When I think of the Humanities, I don't think of someone who is in touch with their emotions and understands their feelings: actually I think a self-actualized scientist has the best of both worlds. It's when people value feelings over facts, and tradition over truth that my blood begins to boil. We are, by nature, emotional beings. A scientific description of us that denies that nuance of our being is hollow, however any emotional endeavor that denies truth independent of ourselves is blind.

I see feelings and emotions as a means to an end, as tools to sharpen other, more objective, skills. Not as an end in themselves, as others may think. Feelings are, after all, only what we percieve them to be, while science is what IS. Emotions are exclusive to living beings, while science has no realistic bounds. It's my belief that someone whose primary foundation is in the humanities is inherently selfish for that fact.

• Re: We're not attacking emotion - yanniru - February 28, 2001 - 13:40 UTC
  • No fundam. difference betw. consciouseness and unconsciouseness. - alexander - February 28, 2001 - 20:52 UTC
    • Re: No fundam. difference betw. consciouseness and unconsciouseness. - yanniru - March 1, 2001 - 13:08 UTC
      • Re: Re: No fundam. difference betw. consciouseness and unconsciouseness. - alexander - March 1, 2001 - 15:08 UTC
        • Re: Re: Re: No fundam. difference betw. consciouseness and unconsciouseness. - yanniru - March 2, 2001 - 00:15 UTC
          • Re: Re: Re: Re: No fundam. difference betw. consciouseness and unconsciouseness. - alexander - March 2, 2001 - 00:35 UTC
  • Science, not humanities, will discover the "Spirit" - johnpowell - March 1, 2001 - 18:14 UTC