Author's Note: This a response to our Book Club meeting in which we talked about life without emotion, the philosopher Xeno, and the Romantics.
When I look outside and see the bright, shining sun it makes me feel happy. When I walk down an empty street it makes me feel lonely. When I see an old, falling apart house it makes me feel sad. Anything I do, I do with emotion whether it is talking, walking, or just sitting there. I look forward to laughing and having fun, and I live for the moments when I have a smile on my face. In the book The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon the main character, Christopher, has no emotion because he doesn't understand it. He believes everything should be factual and literal and that there is no need for emotion.
When Christopher is taken to the police station and put in a holding cell he is not scared because he did not do anything wrong, and that was a fact. To me I don't see how you could be indifferent in that situation because I see the police station as a frightening place where you see the so called 'Bad Guys' in movies. But Christopher found pleasure in how the cell was almost exactly 2 meters by 2 meters by 2 meters, which made it a perfect cube. I think Mark Haddon is trying to teach us that that there is no need for emotions. That true happiness can be found when you "strip yourself of all emotion" as the philosopher Xeno once said. He believed that once you do this you will find truth and happiness.
Though not everyone one believed this was true. To a degree I agree with the Romantics. They thought that being so in touch with your emotions brings you closer to truth. First of all, it is very hard to be impassive all the time. Also, there would be no fun, no laughing, nor joyfulness if we were emotionless. Life that way to me would be like driving down an empty rode in no particular direction and no destination -- life would have no meaning.
There are certain things in life we live for, such as family, friends, and faith. And to an extent you need your emotions to experience these things. You need to love to enjoy family, you need to be happy to be a true friend, and you need to believe to have faith. Therefore by being unemotional, we are only experiencing half of what we could. Then why settle for one half when you can have two.
I love in particular how you wrote this response. The introduction is so clear, and thesis is so strong. I could so easily follow your train of thought, and it demonstrates an independence on your part as a writer. I thoroughly enjoyed the piece.
ReplyDeleteIf you are at all interested in the works of the Romantics, you should see me about reading some of their pieces to find if any resonate with you. There are some who come right to mind for me when I think of your perspective, and they may be in alignment with your way of seeing the world.
Is it possible that there is an equal need for both reason and feeling, that both are completely necessary, but relying too heavily on either may cause us to err as people?