Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheDarkJay]

Fear

There are many definitions for the word, perhaps we are simply using different definitions in this discussion?

[Neruz]

In all definitions, Fear is an emotion. I feel no such emotion when i consider logical outcomes such as the consequences of my actions. I do not fear the consequences of breaking the law, i simply understand that the benefits of doing so are outweighed by the losses and thus it is not a good choice to make.

True Fear is actually quite hard to come by really. It's not an emotion you actually experience very often.


So no, we are not using different definitions. You're just wrong.

[The butcher]

Oh and about the begining of this thread..We atheists do NOT want an atheist church because that just makes no sense.

[TheDarkJay]

My point is: Something makes the disadvantages, disadvantages. That something is not wanting them disadvantages to happen for various reasons that make them disadvantages unpleasant.

The word fear just seems like the best term to use to describe that "not wanting", I apologise for my limited vocabulary in this respect. I have trouble sometimes with emotive language, and may very well be taking "If you fear something unpleasant or undesirable (aka. a disadvantage), you are worried that it might happen (hence the logical steps to avoid the disadvantage)" too literally or misinterpreting it (not a single person has ever managed to adequately explain to me the concept of respect, for example).

[fenrif]

True Fear is actually quite hard to come by really. It's not an emotion you actually experience very often.

You need to get out more.

[Bauglir]

In all definitions, Fear is an emotion. I feel no such emotion when i consider logical outcomes such as the consequences of my actions. I do not fear the consequences of breaking the law, i simply understand that the benefits of doing so are outweighed by the losses and thus it is not a good choice to make.

True Fear is actually quite hard to come by really. It's not an emotion you actually experience very often.


So no, we are not using different definitions. You're just wrong.

Definition 3.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

True Fear is actually quite hard to come by really. It's not an emotion you actually experience very often.

i live in constant fear!

[Earthquake Damage]

i live in constant fear!

With all those orcs coming at you, I don't blame you.

[Andir]

I wouldn't steal that money, unless maybe I had a family to feed which would starve unless I got that extra money.

This is what I would consider poor moral standing.  It's not yours to steal.  The proper action here is to confront the owner, ask them politely and explain that you could use $50, and only $50 to feed your family.  Having that much money to deposit, the owner... if they are morally correct... should have no problem giving you $50.  Hell, I'm pretty well off and one of my friends was in need of a new TV recently.  I gave them one of my old one (51" rear projection) because I don't use it anymore.  I didn't do it because some god would favor me.  I did it because they needed it and I had spare.  Logically, it made sense.

It's not your money to steal, but since I'm an Atheist, I would obviously have stolen said money (according to the people here that say morals come from religion.)

[smigenboger]

Hehe, from Atheism to Robin Hood

I'm sure this thread has been looping ideas around and around, but honestly, someone's going to create a logical explanation for how the world works and how people should interact, and then fill the inexplainable parts with 'We honestly don't know', or 'Some entity must have handwaived that part', then people will join that idea, willfully or not, and then someone else is going to have a counter-explanation, creating a schism, then the older idea will die out, and the whole thing will start anew.

Atheism, in it's many forms, today, will look as ridiculous as the really, really, old religions of yesteryear. We aren't much closer to explaining anything than the Mayans or the Native Americans, who were going on the best science and philosophy of their time

[Micro102]

But it shows something considering this conversation about morals hasn't come up that this thread still has stuff to give out. So what if it repeats? The only way to stop it from repeating is to ban the atheism topic from the thread. Even if this gets locked and a new one starts the same things will be talked about.

[Neruz]

My point is: Something makes the disadvantages, disadvantages. That something is not wanting them disadvantages to happen for various reasons that make them disadvantages unpleasant.

The word fear just seems like the best term to use to describe that "not wanting", I apologise for my limited vocabulary in this respect. I have trouble sometimes with emotive language, and may very well be taking "If you fear something unpleasant or undesirable (aka. a disadvantage), you are worried that it might happen (hence the logical steps to avoid the disadvantage)" too literally or misinterpreting it (not a single person has ever managed to adequately explain to me the concept of respect, for example).

No, what makes the disadvantages, disadvantages, is the fact that they are disadvantageous to you. I do not need to worry about the consequences of failure, nor do i need to fear them, in order to determine that the risks outweigh the gains. All i need to do is recognise that a given course of action has a greater risk of loss than it does of gain, and thus determine that the action is an unwise one.


Would i feel fear if i found myself standing in front of a car, about to be run over? Of course. Is that fear a part of the decision-making process i go through to determine if it is safe to cross the road? Nope.

[Urist McOverlord]

Would i feel fear if i found myself standing in front of a car, about to be run over? Of course. Is that fear a part of the decision-making process i go through to determine if it is safe to cross the road? Nope.

You kind of have a point here.

However, it is worth considering that many decisions (like the one to commit a crime, perhaps) are inherently emotionally charged. Consider a family deciding whether or not to "pull the plug" on grandma's life support. Grandma won't get better, the doctors say, and she's in a lot of pain. However, most, if not all people, are also motivated by the emotions of hope, love, and perhaps even fear of a world without Grandma. The criminal decision, for some people, at least, is like this. They legitimately fear prison, or the law. more often than not, people do not act rationally. A purely rational agent would not commit crimes, because they see, as you say, the disatvantages. However, the lure of a fast benefit is often balanced only by fear of the law.

You don't cross the street when there's a car coming. But if you're like most people, it's because you are afraid of dying, not because getting hit would be disadvantageous.

[Siquo]

What is a "disadvantage" then? Is death a disadvantage? Not to everyone, since some even seek it. Advantages and disadvantages are very subjective, hence why crime still exists: obviously for some, the disadvantage of the risk of being caught is less than the advantage of easy money. The weighing is purely rational (as far as we can be), but the initial values of what is advantageous and to what amount is emotional.

I think this is the basis of all decision-making, rationally considering options that are weighed with emotional charge.

So both Neruz is right (about rational advantages), as is Urist (about fear and emotion being the largest factor). The fear is not part of the decision-making, but it was a large part in determining the amount of disadvantage a certain outcome would have in the first place.

To take the car analogy: We'll assume that somewhere in your life you decided you REALLY don't want to be run over by a car. Every time you cross the road you don't need to revive that emotion of fear, you already know it's there, and will take the effort of looking both ways to make sure you won't be run over.

Unless you're chased by a bear. Now stopping to look both ways WILL get you mauled by a bear, and not stopping MIGHT get you run over. I'm willing to bet you can make the decision in a split second to just cross the road. Unless you can already see the road is completely filled with huge trucks, all going fast, resulting in instant run-over-ness when you cross. Then you will not cross the road. Unless you have an irrational fear of bears, in which case the certainty of getting mauled is a lot worse than the certainty of getting ran over. All based on rational risk analysis, where each risk of each outcome is weighed against eachother according to the emotional weight corresponding to that outcome.

[TheDarkJay]

The weighing is purely rational (as far as we can be), but the initial values of what is advantageous and to what amount is emotional.

Basically what I'm saying =P

Actually the bear example is interesting: I have a phobia of dogs. On my paper round, one started chasing me (apparently playfully. What is playful about a four-legged mass of fur, muscle and teeth I do not know) and I legged it straight out of the caravan park (for t'was where I was delivering papers) and across the road without even looking. There were no cars, and the dog had stopped chasing me, but I didn't even remember the road was there until I was on the other side of it. The owner of the dog then yelled at me because if a car had come it might have hit the dog, and I literally screamed "GOOD, BETTER IT THAN ME!" at her ^^