Emotion Vs. Logic

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Okay, taking this away from the context of any one person and her or his philosophies.....

Must emotion blind one to logic and reason
Is logic blind, when uninformed by emotion?
Or is a balance of the two best in guiding a person through her life's path?

All this talk of Mr. Sim aside, one point that seems absent from discussion is what OF this dichotimy of reason and emotion. Must they be rigidly seperated? Is one always preferable to another?

Without bringing the debate that belongs in another thread about a given personality, what are your thoughts on this as an issue?

[Reverend Smooth]

I don't see why they'd be separated when both of them working in tandem has served humanity quite well, thanks to that lovely, lovely evolution thing.

Thought, emotion, instinct, rationality, and far many more qualities, all exist on a continuum, and all of them work together to produce an adaptable brain.

I don't understand the overfocus on a simplistic dichotomy, except that it makes it convenient for insecure wankers to wank about this being this and that being that.

The brain is complicated. Emotion vs. Logic is so several centuries (even millenia) ago.

[Linkara]

My thoughts on the matter are best spoken by Peter Graves:

"Do you think for a minute that one of your control people would resist? Not a chance. Courage is an emotion. They would logically conclude that the only way to stay alive would be to talk. You see pure logic only works for the individual - there's no group feeling, no patriotism, no cooperation of any kind."
"How can it care anything about you? It doesn't like, it doesn't dislike! It simply reasons, concludes, and uses."

Bear in mind, from a position of pure logic, there's no way to be certain that other people exist. Descartes could prove that an individual, in my case "I," exists because I know I have thoughts. But I can't prove that other minds exist from a purely logical standpoint. As such, from a position of pure logic only my own survival and continued existence are important.

But then again, the dichotomy also runs into problems if we try to differentiate between feeling and emotion. Is a desire to get out of bed an emotion or simply a feeling? When we're hungry, is that an emotion or just a biological necessity? Curiosity, desire, any drive to do anything at all tend to be based on emotions; therefore it could be said that a creature already requires some form of emotion in order to function.

As such, I contend that there always needs to be a balance of logic and emotion.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I have to think of various struggles for justice when this question comes up. Let's use, for example, the fight against Apartheid in South Africa. Could the issue have advanced and become so important on the world stage without appealing to the emotions of the world? Could it have been defeated without that emotional content..... and likewise, would it have been defeated with a total absence of logic and reason?

It seems apparent that the two are not opposite poles, but are instead facets of a person that can be used very effectively in conjunction, one with the other. When the two are completely divorced, it seems the result is likely to be lopsided.

[Reverend Smooth]

That would be called 'insanity'.

[Michael P]

It's not a binary situation. Most people are capable of using logic and emotion, and do so, often at the same time.

[Gilda Dent]

Emotion and logic need to exist in balance.

A lack of empathy, a human emotion necessary to healthy human interaction, is a symptom of psychopathy.

An over reliance on emotion to the exclusion of reason is what leads to things like laws restricting the rights of racial or sexual minorities.

Some issues are entirely appropriate to decide exclusively on the basis of emotion. What movie to see or what color blouse to wear to work? No need for logic.

Some decisions or conclusions need to be made entirely or nearly entirely based on logic. What the correct settings for linking the XBox to the router? To what degree is global warming caused by human activity?

Most things, however, should follow a balance of logic and emotion. Who do I want to spend my life with? What should I wear to my job interview? Should we go to Universal Orlando for our big vacation this year?

Even Spock and Data frequently expressed emotion. Fascination. Curiosity. Affection. Confusion.

Pure emotion and pure reason are both unrealistic and unhealthy ways of doing things.

[TCJohnson]

There is a time and place for both. Mostly, that time and place are the same for both. But there are other times...

There was the case of Tim Masters (http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/default.aspx?tabid=71&pDesc=2421,1,1)who served 9 years for murder before it was determined that he was innocent. The prosecuter's main evidence was that A) Tim Masters found the body and B) Tim Masters, as a teenager, would draw sketches of murders. That was it. There was no direct link between Masters and the victim, or Masters and any kind of weapon. Nothing.

He was convicted because the jury was repulsed by the pictures he sketched as a teenager. It was purely an emotional reaction to a slightly troubled teenager. If they had supressed their emotions and relied on logic, Masters would have gone free.

[Night Swordsman]

As always,Gilda lights our way.

Balance is they key,in all things. Everything in moderation,but to overdo any one thing can lead to a inbalance,which can and probably will have a effect on your life.


Because of this,i have decided that if i ever meet Karen,to give her a twinkie. She's earned it.

[beetlebum]

A balance of is needed. One cannot overemphasize the primacy of consciousness over the primacy of reality, and vice versa.

Logic should play a factor in inductive reasoning, but it should be noted that inductive reasoning is near ubiquitous in our every day lives because only a few things can be determined using deductive reasoning.

When making decisions for oneself, one should let rationale and reason play it's part. But to over rationalize everything is imo, is annoying. That's why I have a problem with Objectivist epistemology; i.e how do we know that this is it, that this reality is final and that is the objective truth?

Very few things in life are certain, and I wouldn't dismiss every thing I don't like as phrenological.

Priori and posterori knowledge aren't always compatible, but when they are, they should be used to determine what is best for us, and lead to causation which is the inevitable result of our actions.

Unfortunately, things don't always go the way we would like them too. Thus the spontaneity of the universe makes it so that not everything will be determined by empirical precedence. Mistakes happen and negative outcomes are inevitable.

The trick is to learn how to deal when they happen. Right now, I have a friend of mine who is fighting for custody of her daughter. Though she knows the judges are supposed to adjudicate impartially, we know that they are subject to the same foibles and flaws that the rest of us are, and she is hoping they will be swayed by emotion.

Being led by your emotions is in some instances a good thing, but always being led by your emotions are bad. That is why logic and emotions should not always be mutually exclusive.

Brand Blandshard suggests that man is teleological by nature ( and I use the word, not in it's theological context, but that of being goal oriented), and he may be right about that. Nicomachean ethics emphasises eudaimonia (which while many make the correlation to happiness, etymology wise the connotations may be different.)

But even those who know what is good don't always act in a virtuous manner. And that is why the concept of Nicomachean ethics as being universal is fraught with many fallacies.

Whether or not man comes into the world with a blank slate of mind has yet to be determined, but one thing that is true is that man acquires rationality through time.

The sad thing is though, our actions do not always seem to be imply that.

Using examples from my personal life, Tiziano Ferro is my favourite singer because he can move me in a way no other singer can. U2 can do the same. They can either make me cry or bring me to a state of euphoria, and they do so in a mannerism which pays homage and is very much like the gospel music that has influenced them. While I know that Godspeed You Black Emperor and Aesop Rock may receive better album reviews, they are not my favourite musicians simply because they can't move me the way those two aforementioned acts can.

And while I might be moved by a tearful plea to give to a charitable cause, I do use reason and what I have learned to make decisions in other areas, esp. in the realm of politics. Your cingular and angular gyrus, hippocampus, amygdala, and all of the ephinerine, dopamine and cortisol released in your body are there to help you, in not only helping you feel good, but in doing what is best for you as well.

I see no reason why the two things should always be mutually exclusive.

[Tyr]

Logic is so overated. :p

[beetlebum]

Says you! :evilsmile: ;D