SHP Forums

I was recently reminded, due to World War I, of some poems I wrote last year after being inspired by a WWI book that I read. I was inspired, I think, by the utter uselessness of that conflict in tactical or strategic terms, and felt very sad, angry, and despairing that we live in a world where such an outrage could happen. So I decided to do something to pay homage to the people who fought and died in WWI. An hour or so later, I found that I'd written a series of ten short poems dedicated to the men who fought and died in the two World Wars (with the poems based on actual incidents from the World Wars) and told to us through the eyes of a fictional corporal in the British Army. Although I've been writing both prose and poetry for 14 years, it was the saddest thing I've ever written.

Anyway, that's the background to my question. So my question is... which do you think is the most powerful emotion? We in the west are constantly being told that we should be happy and that the way to be happy is to buy stuff. I don't have too much of a problem with being happy, but I constantly find that when I'm sad or angry I write much deeper or more insightful poetry. Are despair or rage more powerful emotions than happiness? I know that when people are enraged, they sometimes do things that they wouldn't do otherwise, but... it doesn't seem, well, "natural" to me to be angry. *puzzled*

Thoughts?

First of all, if you care to share, I'll be glad to read your poems.

Properly on your question, I don't think that there are emotions more stronger than other. Every emotion has a range of power and strength. On a more personal note, I'm often inspired by melancholy.

I believe the most powerful emotion in the world is love.

However, I think you may be asking "What is the emotion that inspires writing/poetry most strongly?", or even "What emotion in writing affects you most deeply?" - and these are of course different questions. <becomes contemplative>

I do believe my best poetry is the result of tapping into melancholy and darkness. I have sometimes written good quality "light" poems, but it's much harder for me to do so. In a way, I think of the painful emotions, the ones that scrape us raw and seek out all of the shadowed midnight places in our hearts, as the ones that can be used as though they are paint squeezed out upon the palette. Lighter colours, yes, they are there - but not in such profuseness. The vivid primary colours are those that cannot be expressed adequately in my daily life. (I am a happy person; I want to give light to other people and show them my appreciation; if I'm upset, I often won't demonstrate it or I will trivialise it. Those darker emotions go straight into my reservoir, and I take them out to be the ink of my writing.)

I've read some utterly gorgeous happy poems and lighter writings that express joy - they delight me, and I am certainly deeply affected by them.

In a way, I think I can only conclude that the full range of human emotions can be vividly and powerfully expressed through writing, and none of us who feel and who have a heart can fail to be moved by the whole gamut of emotions.

The most powerful one is fear, followed closely by anger. They're the hardest to control and can easily override any current emotions with devastating results.

Datadog wrote:The most powerful one is fear, followed closely by anger. They're the hardest to control and can easily override any current emotions with devastating results.

I'd have to agree. People rarely think in a rational manner when it comes to either of these emotions. Love is quite a powerful emotion too, but it seems to be a somewhat rarer one. Sure, love exists and might hold two people together, but it can be overridden by fear and at times, anger. Whether or not that's a permanent change depends on the situation, however.

I wouldn't want to downplay the power of love itself. Much like fear and anger, it was a way of making people do irrational and sometimes superhuman things. But like you said, it's very rare and often mistaken for other emotions, so it's difficult to really determine how powerful it is. Hollywood makes an excellent case for it, at the very least.

I'd still go with fear as the most dominant. It's the first emotion we experience, often the last one, and we spend our entire lives fighting it.

I would say love. Even over fear. I have seen and heard people stand up against impossible odds in the name of love - a man standing between a grizzly bear and his son - just to protect his son - knowing that it will cost his own life. People fight wars in the name of love (and their religion, which they love).

Other emotions might be powerful, but ones like anger and fear are fleeting, love is enduring. Love can overcome the first two, but can lead to tremendous pain with the loss of it. Love can lead to pettiness such as jealousies and selfishness, but can also lead to the noblest of acts, ultimate self sacrifice as Tawm noted.

I don't think there is one most powerful emotion but two that compliment each other, like yin and yang. Love/Hate and Courage/Fear may go hand in hand in some instances but I'm thinking more along the lines of man/woman day/night. Equal but in different ways. Complimenting each other because one cannot really exist successfully without the other.

I think it COULD exist... a world of courageous loving people could one day exist... however because of the limits of mankind and the folly we are born with... it won't exist in any lifetimes soon.

I don't think that the "happy" that Rath refers to society as promoting is true happiness. It's only a rather basic satisfaction or at least very short-lived, low-key happiness. Experiencing pure, unadulterated joy is completely different. Unfortunately, "happy" is one of those overused words, like "nice". The overuse of it has diminished the perception that "happy" can be a strong emotion.

That said, I have trouble thinking in absolutes. My answer to the main question would have to be "it depends on the situation and the person". Overall, a person may be more motivated by fear than another, one more motivated by anger, one by love. However, certain situations may cause them to put aside their natural inclination and act on an emotion that may not normally motivate them. I don't think it's a question of "which emotion is the strongest?" as though it's independent of the individual, but "which emotion does the individual feel the most strongly at the moment they make the decision?". The more strongly someone feels an emotion, the more likely it is to affect their actions or decisions. All can be felt strongly, so all have the potential to be the deciding factor (which is really what we're asking here). I don't think there is one emotion that will always win out.

Maiandra wrote:I don't think that the "happy" that Rath refers to society as promoting is true happiness. It's only a rather basic satisfaction or at least very short-lived, low-key happiness. Experiencing pure, unadulterated joy is completely different. Unfortunately, "happy" is one of those overused words, like "nice". The overuse of it has diminished the perception that "happy" can be a strong emotion.

Happiness certainly can have two meanings. Most just think of it as something akin to having a good time. Then there is the deeper meaning as in "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That which give bliss, contentedness or joy of life.

Collector wrote:Happiness certainly can have two meanings. Most just think of it as something akin to having a good time. Then there is the deeper meaning as in "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That which give bliss, contentedness or joy of life.

Although somewhat off-track, I hate it when people confuse the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" with some sort of "right to happiness." There's a huge difference between the two.

I was not talking about the right of happiness or even the right to pursue it, I was revering to the kind of happiness that Jefferson had in mind with this statement.

Collector wrote:I was not talking about the right of happiness or even the right to pursue it, I was revering to the kind of happiness that Jefferson had in mind with this statement.

I realize that. I was merely commenting on the fact that many in the U.S. misunderstand the idea. That's all.