>you have no control over your emotions and how you feel about something, as well as what you know
>you do however have complete control over your actions, that is a separate entity from your emotions entirely
>you can never use your emotions as a way to excuse your actions
Discuss.
General philosophical discussion is also welcome.
i love uneducated philosophy
Start with the greeks
>>1132674
>random nonsense babble
>discuss philosophy
>need to write a report for class, otherwise teacher wont let me have my juice box
fuk
>>1132674
>you do however have complete control over your actions, that is a separate entity from your emotions entirely
Commence with the Hellenes.
OP here.
I'm surprised this thread is still up after eight~ hours.
I'm also seeing a lot of people finding a problem with my statement, could someone care to elaborate? It's a life philosophy I've been relying on for I guess three or four years now.
>>1133813
Bronze, silver, and gold souls, earth water fire and air, I already went through that in college. My professor was agenda-ed it almost ruined the course for me though.
>>1134627
Bronze soul detected.
>>1134627
>you have no control over your emotions and how you feel about something, as well as what you know
This is completely and utterly wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism
Oh boy.
>you have no control over your emotions and how you feel about something, as well as what you know
Assuming we have control over anything, yes, we do have at least some control over some of our emotions. Speaking in absolutes without substantiating your claims doesn't get you anywhere.
>you do however have complete control over your actions, that is a separate entity from your emotions entirely
Do we have control over anything? Even then, would we have complete control over our actions? Say someone hits you with a truck. Do you have complete control over your actions now? Certainly there are also some actions that your brain prevents you from carrying out. This is the most sloppy assumption on the list & needs a lot of work.
>you can never use your emotions as a way to excuse your actions
You can always use your emotions to excuse your actions. Most of our actions (especially ones done for a 'higher purpose') are pathological. Ethics is just an extension of out inner pathological feelings.
>>1132674
>you can never use your emotions as a way to excuse your actions
Go out and suck 50 black dicks for $5 each and give the money to charity then.
>b..but I don't have the gay, I don't enjoy sucking dicks
that is just your emotions, no excuses, go
>>1132674
Yes i agree. That's basically being an adult 101. That marks the transition from child to adult and usually happens in the early 20s.
You can't help how you feel but you can help how you act on those feelings. I used to have anger issues, i still get angry easily, but before I'd smash shit up and blame people and be a dick, now I'm relaxed and never let anger get to me, it washed over me. I'm in control of myself.
>>1136916
>can't help how you feel
Couldn't be more wrong. You and OP probably can't because you are 15.
>>1132674
>>you have no control over your emotions
>>you do however have complete control over your actions, that is a separate entity from your emotions entirely
You either have control over both, or control over neither. I don't see how these are separate faculties at all. It all comes down to how strongly you place emphasis on free will and determinism.
>you have no control over your emotions and how you feel about something, as well as what you know
proof?
>you do however have complete control over your actions, that is a separate entity from your emotions entirely
proof?
>you can never use your emotions as a way to excuse your actions
proof?
>>1132674
>>>/x/ please or maybe >>>/b/
>>1132674
There are two thoughts about this. One if you take the Buddhist account is that you can become aware of emotions and deal with them effectively mastering them.
Or... If you take the materialist approach, you can take a psychoactive drug and change your emotions directly through neurochemistry.
Either way makes your point pointless.
