(This is sort of a combination of biological/psychological/ philosophical/ spiritual- issue, so I didn't really know in what forum to post it. Feel free to relocate it, if necessary. )

Are we responsible for our feelings, or are we only responsible for how we act them out toward others?
First of all, when we grow up we learn how to control our feelings, or how to hide them from others, because showing them can sometimes have negative consequenses.
Do you think that this applies spiritually too, when the pure biological and psychological maturing process has done its best?
I'm thinking of karma, "what comes around goes around" , cause and effect etc.
We learn that if we show anger, anger is what we get back. But when we mature we can also understand the reacton of anger in another person, we know the plausible causes that can trigger this effect. We can emphatize with that person by knowing its background, or recognizing versions of ourselves in them.
Now the interesting part comes in. If we still get hurt by that persons anger, knowing and emphatizing with what caused it, are we then acting irresponsibly toward ourselves and the other person? Are we by our "immature" reaction creating "bad karma" for the other person, who perhaps hasn't enough selfawareness to realize that anger can hurt another person emotionally to begin with? It's a question of ultimate responsibility for our feelings, not just how we show them. Or is it here that forgiveness comes in? By forgiving ourselves and others can we then stop the effect of the cause, or will it only affect our peace of mind, and not the other persons "karma"?
What is really the best moral way to react to anger, if one wants to cause minimal damage, and contribute to the wellbeing of others and self instead?
Or is it inevitable that learning ( here the maturing process) has to involve pain and suffering?

Yes, you have posed an interesting and difficult question.

"My attempt at an answer"

A close friend of mine said to me once that I was not responsible for her feelings and that she was not responsible for mine.

At first and for some time this puzzled me because I knew that she certainly had a profound effect on me and I also knew that I did on her.

But, what she said made a lot of sense as well thus the puzzle.

I guess one way of explaining it could be that in a state of empathic indifferrence that we may experience , say , in a train or on a bus towards other people we are "master" of our feelings.

Then one day you meet someone that you open yourself to and then you become empathically immeshed with that person. At this point you have taken a decision to open up and therefore you can be described as still being responsible for your feelings and have the ability to withdraw at any time. So in answer to the question "Are we responsible for our feelings"? the answer is always yes.

The same could be said when confronted with anger or violence. Where by you are forced in to an empathic state involuntarilly. But how you feel is still your responsibility all though a lot harder to maintain.

Let karma look after itself, as it will any way. By taking responsibility for your feelings and striving for your sense of well being you can only bring the positive into your life.

Just don't wear your heart on your shirtsleeve!

You stealing my brain? i've been preaching about this off and on since I came to sciforums. I say you TAKE responsibility for your feelings, regardless. You cannot effectively will net personal change if you fail to take responsibility for your emotions.

Thank you for answering, I was beginning to give up hope on this topic.

What do we really mean by saying that we are responsible for our feelings?
I agree that we are, but am not really sure in what way. Is it responsibility to recognize them, acting or not acting them out or what I was really asking was are we responsible for feeling our feelings?
Can we go so far that we can consciously chose what we want, or think that we should, feel?


Sorry about the brainstealing, I didn't realize that you hade been preaching about this.
I'm not really sure what you meant by this: "You cannot effectively will net personal change if you fail to take responsibility for you emotions. "

/What do we really mean by saying that we are responsible for our feelings?

I think it is to say "I can control this" or "I don't HAVE to feel this way, I have done so by my choice". For instance if you are insulted, it is your impression of the words presented to you by someone else that makes you insulted.... but if you stop and think to yourself "maybe that's not what they meant", you have taken the first step towards emotional reponsibility. Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to be insulted, but it is RIGHT to question our interpretation of reality that generates the emotional response, thereby effectively changing the nature of that response and taking responsibility for our emotional reactions.

I suppose another aspect of it is just not blaming other people for your own emotional well-being. Unless you take charge of your own emotional well-being, you are uhm... well, emotionally irresponsible.

/I agree that we are, but am not really sure in what way. Is it responsibility to recognize them, acting or not acting them out or what I was really asking was are we responsible for feeling our feelings?

Did I cover it okay?

/Can we go so far that we can consciously chose what we want, or think that we should, feel?

In a roundabout way, yes. Can you see from what I said or should I get more in depth?

/Sorry about the brainstealing, I didn't realize that you hade been preaching about this.

Hehe, not a problem man, just teasing. I have been talking about this off and on since I've been here, but how would you know that? :) Don't sweat it! ;)

/I'm not really sure what you meant by this: "You cannot effectively will net personal change if you fail to take responsibility for you emotions. "

Does it make more sense now?

Originally posted by Yes

Are we responsible for our feelings, or are we only responsible for how we act them out toward others?

Both. But it depends:
Presently, I live in a country where people don’t show their feelings. At least they try to. Guess what kind of society it is where “amok” was ‘invented’?
Here obviously they mixed up some things: originally the “non showing” of feelings was probably related to the maturing process you mention above – that by understanding peoples’ reactions on the basis of your own past failures you won’t feel negative towards them and therefore don’t NEED to have negative feelings. Somehow it seems that this important part was cut out of the public mind and people take a non-showing of feelings for a sign of maturity. Nothing could be more wrong. This kind of calm is dangerous, because under the surface of friendliness and amiability you still HAVE those feelings and anger slowly turns into fury and rage.
Personally, I find it easier to deal with a person that is angry with me for something I have done, because that person’s anger alerts me to things I might have to correct. So why should I be angry in return?
As far as responsibility and feelings are concerned I would say I am responsible for my feelings if I have taken a decision just on the basis of a feeling alone, without weighing the outcome. The consequence of this opinion would be of course that I consider cold-blooded murder and murder committed while in rage as equal…

I think that many years ago people realised that allowing them selves to express their feelings often lead to chaos and disorder.

Our need for ordered society and thought is also a feeling and so self restraint becomes the way to do business as this lead to order of thought and expression.

However it also leads to sometimes draconian existance and the possibility of strain such as explosions of emotional release due to the stress of self denial.

So, if I get you all right, we have the power to change our feelings, but do we have the power to feel them "right" the first time around without having to change them in accordance to what we want to feel?
Perhaps we can do this, but that it takes training. It was that kind of responsibility I was getting at. To always have a self secure enough mindsetting to not feel fear/anger automatically when subjected to the fear/anger of others.
Because repressing feelings and always trying to change them, can't be healthy in the long run. The body and mind need those feelings to get out.
In a close relationship those boundaries are of course loosened up to a more intimate level, where strong feelings are let out instead. So there we can explore them in a more secure environment. ( I'm talking about a commited relationship here, otherwise it doesn't apply.)

The feeling of needing order, isn't that originally fear of chaos?

Of course you're responsible for your feelings. You chose the
reactions you take in different situations and trained yourself
to deal with life a certain way (I was once impulsive but over
time (slowly) modified my reactions until I was almost *too*
kind) so you are unquestionably responsible for any damage
resulting from any personal emotional outbursts. I may have
completely misread your text though, so if that's not what you
meant, forgive me...

maybe the fear odf chaos is more a fear of insanity or insane situations.

How often after an arguement do we think of the insanity of ours and others actions?

Originally posted by SoLiDUS
so you are unquestionably responsible for any damage
resulting from any personal emotional outbursts.

To me, how you define "damage" is important here.

For instance, you could look at damage as someone else's emotions to your outburst. In that case, I think that's a crock. You are responsible for you, they are responsible for them.

If you're talking about property damage, or physical harm to others, then I agree.

I also saw the initial emotional outburst as the firestarter: I'm not
removing the other person's responsibility (if they go nuts), I just
think certain situations could be avoided with better control over
emotions. We can always go back and find another firestarter but
ultimately, a lot of problems are caused by a lack of self-control, ja?

There are many therapy groups that use common steps in the process of personal development and recovery.

Some use the twelve steps program some use others.

But they all share similar concepts.

IN regard to Solidus's point.

At first we learn to control our emotions then the next step whilst in a state of control, learn why the control is needed.

Once we learn why the control is needed the need to control ourselves diminishes. Less energy is needed to sustain a comfortable state. etc etc. And one no longer has to control ones emotions because they no longer need to be controled as such.

I see now that I missed an essential point in my original question. I was not implying that anybody else than ourselves should be responsible for our feelings. But how much are we ourselves responsible, how much can we control and how much is pre-programmed into our biological system?
To take it a step further, are we responsible for being humans?

yes,
It sounds like we are heading for the ole' free will and culpability discussion.

Can we be held responsible if everything is predetermined?

Absolute determinism?

Is free will just a sense of freedom and in truth just a mythe?

Is truth just and illusion and the illusion just a mythe?

Originally posted by Yes
I see now that I missed an essential point in my original question. I was not implying that anybody else than ourselves should be responsible for our feelings. But how much are we ourselves responsible, how much can we control and how much is pre-programmed into our biological system?
To take it a step further, are we responsible for being humans?

Your responsibility increases as your level of independance in the
real world does. I think it's fair to say once you qualify for permits
(driving, etc) and miscellaneous legal drugs, self-control shouldn't
be an issue anymore: a personal system already in place to keep
you safe in 'bad weather' is something you should already have ...

I can't say how much is pre-programmed but in my case, it must
either be very negligible or I have superb control over everything
temper related: I suspect others can do the same but I can't talk
for everyone.

Are you responsible for being human ? I believe everyone has the
capacity for ultimate self-control (I'm not saying one shouldn't act
if he were attacked - rather, he should retaliate with equal force if
the reasons for the assault are unjustified and no reasonable way
of getting out of the situation is found) so personal accountability
for who and what you are only seem fair.

Determinism is fine and dandy but so long as we have the illusion
that is freedom of choice, all is well and even though we'd be mere
puppets, we'd have to play it out for the galactic audience anyway...

To take it a step further, are we responsible for being humans?

Would a similar question be "Are we responsible for being born"?

If you refer to being human as excersising your humanity then clearly you have choices in this regard.

"Responsible for being born" would suit my trail of thoughts better.
The free will and truth issues are always paradoxes and can never be solved, but they do provide good entertainment while trying.
Is the tree responsible for having leaves?

responsible for being born????? well sure you are, so you better shape up of ship out damn you!!!!!:D :D

I think by not dying, you take responsibility for living.

Originally posted by Yes
"Responsible for being born" would suit my trail of thoughts better.
The free will and truth issues are always paradoxes and can never be solved, but they do provide good entertainment while trying.
Is the tree responsible for having leaves?

The tree has leaves just like we have eyes: it serves a specific
purpose. As for emotions and responsibility, I remember a nice
quote from Equilibrium (movie):

"The first thing you learn about emotion... is that it has its price.
Complete paradox: but without restraint, without control, emotion
is chaos. "

"But how is that diff..."

"The difference being that when we want to feel, we can. It's just
that some of us ... some of us have to forego that luxury so that
others can have it. Some very few of us have to force ourselves
not to feel... like me; like you."


They're a bit drastic but the point gets across.

I think by not dying, you take responsibility for living.

I know this is probably off topic ( allthough close) but Wes, you have made what I feel to be a very valid and profound observation.

We all have a choice as to whether to live or die, suicide is always a choice at our disposal.

Knowing you have this choice gives you the strength to say that you control your existence. No one can realistically remove this choice and maybe of all the choices we have this one definitely belongs to you. ( except in mind washing circumstances etc)

To be "able" to reject life is to achieve it, is the philosophy I think.

Having dealt with the issue of suicidal persons a few times great strength can be achieved by understanding this choice properly.

Scenario:

A man is about to jump of a building, a negotiator is talking with him.
"Hey man you can jump any time you like, so why not jump tomorrow"?
The man says "No, I want to jump today"
The negotiator says "Pity that I was wanting to buy you a coffee"
"Why's that"? the man says
"Because you're a man I can relate to" etc etc etc.......