possible?

[Hannibal]

Is it possible for a human *as a human* to exhist without the use or emotion? Or to care for another human, without any emotional attatchment whatsoever?

------------------
As miserable as life may be I hold it pretty precious...

If I lose the light of the sun, I will write by candlelight, moonlight, no light. If I lose paper and ink, I wil write in blood on forgotten walls. I will write always, I will capture nights all over the world and bring them to you.

[zelazny]

well, firstly you'd have to define what it is to be human
And i think that if you want to stick to the norm that being human involves emotions, simply because almost every human up till now exhibits at least a few ones.

------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.

[doodoo]

Humans present advanced processes which are internally <u>perceived</u> as emotions. Externally, they are perceived as well, though they are read as "emotional" reactions only because the external observers project their own internal "reading" of their own "emotional state" upon the person who expresses the emotional reaction. Yes!

------------------
Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers!

[Hannibal]

Doodoo- what you said reminds me a lot of what's known as "projection".
I disagree with you however, everyone.
I think it is possible for a person to lack emotion, and survive in the world, and even have "friends", however they would not be such to that person seeing as they have no emotion.
My reasoning behind it is this, there are people out there with a lack of emotion, however they are mentally ill. And sometimes, they slip by and live in the world without being noticed. At least that's what I think.

------------------
As miserable as life may be I hold it pretty precious...

If I lose the light of the sun, I will write by candlelight, moonlight, no light. If I lose paper and ink, I wil write in blood on forgotten walls. I will write always, I will capture nights all over the world and bring them to you.

[Tard]

isn't that called "co-dependancy"?

------------------
Ambivalent Obsessions
~Ignotum Per Ignotius~

[doodoo]

Thanks for disagreeing, Honeyball! Are you sure I haven't touched any "emotional strings" inside you?

------------------
Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeers!

[SHATOUSHKA]

might i remind you that lacking emotion is not what the original formula calles for.
...its WITHOUT emotion.

getting back to the first post, i am going towards zela on this. first i would think you would have to define what it is to be 'human'.
but i find more important than that--is to define caring without resorting to subjective terms. (gosh! i thought we did this on the other GP)

so that is my dare. define caring without using subjective terms.
if you can, then you will have your answer.
can caring be more (or less) than the already perceived notion of such?

com'on people.



------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy