Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

I...can't agree with all of that, I'm afraid. (Make sure you actually want to read this before you read it; I haven't LD-ed in a while but all logistics aside, I'm sorry if any of this comes across a little too aggressively :nod: )

A negating rebuttal would run thus: (wow, I haven't done one of these in a while)

First up, I can't agree with your flow of logic because it all stems from your definition. To define emotion as "the affective aspect of consciousness" does not necessarily mean that it is controllable, it simply means that you can recognize that it exists (affective is defined as synonymous with emotional; thus, emotions can be redundantly defined as the emotional part of your consciousness. To be conscious of something means "knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts" (Princeton Wordnet lexicon dictionary); as you can see, it does not have any component directly related to "control". A simple example would be that you can be conscious that it is raining because the brain can interpret the signals from your vision, hearing, and sense of touch to conclude what weather it is, but that does not mean you can control it.)

Extending that into your first contention, and more as a side-note, hormones also does not equal emotions, simply on the basis of what a hormone is (roughly speaking, a protein that is secreted by endocrine cells which travels through the body to affect the other cells in your body, causing, usually, physical changes). The reason many people feel unhappy during PMS or other related times is because they emotionally react to these physical changes. Taking medication to ease these conditions is not a direct control of emotions themselves, but rather a control of your own physical environment in which you man have an easier time feeling a particular emotion.

For your second contention, I find your tag-line rather lacking. If this was a real LD debate, I think my first cross-examination question for you would have been "On what basis can you claim that "Logically being in a well-defined intimate relationship would be a burden?". Although you list some examples on why this may be thought of thus ("You always have to think of them, you devote time, energy, money, etc" wink , this can at best only be a half-complete argument because there is no indication of the equally evident benefits that come from a well-defined relationship (e.g. having someone to rely on, being able to pool resources, the simple idea that someone cares, etc.). On the whole, unless you provide both sides of what can be informally defined as "common knowledge" regarding any kind of human relationships, the flaw persists. Furthermore, having established that there are good and bad to a relationship, there is no quantifiable method to compare which side triumphs over the other. That is purely an individualistic thing.

Drawing purely from philosophy, the above point made by the negative can be inferred from Locke's Social Contract, in which he clearly defines a state of nature prior to civilization (one in which every human must fend for himself, essentially), and the logical progression of how, by our own instinct for survival and recognition of what is generally helpful, humans will naturally wish to congregate with others of his kind so that mutual benefits may be obtained (some of which were already mentioned) (if you're interested, feel free to look up his Social Contract theory). This kind of collaborative effort logically involves the formation of relationships. Even if they are not of the romantic kind, there can be no question that bonds will form between people who are regularly in contact with each other. Therefore, the negative would simply like to conclude this argument by stating that not only is the affirmative contention lacking completeness, but that the opposite is in fact true as far as human nature is concerned.

Now for a brief negative constructive to tie up my points:

I would define "emotion" as: a person's internal state of being and involuntary, subjective, physiological response to an object or a situation (from the wikitionary; apologies for the lack of formality, but I don't have Black's Law at my disposal).

Emotions, therefore, are reactions, rather than actions (ask Tyler about Stephen Covey's book "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People--a good bit of my argument is drafted quite explicatively in there). What you can control, therefore, is what kind of situation you put yourself in, to effectively facilitate the manifestation of certain emotions. You can also control your beliefs (I believe that I can feel happy in this situation), your biological control knobs (research has shown that actively smiling triggers neurotransmitters in the brain that can give you a sense of well-being), or your choices in action that may shortcut through negative feelings ("I am sad about such-and-such, but I will do so-and-so to fix it"--thereby giving yourself a sense of security that eases feeling happier). So in a sense, you can control your emotions, but not in the direct way that you're arguing for. The actions are purely physical, and the resulting psychological consequence is what you feel.

As an example, imagine for a moment that you're in an abusive relationship. Chances are that no matter how hard you "mind-trick" yourself into believing you are happy, you cannot achieve happiness, especially as defined by the affirmative ("a state of well-being and contentment" wink . Anyone who tries, I think it can be agreed all around, are usually termed as being "delusional" or "in need of help". Thus, the simple decision to have a boyfriend/girlfriend/partner is not a solid basis for happiness. Seeking a good, reliable person to become your relationship partner, however, does usually lead to happiness, because you've thereby created for yourself a good environment in which happiness can result.

As a slightly disjointed conclusion, I don't believe it'll be wise for me to delve into what I believe "love" is or isn't, so I'm going to leave it here for now, but those are my thoughts on the matter. You are of course, free to agree/disagree/argue back as you wish, in which case I'll look forward to your reply.

P.S. I think topics like these warrant a good long girl-talk session over hot chocolate more than a pseudo-debate over the internet. Remind me the next time I see you, yes? wink

P.P.S. Also please disregard any grammar/spelling mistakes.

@.-
My brain hurts a little after reading your psuedo-debate.
Though I do have to say that I agree with Mimmy in some areas (assuming I thoroughly understood what she was saying). Emotions can not be directly controlled. You can believe yourself happy or sad or what-have-you, and you can present that emotion you want to believe yourself to be, but in reality you know how you really feel and you are (possibly) lying to yourself. As for the example you gave will the hormone pills, you are attempting to control you hormones, which represents more of your physical surroundings that cause some emotions.
Further, there's always the fact that you cannot always help who you fall for. It is not always a concious decision. In Mimmy's case (and I'm sorry Mimmy for using you as an example.) she didn't decide "I'm going to start liking Will and cause a whole load of disruption and ill feelings towards me and him." In my case, I did not choose to fall for Chris. It happened. The decision we made was to talk to these guys. It was not "I'm going to start going out with him, therefore I shall be happy because I have a boytoy." Our happiness was the result of relative compatibility and really awesome guys.
My definition of love: a bunch of really strong emotions that cannot be controlled or contained. Emotions that make you wish to see that person, and be near that person as often as you can. Emotions that can sometimes make you do things you didn't think you would do before. And when that person is not there, it feels like a piece of you is missing. Like there is a void within you. That's how I see love.

I have no idea if any of that was relevent or if it even made sense. I am not trained in the fine art of debate-speak. Sowwy!