I'm not sure I understand. Are emotions themselves really the problem, or are you bothered by what causes them?
I know that many Fives and thinking types are wary of strong emotions—sometimes even fear them. I've often heard these people describe emotions as “overwhelming”; but I'm not sure exactly what this means, and feeling overwhelmed by nothing more than the sheer intensity of my emotions is never a problem for me. Problems are always related to context.
Maybe I've just had to adapt. I have, shall we say, a delicate neurological constitution. If powerful emotional or sensory experiences were inherently problematic for me, I could not function. Being afraid of doing something that one might later regret makes sense to me (But I have never experienced an emotion so powerful that I felt unable to trust myself or that my decisions were not ultimately mine, so I don't worry about this. Lucky me.) Being afraid of emotions themselves does not.
Negative emotions can be uncomfortable, but they are not so different from physiological impulses like hunger: both are useful, necessary signals that tell us we need something. Hunger is a good example. When we are hungry, we eat. Problem solved. If we are hungry and we can't eat—well . . . shit. But life goes on (I don't mean to belittle emotional struggles. I'm just pointing out that, to the extent possible, we shouldn't worry about what we can't change.)
Euphoria invariably subsides; even the most profound despair abates (except when it doesn't). Emotions are like waves. They roll in and pass by. Their rhythm is eternal.
The problem with fearing emotions is that you will find yourself constantly beset with anxiety: if you don't like the tide, don't live by the ocean. If you don't like emotions . . . ? I feel like I'm spouting truisms, and it makes me feel a little dumb and shallow, frankly. But what I continue to find is that no matter how irritatingly oversimplified appraisals they seem, in the end they turn out to be useful and mostly true.