Does passion cloud our vision to the reality around us? Is passion that clouds our vision acceptable in philosophy?

 Sophism - presenting a poor argument as valid in the intent of deceiving someone. ("Introduction to Philosophy" 822)

 My Opinion:

* Passion can cloud an individual's judgment, however, it can also make it more clear
* Initially, if the passion is too ready accepted in its raw, excited form, that one can easily be misled. It is also common to deceive oneself in the hope for happiness. However, if one takes time to stop, evaluate it, and discover where it is coming from, passion can help a person to see things in a different light.
* Passion belongs in philosophy. Why? It belongs because it is what keeps philosophy alive. Without the passion for knowledge, without the "love of wisdom", one would not actively pursue the larger questions in life, and philosophy would not exists at the level that it does today.

          Are we emotional beings, prone to creating fallacy after fallacy, blind to the reality that we are living a lie?

Aristotle developed three laws of thought to determine what something is and what it is not. His three laws of thought are:

1.) The law of non-contradiction - something cannot be one thing and yet another at the same time
2.) The law of the excluded middle - something is either one thing or another, never both
3.) The law of identity - something is what it is. To say it is something else is incorrect ("Philosophy Questions & Theories" 52)

 * According to these three laws of thought, passion must be either 100% emotion or 100% logic. Since passion has long been considered invalid in the study of philosophy (due to its many connotations), passion would have to be 100% emotion, such as a state of euphoria.

  * If such is so, then love is a fallacy. The fallacy of love appeals to emotion by using strong emotional language to provoke desired feelings and reactions, with a lack of legitimate reasoning for the acceptance of such feelings and ideas. (Ibid., 76-77)

 Jeremy Bentham

 * Passion is the natural progression of human nature. Once we succeed in meeting our basic survival needs, we naturally begin to seek more forms of physical pleasure. (Ibid., 26) Therefore, there must be an amount of logic involved in the concept of passion if it is the natural progression of human nature (if we assume that logic has a fundamental role in human instinct).

          Below are several theories dealing with the question: Is sexual passion linked to love, or solely sex? The descriptions are above, and the theories and terms are below. However, the theories and terms have been scrambled. Unscramble the words to reveal the correct theory or term, and match then with the above description. Then take the second letter in each theory (first word of theory only) and put it together. If you have unscrambled the words correctly, you will spell 'alan'.  If you're stumped, the unscrambled words are written below in the answer key to help you.

          What is this phenomenon that we call love? According to the Funk and Wagnall's Standard Desk Dictionary (page 384), love is "A deep devotion or affection for another person or persons" and, "A strong sexual passion for another person."

          What have the Greek philosophers of our past considered love to be? Do their opinions coincide with your own, or do you have a different opinion? Read the views below and decide which answer best describes your view. What do you agree with and disagree with? Why?

 * According to Hobbes, love cannot be anything but one individual trying to dominate over another, because human nature is vain and selfish. ("Philosophy Questions & Theories" , 28-29)

 * Butler claimed that self-love was necessary and healthy, but that we also have benevolence, which makes us want to help others. The two never collide. Therefore, we are altruistic when it comes to love. We satisfy our needs and then seek to help others fulfill theirs. (Ibid., 29)

 * We have a moral conscience which makes us do good things. Therefore, we only do good things out of obligation in order to preserve our best interests. Therefore, we are egoistic, and love is simply a way of fulfilling our selfish desires. (Ibid., 29)

 * Love may be a result of the human desire to make ourselves happy. If we help others we feel good about ourselves, and make ourselves look good.

 * Love is a fallacy. It uses dicto simplicter ("an argument based on an unqualified generalization") and hasty generalizations (reaching a generalization too quickly). We assume that what our senses tell us are true, and that we have complete control over our emotions, which may not be so. (bid., 82)

 * Love also uses post hoc, which is stating that something happens as a direct result of something else, even though there is no logical connection between the two. For example, one might say that whenever the person that they love is around, it becomes sunnier outside and the hours are shorter. However, the individual has no control over it at all. Love can also use ad misericordiam, which is appealing to our sympathy. Love leads us to believe that the individual needs us to survive, when in reality, they do not. (bid., 81-82)

          Here is a poem depicting the many theories and views surrounding the question:
Are emotions invalid evidence and examples if used to support one's beliefs in passion and love? Can you pick out the different theories and ideas? If not, they are outlined below the poem.

Love must be what I am used to seeing,
What I am used to reading about in magazines.
Passion must be secretive and forbidden,
Not sensuous and enveloping.
I reason with myself that this is how it must be,
Yet I find this generalization invalid.
My emotions do not feel the way they should.

This love appeals strictly to my heart,
The burning orb that clouds my eyes.
How do I know what is real,
And what I have created as an illusion?
I could trust my eyes, my heart, my mind.
But what if they prove me wrong?
How do I know the truth?

Society tells me to feel one way,
But it seems like it's all so blind.
Perhaps love in general is similar,
But who defines true passion?
How do they know that they've even felt it?
They may think that they know what passion is,
But I doubt that they could meet/understand my own.

 * Emotions used to support one's beliefs and opinions become invalid as evidence when they are created using inductive reasoning.
* Inductive reasoning is when you make a generalization (I.e. "everyone breaks up after high school is over.") Saying so is to make a generalization that all humans experience the same events and have the same perspectives, and that the definition of the love and importance is universal, which is untrue. ("Philosophy Questions and Theories" 73-75)
* If one believes that they must experience love and passion in a similar way as everyone else, and convinces themselves that they can base their actions purely on emotion, then the emotions in question are invalid as evidence.

 * If love is indeed a fallacy, and appeals strictly to emotion (in the form of inductive reasoning), then can love or passion truly be real? (Ibid.,76-77) How do we know what is real? We tend to rely on our senses, but what happens when our senses fail us? How can we truly experience passion if we are not even guaranteed that our senses are providing us with the true reality? (Ibid.,114-117)

 * There is also the common use of inductive reasoning when society discusses love. There is the assumption that sexual passion is the same for everyone, which may be false. If you assume that each individual has separate influences which help to define who they are, then each individual will experience sexual passion differently. If there are certain pre-programmed values and habits in us as a species (by what/who is open for discussion), then perhaps the general experience is the same. However, there are different perspectives on the same experience.

          Below is a link to a quiz that I created to test your knowledge, once again, on various philosophers and theories. Remember to think quickly because each question is timed, and you only have 20 seconds to answer each question. I hope that you've been studying!

Click on the link below to be directed to the quiz!

http://www.myquiz.net/?l=play&quiz=YNsLSHeGTujEVXDMIbiW


Consider the thoughts below. Do you agree with them?

Negative Freedom - If you are not coerced to do or not to do something, then you are free. (Warburton, 76)

John Stewart Mill - People should be able to experiment within their own lives without government interference, as long as the actions hurt no one. (Warburton, 76)

   Is passion morally right or wrong if it goes against the law?

        Match them with the correct theory/philosopher to its description to test your knowledge of philosophical terms and theories. It may help to keep track on a piece of paper. The answer key is at the bottom.

1. Right and Wrong depends on social customs.            
Therefore, if society says that certain expressions                           
and forms of passion are morally wrong, then in
that particular society, it is. To rebel against the
society that you live in is morally wrong.
("Philosophy Questions & Theories" 257)

2. It is morally acceptable to do anything that fulfills                                    
the will of God, regardless of the laws in place.
Consequences are not of importance.

3. Anything that coincides with human nature is                                   
morally acceptable, because it is what God
intended, and is what we are naturally attracted
to do. However, to fulfill passionate desires that
knowingly hurt another or oneself is to commit
an evil act.

4. It is only acceptable to partake in passionate actions                        
if the individual doing them would will those actions                          
to become a universal law. One cannot make
exceptions for themselves. I.e. Adultery is not
acceptable for everyone because it would disintegrate
the meaning of marriage, so it is not acceptable
for the individual.

5. One should seek to discover their deeper self,                                   
to reach higher intellectual understanding, and                                      
to seek enlightenment. Sexual passion is an
unnecessary earthly pleasure that merely distracts
that journey.

6. Sexual passion that goes against the law is                                        
morally acceptable if it is done privately and                                           
will offend no one, both partners consent to it,
and it does not harm anyone. ( "Ethics" 77-78 ) 

7. All actions and events are already determined                                   
by the nonstatistical laws of nature. Therefore,
sexual passion experienced has been predetermined,
and cannot be considered morally wrong.
("Introduction to Philosophy" 805)

Match the theories and/or philosophers to the correct description above.

 Natural Law ethics          The Divine Command theory         

Protagoras, Hume, and Relativism

Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative         

Buddhism          Utilitarianism           Determinism

                                                                    Answer Key

________________________________________________________________________________

1. Right and Wrong depends on social customs.                                     
Therefore, if society says that certain expressions                                
and forms of passion are morally wrong, then in
that particular society, it is. To rebel against the
society that you live in is morally wrong.
("Philosophy Questions & Theories" 257)

Protagoras, Hume, and Relativism

2. It is morally acceptable to do anything fulfills                                    
the will of God, regardless of the laws in place.
Consequences are not of importance.

The Divine Command theory

3. Anything that coincides with human nature is                                   
morally acceptable, because it is what God
intended, and is what we are naturally attracted
to do. However, to fulfill passionate desires that
knowingly hurt another or oneself is to commit
an evil act.

Natural Law ethics

4. It is only acceptable to partake in passionate actions                       
if the individual doing them would will those actions                              
to become a universal law. One cannot make
exceptions for themselves. I.e. Adultery is not
acceptable for everyone because it would disintegrate
the meaning of marriage, so it is not acceptable
for the individual. 

Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative

5. One should seek to discover their deeper self,                                   
to reach higher intellectual understanding, and
to seek enlightenment. Sexual passion is an
unnecessary earthly pleasure that merely distracts
that journey.

Buddhism

6. Sexual passion that goes against the law is                                        
morally acceptable if it is done privately and
will offend no one, both partners consent to it,
and it does not harm anyone. ( "Ethics" 77-78 )

Utilitarianism

7. All actions and events are already determined                                   
by the nonstatistical laws of nature. Therefore,
sexual passion experienced has been predetermined,
and cannot be considered morally wrong.
("Introduction to philosophy" 805)

Determinism

________________________________________________________________________________

                              Some Further Thoughts

* When it comes to morality and the law, we must consider these three questions:

1.) Is the law necessary for society's well-being?
2.) Is there a balance between the conflicting needs of individuals and society?
3.) What values is the law based upon? Are they values that the majority of the individuals within that society hold? (Thompson, 119)

* I cannot believe that Protagoras and Hume are correct. If this theory applied universally to humanity, then we would not have as many liberties as we do today. For example, it used to be considered morally acceptable to enslave blacks. To propose any different, according to this idea, would be morally wrong. However, it is widely accepted today (of course, not by all) that it is morally wrong to enslave human beings, and that all humans are equal. If this theory applied to all of humanity, then the blacks may still have been in slavery today.