![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Control your feelings
Feb. 21st, 2012 09:43 pmI've been pondering something I wrote years ago, the topic was the question of whether or not we have control over our feelings.
Arguments against control are that we obviously don't choose our feelings, as seems obvious from the effects of medications, drugs, and hormone intoxications.
Arguments in favor are that people can learn to control some emotions ranging from severe phobias to mild likes and dislikes - "acquired tastes" etc - and trigger specific emotions somewhat deliberately by visualising/imagination.
There are reasons to think the lines are blurry, and that emotions can be, if not generated at will, then at least "cultivated" or allowed to wither - "nursing a grudge" and falling into love or hate seem to involve some amount of active participation.
There is the argument that the question is moot, since to prefer one emotion over another is also an emotion, so we would be controlled by an emotion to control an emotion anyway.
There is the argument that we are responsible for our emotions in the sense that we can't blame anyone else for them - "own your triggers". (I once got into a heated discussion about a story whose protagonist felt justified to constantly malign and eventually lash out at someone who unknowingly pushed their triggers yet felt no responsibility to communicate about those triggers, so apparently it's a point that needs making.)
There is also the not cleanly separate discussion of *acting* on emotions, and whether there really is such a thing as an "irresistible urge" and how this affects responsibility. If there are substances that can cause one to act out of character, it would stand to reason that the same can be true for brain chemicals (but it's probably not as common as its use as an excuse).
There seems to be some validity to all these arguments, yet they seem a bit contradictory. Perhaps "emotions" is too vague a term and different factors that have not been sufficiently distinguished are at play here...
Arguments against control are that we obviously don't choose our feelings, as seems obvious from the effects of medications, drugs, and hormone intoxications.
Arguments in favor are that people can learn to control some emotions ranging from severe phobias to mild likes and dislikes - "acquired tastes" etc - and trigger specific emotions somewhat deliberately by visualising/imagination.
There are reasons to think the lines are blurry, and that emotions can be, if not generated at will, then at least "cultivated" or allowed to wither - "nursing a grudge" and falling into love or hate seem to involve some amount of active participation.
There is the argument that the question is moot, since to prefer one emotion over another is also an emotion, so we would be controlled by an emotion to control an emotion anyway.
There is the argument that we are responsible for our emotions in the sense that we can't blame anyone else for them - "own your triggers". (I once got into a heated discussion about a story whose protagonist felt justified to constantly malign and eventually lash out at someone who unknowingly pushed their triggers yet felt no responsibility to communicate about those triggers, so apparently it's a point that needs making.)
There is also the not cleanly separate discussion of *acting* on emotions, and whether there really is such a thing as an "irresistible urge" and how this affects responsibility. If there are substances that can cause one to act out of character, it would stand to reason that the same can be true for brain chemicals (but it's probably not as common as its use as an excuse).
There seems to be some validity to all these arguments, yet they seem a bit contradictory. Perhaps "emotions" is too vague a term and different factors that have not been sufficiently distinguished are at play here...
