their child for bad behavior.

I challenge you to provide a single instance of someone hating someone (or something) where they are not in some way angry with the object of their hate.

I hate the cold. I am not angry at a cold room, I simply hate it.

And I am not even going to bother with the last part, because common sense takes care of it.

If you won't bother then your lack of argument easily yields to the contrary position. Meaning "I win".


You need to stop using Muppets for inspiration. There are things more enlightening worth one's time and pursuit.

[rocketdodger]

Parent angry at their child for bad behavior.


Why are they angry? Perhaps...

1) They are afraid of what people will think of them upon seeing the child behave as such..
2) They are afraid that this disobedience will hamper the child's progress if continued...
3) They are afraid of what will happen if they don't get their work done because they have to deal with this behavior...

The possibilities are endless. You will not find any instance of a parent mad at a child "just because," and all possible reasons to be mad a child involve some kind of fear.


I hate the cold. I am not angry at a cold room, I simply hate it.


This is not the kind of "hate" that yoda is referring to, and you know it. Care to try again?


If you won't bother then your lack of argument easily yields to the contrary position. Meaning "I win".


If by "winning" you mean "getting to keep your delusional viewpoint because nobody wants to bother arguing against you" then yes, you win. If, however, you mean "showing the other people on this forum that you are not a complete fool who flames nonsense solely to elicit a response" then I would have to say you lost upon posting your first post in this thread.


You need to stop using Muppets for inspiration. There are things more enlightening worth one's time and pursuit.

Actually yoda was entirely CG in the last two movies, smart guy.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Why are they angry? Perhaps...

1) They are afraid of what people will think of them upon seeing the child behave as such..
2) They are afraid that this disobedience will hamper the child's progress if continued...
3) They are afraid of what will happen if they don't get their work done because they have to deal with this behavior...

The possibilities are endless. You will not find any instance of a parent mad at a child "just because," and all possible reasons to be mad a child involve some kind of fear.
...for sufficiently strained definitions of fear.

ETA: Of course, that's beside the point, as your whole argument is a logical fallacy. Even if all anger has elements of fear, that merely suggests that fear could lead to anger. Yoda seems to be asserting it as a universal.

[rocketdodger]

...for sufficiently strained definitions of fear.

Did you even bother to look up some standard definitions of "fear" before you made that post?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Did you even bother to look up some standard definitions of "fear" before you made that post?
Good reply. Twat.

[EnanMyHero]

"It is better to give than recieve... unless you're talking about head..." -Perverted part of my mind... BWUAHAHAHA!!!:pilaugh: :pitongue:

[rocketdodger]

ETA: Of course, that's beside the point, as your whole argument is a logical fallacy. Even if all anger has elements of fear, that merely suggests that fear could lead to anger. Yoda seems to be asserting it as a universal.

But that is not my (nor yoda's, I think) argument. I am saying that all anger is preceeded by fear, not the other way around. And that all hatred (serious definition, not the "lite" definition) is preceeded by anger.

[Marquis de Carabas]

But that is not my (nor yoda's, I think) argument. I am saying that all anger is preceeded by fear, not the other way around. And that all hatred (serious definition, not the "lite" definition) is preceeded by anger.
No. You have entirely inverted what Yoda is saying. "Fear leads to anger" implies that all fear does so*, not that all anger is born of fear. In fact, Yoda's statement leaves open the possibility that anger could arrive without fear.

*although it could be argued he meant "fear may lead to anger, though I find this interpretation doubtful

[American]

This is not the kind of "hate" that yoda is referring to, and you know it.

Oh pardon the confusion... I should have paid closer attention to the stupid little puppet, so then I might know that "hate" means anything other than what normal people comprehend in plain english.

The possibilities are endless. You will not find any instance of a parent mad at a child "just because," and all possible reasons to be mad a child involve some kind of fear.

This is not the kind of "fear" that yoda is referring to, and you know it.

If by "winning" you mean "getting to keep your delusional viewpoint because nobody wants to bother arguing against you" then yes, you win. If, however, you mean "showing the other people on this forum that you are not a complete fool who flames nonsense solely to elicit a response" then I would have to say you lost upon posting your first post in this thread.

You said that you would not bother to make an argument due to your own assumed notions of common sense. "I win" by default, not by self-delusional viewpoints of any sort.

Actually yoda was entirely CG in the last two movies, smart guy.

OK, you win.... it's still an absurd and false quote from a dumb kids' movie.

[American]

No. You have entirely inverted what Yoda is saying. "Fear leads to anger" implies that all fear does so*, not that all anger is born of fear. In fact, Yoda's statement leaves open the possibility that anger could arrive without fear.

Marquis- I have a feeling that we are arguing with Ghyslain himself here.....

http://www.nndb.com/people/441/000031348/star-wars-kid-1.jpg

[rocketdodger]

No. You have entirely inverted what Yoda is saying. "Fear leads to anger" implies that all fear does so*, not that all anger is born of fear. In fact, Yoda's statement leaves open the possibility that anger could arrive without fear.


Ok so I guess we are arguing about what yoda meant, not whether all anger is born of fear and all hatred is born of anger. In that case, each to their own, I guess.

I think he meant what I have said, since that not only makes sense from a philosophical point of view but also has 100% support from empirical evidence. Furthermore it is a very good lesson that much of the world needs to learn.

On the other hand, if we assume he meant what you think he meant, he is logically incorrect in my opinion (and yours), which renders him instantly as less than what he should be and discounts all the rest of his advice. So I choose the former..

[rocketdodger]

Oh pardon the confusion... I should have paid closer attention to the stupid little puppet, so then I might know that "hate" means anything other than what normal people comprehend in plain english.


Or just used common sense. I don't see many people advocating the complete anhiliation of all "cold" because they "hate" it. On the other hand, take a look at what humans do to one another because of "hate."


This is not the kind of "fear" that yoda is referring to, and you know it.


Except that there is a single definition of fear that works in every place it is used in our speech -- 'a feeling of disquiet or apprehension'. Hate, on the other hand, has no such single definition.


You said that you would not bother to make an argument due to your own assumed notions of common sense. "I win" by default, not by self-delusional viewpoints of any sort.


No, the absence of any argument by me simply means your original claim stands as it was. If it was a good one, it is still good. If it was absurd, on the other hand, it is still absurd.


OK, you win.... it's still an absurd and false quote from a dumb kids' movie.

I guess that depends on the interpretation. If you are an unimaginative skeptic who does nothing but look for faults in other people's arguments, then sure. If you can see messages for what they are rather than simple aggregations of words and grammar, then it isn't absurd or false at all.

As for "Star Wars" being a dumb kids' movie, well, I wonder what fear drives you to say such things. If I had to make a guess, it would probably be that at some point you have been beaten at something by a "nerd" and it has made you very bitter.

[Spindrift]

Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. - Marie Curie

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think he meant what I have said, since that not only makes sense from a philosophical point of view but also has 100% support from empirical evidence. Furthermore it is a very good lesson that much of the world needs to learn.

The empirical evidence? Do elaborate, please.

[rocketdodger]

The empirical evidence? Do elaborate, please.

I already did. The observations that 100% of the time where there is anger there is fear and 100% of the time where there is hate there is anger. Furthermore, the observations that in every instance anger is preceeded by fear and in every instance hate is preceeded by anger.

Do you disagree with the correctness of these observations?

[Marquis de Carabas]

I already did. The observations that 100% of the time where there is anger there is fear and 100% of the time where there is hate there is anger. Furthermore, the observations that in every instance anger is preceeded by fear and in every instance hate is preceeded by anger.

Do you disagree with the correctness of these observations?
Yes, but I think you're playing silly buggers with semantics, so we are at an impasse. If the quote means something to you, enjoy it.

[rocketdodger]

Yes, but I think you're playing silly buggers with semantics, so we are at an impasse. If the quote means something to you, enjoy it.

1) I don't see how I am playing with semantics. I am using the standard definitions of these words.

2) The quote should mean alot to everybody. If you get angry at something, you should realize that it is because you are somehow afraid of it (or what it can do), and probably analyzing the nature and source of that fear is much better than acting on your anger. If you hate someone, you should realize that it is because you are angry with them, and instead of simply murdering them you should analyze the nature and source of your anger (which will turn out to be fear, if you spend enough time on introspection).

This is basically anger (hate) management 101, I don't see why you would disagree with it.

[JamesDillon]

This thread was amusing in the beginning, but are you really having a serious debate over the philosophical weight of Yoda? It was a fun, shallow movie, but there are far better sources of wisdom and insight into the human condition than George Lucas. Stop trying to pass off some trite phrase that Lucas tossed off the top of his head as a deep revelation.

[infornography]

I HATE that quote. Children learn to walk by trying and trying until they succeed. Everything we deliberately do is an attempt. The attempts often succeed. The simplest thing you try to do, there's some small chance you'll fail.


Actually I have used that quote to good effect in teaching. Confidence can get you a long way in your endeavors. If a student tells me half heartedly that they will try, I often paraphrase that quote by saying 'No, you will DO.'

I believe strongly in the power of positive thinking. Also if you successfully raise the student's confidence then they are less likely to second guess their answers and therefore will be less likely to change it from the right answer to the wrong one. Most people guess right the first time more often than they guess right the second time. Still not entirely sure why but the tests where I see the right answer scribbled out and the wrong answer circled time and time again prove that tendancy to hold water.

[Soapy Sam]

"Live long and prosper".
-The Octogenarian's Business case.

[rocketdodger]

This thread was amusing in the beginning, but are you really having a serious debate over the philosophical weight of Yoda? It was a fun, shallow movie, but there are far better sources of wisdom and insight into the human condition than George Lucas. Stop trying to pass off some trite phrase that Lucas tossed off the top of his head as a deep revelation.

Did you learn mechanics from Newton's Principia?

Who the hell cares where it comes from, if it is correct, it is correct. And where else, I would ask, is the lessons that anger is born of fear and hate is born of anger taught? I didn't even think about that until I saw the movie a long time ago, and I probably wouldn't ever have thought about it unless I had.

[bruto]

Did you learn mechanics from Newton's Principia?

Who the hell cares where it comes from, if it is correct, it is correct. And where else, I would ask, is the lessons that anger is born of fear and hate is born of anger taught? I didn't even think about that until I saw the movie a long time ago, and I probably wouldn't ever have thought about it unless I had.

If Yoda meant it the way you think, he was more than grammatically challenged. He says "Fear leads to anger:" that is not "anger is born of fear." He is saying that if you have fear, it will turn to anger, while leaving unspoken the question of whether or not you can have anger without the fear. And so on. In any case, as stated, it's just nonsense. It is saying you should not fear anything, because it will end up leading to suffering. And that's just baloney. Maybe in far off galaxies, if you're a Jedi, you can get away with that, but here on earth, we real people had better be afraid of some things, because if we're not they'll kill us.

Oh well, here's another fictional philosopher's dubious but amusing musing:

"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way." (Bokonon, in Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle)

[rocketdodger]

It is saying you should not fear anything, because it will end up leading to suffering. And that's just baloney. Maybe in far off galaxies, if you're a Jedi, you can get away with that, but here on earth, we real people had better be afraid of some things, because if we're not they'll kill us.


So you are claiming that there are some cases where feeling fear is the most beneficial behavior for a human, as opposed to eliminating fear and acting according to rational thought?

I challenge you to provide one single scenario where feeling fear gives one an advantage over cool thinking.

[infornography]

I challenge you to provide one single scenario where feeling fear gives one an advantage over cool thinking.

Adrenaline.

I'm sure I do not need to provide the countless obvious examples of why adrenaline is useful to survival. A cool thinking response also tends to take more time. There are occasions when fast action is more important than accurate response.

Overall I would agree with you on this however. I would not exactly say Yoda is a veritable font of wisdom and greatness, however your insight into the quote is of value.

[rocketdodger]

I'm sure I do not need to provide the countless obvious examples of why adrenaline is useful to survival.


For a human, yes, I am afraid you do. Everything a human would need to do to "survive" in any situation is only hindered by the effects of adrenaline as compared to something like the training one has been taught.

Even actions as simple as running are hindered by adrenaline -- the loss of fine motor control outweighs any strength and endurance gains.


A cool thinking response also tends to take more time. There are occasions when fast action is more important than accurate response.


A thinking response takes more time, unless it has been prepared and practiced ahead of time, in which case it is both the fastest and the most accurate response.

[infornography]

For a human, yes, I am afraid you do. Everything a human would need to do to "survive" in any situation is only hindered by the effects of adrenaline as compared to something like the training one has been taught.


A mother lifting a car off of her son will not be benefitted by thinking the situation through. She will however find the strength to do so with adrenaline.

A man who is pinned by a rampaging (though slightly soft due to living in a zoo) jungle cat would stand no chance at survival without adrenaline. The adrenaline would allow them to ignore the pain for a while and fend off the teeth and claws for long enough for help to arrive or possibly even emerge victorious.

How about trying to save someone who is about to be hit by a car by tackling them across the road and into safety. Stopping to think there would mean a red smear instead of a rescue.

Admittedly these are not common occurances, but my point is simply that there are times when adrenaline would be useful and therefore fear would serve a purpose.


A thinking response takes more time, unless it has been prepared and practiced ahead of time, in which case it is both the fastest and the most accurate response.

Most people do not have this training you speak of. It is not something your every day person will have acquired. There is a very large difference between a cool and well reasoned response and a quick well trained response. Do you propose that everyone should recieve special training for every possible emergency situation they could come accross in their lives to the point where their response is automatic?

The sheer logistics and cost of such a regimen is staggering if not mind boggling. Not to mention the fact that we would have no population left to handle anything else.

Besides your challenge was to provide an example of a benefit of fear over cool thinking, not fear over special training.

[bruto]

So you are claiming that there are some cases where feeling fear is the most beneficial behavior for a human, as opposed to eliminating fear and acting according to rational thought?

I challenge you to provide one single scenario where feeling fear gives one an advantage over cool thinking.

Since when are feeling fear and cool thinking mutually exclusive? Obviously, it would seem that there are times when fear trumps rational analysis, such as accidentally interrupting a bear in the woods or seeing a drunk driver veering into your lane; these are instances where fear will, we hope, provide the correct action more quickly than cool thinking could. But in addition, there are numerous instances where fear is the basis for a calmly and rationally made decision. Should I jump into that quarry pond? Should I ride my bicycle into this gathering thunderstorm? Should I tell that guy in the cut-off leather vest and the flag tattoos how I feel about President Bush?

You yourself have mined the possible definitions of "fear" to fit your needs. You can't now shrink it so far.

[rocketdodger]

A mother lifting a car off of her son will not be benefitted by thinking the situation through. She will however find the strength to do so with adrenaline.


This has nothing to do with her survival.


A man who is pinned by a rampaging (though slightly soft due to living in a zoo) jungle cat would stand no chance at survival without adrenaline. The adrenaline would allow them to ignore the pain for a while and fend off the teeth and claws for long enough for help to arrive or possibly even emerge victorious.


No. The only chance a person has against a big cat is to outsmart it. Adrenaline will help with the pain but this is outweighed by its negative effects, especially in a situation where even one wrong move results in disembowlment.


How about trying to save someone who is about to be hit by a car by tackling them across the road and into safety. Stopping to think there would mean a red smear instead of a rescue.


Agreed. But being afraid and standing there pissing one's pants is even worse. Furthermore you would do this kind of thing much better without being jacked up on adrenaline.


Admittedly these are not common occurances, but my point is simply that there are times when adrenaline would be useful and therefore fear would serve a purpose.


Yes, there are times when adrenaline is useful. But my claim is that in survival situations, it does more harm than good. The impact adrenaline has on coordination (and possibly thought) is absolutely devastating, ask any competitive athelete. It is an outdated hormone that is useful in animals who can actually make use of their bodies. Cats and dogs can shred. Deer can run. Bears can claw. What can we do? Even us simply standing upright takes more brain power and coordination than most activities in the rest of the animal kingdom.



Most people do not have this training you speak of. It is not something your every day person will have acquired. There is a very large difference between a cool and well reasoned response and a quick well trained response. Do you propose that everyone should recieve special training for every possible emergency situation they could come accross in their lives to the point where their response is automatic?


No, that would be absurd. But that is what we are arguing about.


Besides your challenge was to provide an example of a benefit of fear over cool thinking, not fear over special training.

Yes that was my challenge, and it hasn't been met. Instead there have been examples of where adrenaline might come in useful in non-survival situations.

Look I am saying that humans method of survival is thought and only thought. We are simply not equipped to survive with our bodies. Unfortunately, evolution hasn't removed the FFF response (well, unfortunately in the first two Fs at least) that subverts our higher thinking. In any situation this is a very bad thing, because our bodies simply do not work as well without lots of mind control. As I said, even something that seems simple, like running, can be impacted very much by adrenaline and fear.

[rocketdodger]

Since when are feeling fear and cool thinking mutually exclusive?

...snip...

Should I tell that guy in the cut-off leather vest and the flag tattoos how I feel about President Bush?

You yourself have mined the possible definitions of "fear" to fit your needs. You can't now shrink it so far.

In all of these cases, fear is useful, but not as useful as simply thinking.

And I can shrink the definition now, because we are not discussing the first claim I made in this thread, we are discussing another one. Obviously, the "disquiet or apprehension" definition doesn't apply to the current topic, since it might not have any physiological effects on a person.

[bruto]

In all of these cases, fear is useful, but not as useful as simply thinking.

And I can shrink the definition now, because we are not discussing the first claim I made in this thread, we are discussing another one. Obviously, the "disquiet or apprehension" definition doesn't apply to the current topic, since it might not have any physiological effects on a person.

I was responding to this question, posed by you, and posed in these exact words:

So you are claiming that there are some cases where feeling fear is the most beneficial behavior for a human, as opposed to eliminating fear and acting according to rational thought?

I challenge you to provide one single scenario where feeling fear gives one an advantage over cool thinking.

In that question you state that acting according to rational thought presupposes the elimination of fear, and that feeling fear and cool thinking are mutually exclusive. If you did not mean that, you stated it badly. I did not see any hidden disclaimer that the word "fear" was to be pared back to some new dynamic redefinition that does not apply when it is used in other sentences. I assert that fear itself is a basis for rational thought and behavior, whether executed quickly, habitually, or after pondering. The world is fraught with things of which we are rightly afraid. Acting rationally with regard to them presupposes that we consider our fear and use it wisely.

[rocketdodger]

In that question you state that acting according to rational thought presupposes the elimination of fear, and that feeling fear and cool thinking are mutually exclusive. If you did not mean that, you stated it badly. I did not see any hidden disclaimer that the word "fear" was to be pared back to some new dynamic redefinition that does not apply when it is used in other sentences. I assert that fear itself is a basis for rational thought and behavior, whether executed quickly, habitually, or after pondering. The world is fraught with things of which we are rightly afraid. Acting rationally with regard to them presupposes that we consider our fear and use it wisely.

I did mean that. Fear always affects both the mental and physical workings of the people that feel it. Even without redefining it, it is always worse than not being afraid and thinking instead.

I want you to provide me with a scenario where being afraid is better than not being afraid and thinking. I don't care if you think when you are afraid, that is fine, you can use it in your scenario. You can also use any definition of fear that you like.

Here is an example -- there is a tsunami bearing down on you, so being afraid of it will get you to find a way to save yourself.

My reply -- simple rational thought would lead you to the conclusion that you should save yourself, fear isn't needed at all for this conclusion to be made. Furthermore, the negative effects of fear will more than likely hinder your actions.

[infornography]

I challenge you to provide one single scenario where feeling fear gives one an advantage over cool thinking.
Yes that was my challenge, and it hasn't been met. Instead there have been examples of where adrenaline might come in useful in non-survival situations.

No fair changing the rules halfway through the game. This isn't Calvinball.

In that question you state that acting according to rational thought presupposes the elimination of fear, and that feeling fear and cool thinking are mutually exclusive. If you did not mean that, you stated it badly. I did not see any hidden disclaimer that the word "fear" was to be pared back to some new dynamic redefinition that does not apply when it is used in other sentences. I assert that fear itself is a basis for rational thought and behavior, whether executed quickly, habitually, or after pondering. The world is fraught with things of which we are rightly afraid. Acting rationally with regard to them presupposes that we consider our fear and use it wisely.

Very well said.

I did some quick research on adrenaline and found that you do seem to be mostly right. It has a slight to moderate effect on thinking clearly, it causes tunnel vision, and it makes your movements uncoordinated. However it also provides the advantages of seeming to slow down time so that well trained movements are even more effective and vastly increasing your strength and speed as well as making pain completely ignorable. It gives you a sort of detached feeling, kind of like you are watching the events rather than involved in them.

If you have had any kind of combat training then adrenaline will make you more effective in a fight. If you have had no combat training then you will be counting on a lucky (extra strength) blow to the head or something.

And as for the woman lifting the car off her son. Survival of ones genes/family is often considered more important than survival of oneself. Ask almost any mother.

[rocketdodger]

No fair changing the rules halfway through the game. This isn't Calvinball.


Ok, if you want to count someone using their adrenaline rush to lift an object off of someone as an instance of fear being more useful than cool thinking, fine, you win. But I don't really consider it that way. First, is fear necessary for adrenaline to be released, and is the woman really feeling fear? Second, what if the object is too heavy to lift, or requires more than simple muscle movements to lift, or could more easily be moved by figuring out some sort of lever action or something?


If you have had any kind of combat training then adrenaline will make you more effective in a fight. If you have had no combat training then you will be counting on a lucky (extra strength) blow to the head or something.


Flat out wrong. Adrenaline will make you more effective if you are 1) untrained or 2) trained to fight like a gorilla. In all other combat scenarios, adrenaline does more harm than good. If you don't believe me, ask any professional.


And as for the woman lifting the car off her son. Survival of ones genes/family is often considered more important than survival of oneself. Ask almost any mother.

I know this, I am not disupting this. My dispute is whether or not a woman lifting a car off her son is an example of her "fear" helping her. I am not sure humans can feel the same kind of fear for others as they can when they themselves are in danger.

[bruto]

I did mean that. Fear always affects both the mental and physical workings of the people that feel it. Even without redefining it, it is always worse than not being afraid and thinking instead.

I want you to provide me with a scenario where being afraid is better than not being afraid and thinking. I don't care if you think when you are afraid, that is fine, you can use it in your scenario. You can also use any definition of fear that you like.

Here is an example -- there is a tsunami bearing down on you, so being afraid of it will get you to find a way to save yourself.

My reply -- simple rational thought would lead you to the conclusion that you should save yourself, fear isn't needed at all for this conclusion to be made. Furthermore, the negative effects of fear will more than likely hinder your actions.


You are redefining fear again. If you do not fear the consequences of being inundated by a tsunami, why should you save yourself? Save yourself from what? Disquiet and apprehension, which were good enough before, do not require adrenaline and irrationality to work for us. I am apprehensive about the possible effects of a tsunami, because I am rationally inclined to prefer not to drown. I remove myself from the path of the tsunami, based on that fear. If I weren't afraid I'd drown, why would I bother to leave?

[Piscivore]

This thread was amusing in the beginning, but are you really having a serious debate over the philosophical weight of Yoda? It was a fun, shallow movie, but there are far better sources of wisdom and insight into the human condition than George Lucas. Stop trying to pass off some trite phrase that Lucas tossed off the top of his head as a deep revelation.

Next thing he's going to share with us is that Love is the opposite of Fear.

[princesspoppy]

"It is better to give than recieve... unless you're talking about head..." -Perverted part of my mind... BWUAHAHAHA!!!:pilaugh: :pitongue:


Now THAT is my favourite..:D :p