Reason vs emotion?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Reason vs emotion? » Reason vs emotion?

Reason vs emotion?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Reason vs emotion?

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 12/07/07 - 01:25 PM:	#31
Wait, so we are on the same page then? My thought is that our rationality needs something to base it on, since there has to be a preferred conclusion for it to exist, and that conclusion traces back to emotions. Also emotions serve a particular conclusion, therefore they are rational. Which kind of means that emotions are rational, and rationality is based on emotion. For example, one would deem it rational to think of the consequences when acting, instead of acting out of mere impulsive desires. Now why would we want to avoid negative consequences? Because negative consequences affect us in a negative way emotionally, therefore both cases are based on emotion. Now for why emotions are rational. I may cry when my parents die, in fact I definitely will. This is mainly because they have been a big part of my life, and they always did care for me, and them dying would be like a part of my life disappearing. In essence a part of my collective identity will be gone, and adding to that is my human empathy. Now given all these negative reasons that attack my "ego", I rationally unleash it in order to clear my conscious in a way. I agree that it is more biological than anything, but the reasons for sadness can indeed be traced back to rationality. Something has to trigger the biology, and it has to be triggered for a reason. (We just don't think very much about these reasons, it doesn't mean they don't exist.) What I'm trying to say is that even our emotions have a desired conclusion, and many rational desired conclusions are based on our emotions. Therefore it isn't really about picking sides between to words, since they are both the same thing essentially.
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

loveofsophia
Endeavor to Understand

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 728

Posted 12/18/07 - 02:06 AM:	#32
kkiji I agree with what you said above, in some respects. I believe I have heard of this formulation of the reason/emotion division, though I had forgotten it and your distinct perspective helped by further understand the formulation. The problem I have with this formulation is this, 2 + 2 = 4; this abstraction is a part of reason. When we agree that the correct answer is four in 2 + 2 = 4, this is not simply an emotional reaction. So, despite our reason being mirrored by an emotional response, one can't help recognize the non-emotive aspects to the human animal. I believe you are honing in on the connection between emotion and reason, when considering our choices and actions, but to lose sight of the distinctive quality, suspended outside emotion, that is reason, this would be a mistake.
It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like. Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.

oligopolist
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 94

Posted 12/18/07 - 06:59 AM:	#33
My perspective of the value of emotion is a bit different. Emotion is reactionary and instinctual. The only emotion truly associated with morality is fear, maybe a dash of guilt. If we fear the repercussions of our actions and act on self preservation, "Do unto others", it is considered moral but I say it's self preservation all the way and in now way in the interest of morality. In the same regard, a large amount of reason is fairly intuitive reaction and primate problem solving but when we implement a social or moral code or a standard such as a bible or code of laws, we take the decisions outside of our individual selves and they become 'moral'. I suppose that we can define moral as unified social judgments. Our moral differences are decided by our agreements and disagreements with the society we are familiar with. An upstanding moral Christian fellow in tribal Africa mat be a heathen by the standards of their environment. Morality is somewhat geographic and definitely a social concept though, so no standard can really apply more than, "Is the individual aware of their own morality?", "Is the individual aware of the surrounding morality?", "Does the individual take both into account and willfully make decisions with them in mind?" Emotion is definitely no more a factor in morality than physical well being or any other animal constant. Logic and reason define morality, emotion is the tool we use to inspire people to follow it.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 12/19/07 - 02:32 PM:	#34
I can see your point loveofsophia, and a very valid one it is. In order for 2+2=4 to be emotional based, a bit of a leap would be necessary. Such as if we consider the desire for accurate representations of our observations, or accuracy in our observations themselves emotionally based. Why is it that we humans have a desire for order, for unified fields of thought that accurately depict the nature of our observed reality? One could claim that subjects like mathematics arose out of human emotional desires, and such a claim wouldn't be too far of a leap in my opinion. It just seems to me that any desires we humans have must be based on our emotions, since desire itself is an emotion. Why would we want something if it's purely beyond us? For example if a baby was raised in an extremely strict manner where he was not exposed or allowed to have emotions at all, and he was taught nothing humanistic and only mathematics. It would seem to me that his obedience and devotion to mathematics would become emotional itself, since such attachments can not be purely logical or rational. Much like the above poster mentioned about morality, the concept arose out of a unified socialized agreement over fear. The same would apply to this little boy who was raised to devote himself to mathematics. I can see how this whole our devotion to mathematical accuracy is based on emotion thing is a bit of a stretch, since there IS an obvious distinction that I can not ignore. However I think that nothing that came from us humans can be detached from emotion completely, yet after we come up with certain concepts we are able to treat them as if they existed on their own.(And we often do, with math, morality, and many other concepts.)
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 12/19/07 - 04:59 PM:	#35
How do you know that "2+2=4". Did you work it out mathematically? A computer would use its arithmetic unit to perform an algorithm on the binary representation of some memory or opcode contents and sets various flag bits. Our brains don't work that way. In long-term memory, you can generally divide information into "facts" and "rules". Since you didn't have to work it out mathematically, "2+2=4" falls under "facts". Our brain retrieves facts based on associations -- with emotions, sensory inputs and things that were reinforced through repetition. You probably know "2+2=4" because of it was repeated so often that you associate an emotional sense of confidence and certainty with this particular equation. If someone asked what "7+8" is, you might feel slightly less confident and many people would hesitate to reconfirm the feeling of certainty over the information. This kind of processing can be shown experimentally. You can generate false memories in people by giving them enough personal emotional input. The stronger the emotional content, the stronger and more persistent the memory. You learn more from a class which you are interested in than one in which you are bored. It has nothing to do with reason or logic or pure information input. Repetition, reward and punishment is how humans, and even more advanced animals, learn. This shows that even the most rational thing possible, (2+2=4), is associated with emotions in the brain. Why does "reason" seem so special? I think it is a confusion between the process of applying memorized rules and associations, (logic), with objective relationships. We emotionally prefer to work things out. It is part of a reward system the brain gives itself since reasoning things out is generally a successful strategy. Pure emotional responses, (reacting with reflection), gets a bad rap because it is often unsuccessful and the brain associates negative emotions with emotions. But I think it is a fallacy to think that the human brain is even capable of pure reason. As usual, the brain edits its thought process after the fact. It is like the tests where a car is piloted by remote control, but the driver has convinced themselves that they were driving, (as long as the remote control and the driver didn't have conflicting goals).
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Inkstain
Another Pen

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2007

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 99

Posted 01/05/08 - 09:42 PM:	#36
In the general argument. Men use reason, and they never have enough. Women use emotion, and they always have too much. This post has no necessity in discussing this philosophy. It popped into my head, and I just had to say it. Delete it if you feel the need. (I may put this into the philisophical quotes topic anyway.) Edited by Inkstain on 01/05/08 - 11:53 PM
When the clock strikes end, will anyone stop to look over their shoulder?

dreamweaver
Web we Weave

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
Location: London, UK

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2039

Posted 05/15/08 - 11:50 AM:	#37
Contrary to the classical approach here, some studies (i.e. see Damasio) have suggested that when the cognitive faculties enabling emotion break down, the person becomes more irrational. For example, there is a celebrated case of Gage who was left brain damaged after the frontal lobes were severely damaged, and became far more unreasonable and irrational in several cases because -- Damasio maintains -- his emotions were not fully engaged in the process. But we shouldn't (as some other Philosophers lately imply) suggest that emotions are therefore rational. Indeed, in many cases emotions are the source of irrationality: people frequently ignore longer-term advantages because of current emotional euphoria, people have been shown to confuse fear with sexual excitement, etc.
Dos moi pou sto kai kino taen gaen. ~ Archimedes

Prime_Mover
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 469

Posted 05/15/08 - 12:52 PM:	#38
An emotion is an automatic response or effect of man's values (an effect, not a cause). There is no necessary clash between man’s reason and his emotions provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows or makes it a point to discover the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In assessing a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies and they are not his guide because the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow, then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction.
On philosophical vacation until May 8, 2009.

ecspose
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2005

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 144

Posted 05/15/08 - 05:43 PM:	#39
I think of reason as being a sophisticated latticework built off of essential feelings at their root. It is not the mind that convinces the heart, but the other way around. Reason is a round about way of justifying the way we feel. If this weren't true, then everyone would agree on everything. Feelings can be trained, like muscles. Most people share the same basic emotional impulse, basic response can be changed by environmental factors which which give rise to feelings particular to circumstance. The adaptations can leave lasting impressions in impressionable minds. "2 + 2 = 4" is a tautology. It's the same as saying "A = A". It doesn't actually tell us anything. And it falls outside of moral justification.
Self replication leads to self replication

Prime_Mover
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 469

Posted 05/16/08 - 07:39 AM:	#40
ecspose wrote: Reason is a round about way of justifying the way we feel. If this weren't true, then everyone would agree on everything. Certainly, but the way you feel is liable to contradiction. Reason will flesh out your contradictions; it shows your character whether you accept these contradictions and attempt to fix them, or ignore them and act on misguided premises. Reason is only as good as your knowledge, the context of the situation where you are reasoning. People differ in their knowledge; if everyone used reason, disagreements would occur only because of lackings in knowledge and context, not on the fact that reason is an (or thee) absolute in human beings. ecspose wrote: "2 + 2 = 4" is a tautology. It's the same as saying "A = A". It doesn't actually tell us anything. And it falls outside of moral justification. It may be a tautology, but does that quality make it any less important? Should we strike all X + X = 2X statements, or any such mathematical statement, because they are simple "tautologies"? "A = A" is not intended to be some profound logical achievement, its only intention is to remind you that nothing is what it is not. A = A is the perfect moral justification because it dictates that you act upon your sense and reason. In your emotions, A can equal ~A, which is a contradiction. As I said before, if you take your emotions alone, your actions may be guided by misunderstanding; that is, only with reason can you settle A to be A, not ~A.
On philosophical vacation until May 8, 2009.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.