(Open-Ended) Emotions vs Reason
(Open-Ended) Emotions vs Reason
When it comes to decision-making, perception and so on, what are your beliefs about the role and merits of feelings/emotions vs reasoning?
Some common positions:
-
Emotions tend to get in the way of reasoning - we should primarily rely on our logic and rationality to guide us. When feeling strongly about anything we should block it out and try to think purely in a rational way.
-
Reasoning can distract us when the right answer is to empathize or trust our gut feelings; it's easy to be misled by a convincing argument but gut feelings can see through that.
-
Emotions and logic each play a role in observation and judgment. If both didn't have a use, why would we have evolved to have them?
A lot of people probably don't go all the way one way or the other. Even if you don't have a particularly strong reason for why you feel one way or the other, feel free to express what you believe.
You're viewing a single thread.
I am strongly in the logic camp, though both can be used to great effect if the person understands themselves and can apply logic to emotion in advance. Emotions override or preempt logic and prevent us from thinking rationally in many cases. It harms FAR more than it helps, and is essentially a knee-jerk reaction executed before we can think.
This is why many people are the way they are. They react to something, and THEN try to apply a logical process to the reaction as if there was one.
Why are people overweight in most cases? Logic or emotion?
When people try to manipulate others, are the lies generally emotionally manipulative, or logically manipulative?
Why do people stay in bad relationships? It could conceivably be either, but most often it's emotional and / or a "better than nothing" response.
Why are people religious in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? They're raised to think that way and instead of using logic, they rely on emotion and the way it makes them feel.
Why do people not try to change things in their life that they'd very much like to? Because change is difficult, which is an emotional response. You have to apply logic and reason to cause change because emotion makes it hard to adjust routine.
I could go on and on, but I would posit that emotion (anger, covetousness, lust, pettiness, etc.) is responsible for more self-sabotage and destruction than any logic.
Empathy is a moral response, and morality is subjective. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be empathetic, it simply means that what it means to be empathetic at the very core is completely arbitrary.
This doesn't mean they can't overlap or be used effectively, but often they are at odds and faulty logic is used to justify the initial emotional response.
As an addendum, from my experience people are horrible at distinguishing between the two responses.
You have some perplexing examples there.
I can agree eating something based on a desire to eat it and neglecting the thought of not eating it leading to being overweight.
When people lie, they usually do it to avoid negative consequences they foresee. Are emotions capable of predicting the future? I would say no, logic is, and it’s typically logic that determines lying to be the best way to avoid it. There may be emotional acting at play, but not emotional thinking, unless your lie gets found out.
What makes a relationship bad? Typically experiencing bad emotions such as anger, frustration, pain, and stress. These emotions would presumably push someone to leave, but if they talk themself into staying that’s logic keeping them in that situation, poor logic as it may be.
There is no interesting conversation to be had regarding religion here.
How is something being hard an emotional response? Sorry, since it hasn’t happened yet, how is calculating that something will be hard emotional?
I don’t understand how understanding another person’s emotional state is a moral response or how subjectivity is arbitrary, or how either could indicate that emotions are wrong or not useful.
You mention faulty logic being used to justify initial emotional responses but if a person is acting on their initial response I would say they’re not applying logic in the first place, though I do agree that logic is fallible and no person is capable of perfect reasoning.
Ultimately, and based on your first paragraphs you may agree to some extent, emotions aren’t something to be controlled or repressed, they are something to be acknowledged and understood, and often in that understanding the best response can be found.
When you want to eat, is it a feeling of genuine hunger or boredom? If the former, you likely won’t get overweight if you eat, but if the latter what would be leading you to be bored and is there something that could make you less bored? If you just really like food because it makes you feel comfortable you could exercise frequently to enable that emotion in a healthy way.
When a person determines lying to be the best option to avoid trouble, and they feel guilty, would that negative feeling push them to act in a way to better avoid thinking they need to lie going forward? If they don’t feel guilt, would you say there is something emotionally wrong with them?
If a person is in a bad relationship, would negative feelings not be what tips them off that something is wrong and prompt them to understand why they feel that way, giving them the understanding to express what they need to end that feeling?
You're correct. I typed it in a hurry and realized that some of my examples were poorly worded. I've now corrected them and added some detail.
I agree that they can work in tandem, but it relies on a well-developed sense of logic and allowing it to take the fore. Certainly emotion can be useful, but only if you apply a logical process to it instead of a simple justification.