Feelings can get you in trouble.
When you're angry and have a need to vent and you don't know how to vent, you can end up saying things you don't mean.
And what does this mean?
That feelings are bad? Or that you say the wrong thing because you don't know how to --because you've never learned how to, in fact you were encouraged to never learn how to--make your words match exactly what you are feeling.
Isn't "matching reality" the essense of truth?
Feelings can get you in trouble.
When you're feeling affectionate and have a need to express it and you don't know how to express it, you can end up not saying things you do mean only to end up latter feeling regretful because you should have said them to the loved one who is no longer around.
But what does this mean?
That feelings are bad? Or that you do not say the right thing as you sometimes should because you don't know how to --because you've never learned how to, in fact you were encouraged to never learn how to--make your good behavior match exactly what you are feeling.
Isn't "matching reality" the essense of truth?
Feelings can get you in trouble.
When you're feeling one with the universe and have a need to contemplate such a wonderful state and you don't know how to contemplate, you can end up thinking thoughts you don't necessarily agree with and consequently draw conclusions that are against your actual, rational self-interest.
And what does this mean?
That feelings are bad or that you drew the wrong conclusion because you don't know how to --because you've never learned how to, in fact you were encouraged to never learn how to--make an exact distinction between what you are feeling and what you are thinking.
Doesn't "matching reality" mean matching it precisely?
If matching reality is the essence of truth and your ability to deal with feelings at the emotional level has not progressed and kept pace with your thinking abilities then which aspect of mind do you think you will trust the most? Your ability to think or your ability to feel? Your ability to think and translate your thoughts into action in reality or your ability to feel and translate your feelings into actions in reality?
But what does this mean?
Does it mean that if I spent a significant portion of my life dis-allowing feelings and then discover that repression --a mystical concept-- is actually a valid, non-mystical concept that has devastating consequences for "non-believers" who are repressed and don't know it, that... that... that what?
Stop!
Halt!
Shoot from the hip.
Emotions are not tools of cognition.
True, true, true.
But.
Neither are they bananas, nor are they houses, nor cars, nor etc.
That statement about what emotions aren't is a true philosophical observation and extremely, extremely important, but it is NOT a valid definition of what emotions are.
Psychology defines emotions as: the psycho-biological form in which we experience our estimate of the beneficial or harmful relationship of some aspect of reality to ourselves.
And what does this mean?
It means first and foremost that our emotions are our own personal barometer of what's for me or what's against me and to what extent and secondly that the first application of the concept should be to me, myself:
My emotions are the psycho-biological form in which I experience my estimate of the beneficial or harmful relationship of some aspect of reality to me, myself.
It means that feelings and emotions are a part of our life and if we don't learn how to deal with them properly we could very well be in trouble because of our feelings and emotions. The things that will differ are the kinds of trouble we will be in. (And the duration of time we'll be in it. For example, since my estimate is part of the process what if I estimate incorrectly and manufacture negatively charged emotions and store them up and eventually de-repress them but not change my estimates. If so HOW do I ever get rid of the need to de-repress?)
I personnally love it (now) when I can make my verbal expression of my anger match exactly the state of anger I am in (rather than just be able to clench my jaw and stare blankly at someone who would read my "body" language and say: "are you angry?", to which --being against emotions then-- I was forced to say --with an Alfred E. Newman smirk on my face: "who, me? of course not").
And by contrast, I (now) hate it when I fail miserably at this task.
The latter is still easy to do, but then so is the former possible to do.
Truth takes more time, more effort. It requires more knowledge, more know how.
Since Aristotle is right: "Truth must be preferred", we have to invest the time and effort required to bring ourselves to and/or maintain ourselves at the adult --not the infantile but the adult-- level of "dealing" with feelings and emotions.
But what does this mean?
It means we have to know ourselves well enough to know what we are as emotional beings. We have to have the self-honesty and guts to deal with ourselves as emotional beings and know that nature intended reason and emotions to be best friends and if they are not, they can help each other out by following each other in the proper sequence. And the proper sequence is, to THINK, to FEEL, to ACT.
The proper context for the proper sequence is, do all three inside human nature: I think, therefore I feel. I feel, therefore I act. Developmentally, this is the description of a baby. For an adult it would/should be: I value life, therefore I choose to think. I value life, therefore I choose to not block its actual meaning to me. I value life, therfore I choose to act to further my own.
If we block life's actual meaning to ourselves and we do so to a significant extent, then how do we ever expect to achieve happiness?
And by contrast, if we do not block to a significant extent, but rather permit our life's meaning to be known to us then we possess the potential to exist in a state of happiness (actual happiness requires more than just feeling...for more on this read Dr. Branden's The Disowned Self).