Pure reason and emotionality as a mode of thought

         What type of knowledge is the best
knowledge? Is the best knowledge pure reason (logic), emotion (feeling
heuristic), or a combination of both? These last two sentences are heavy with
ambiguity but set up the main goal of my argument’s purpose. The main result of
my following writing will attempt to describe knowledge, different ways of
coming about knowledge, and which knowledge, or way of thought and discourse,
might reflect the most “right” or “true” way of going about the world. Here I
have also placed more ambiguity in describing the ambiguity of the previous
sentences. It is hard to describe abstract concepts and deep philosophical issues
in simple terms, but to relate terms with familiar terms and to describe thereforth,
or reducing the ambiguity in less ambiguous terms. In the sense I am using
“right” and “best” is in a sense that knowledge might encompass the whole of
what is actually out there in the world, and to what extent this knowledge use
is congruent to the purpose of the use of language and expression in the form
of communication with regards to how humans can holistically and most
efficiently interact.

         My argument might be a very similar
argument to the rationalist vs empiricist argument, in that pure logical
reasoning and empirical sense information can be used as a way of “knowing”.
The dichotomy I would like to place here between my arguments is a logic vs
emotion debate. By logic, I mean knowledge in which can be abstracted wholly in
term of other knowledge, which the successor may follow from the predecessor. A
way of thinking and communicating which does not commit logical fallacies, the
logical “rules” which have been worked out by the philosophers of the past.
Logic can be described in term of symbols and relational statements that which
a conclusion will necessarily follow
from the premises. In this way I describe logical reasoning and communication,
in which communication is spoken in terms of language that apply rules of logic
and give a sense of direct, communicable and contain a common ground in which
every person can understand given knowing the common language of mathematics
and logic. Example wise 1 + 2 = 3: The sum 3 will ALWAYS follow if the premises
are 1 and 2. There is no way around it. So when I state “One plus two” You know
I mean three. Alternatively, Modus ponens states that If A, then B; A; thus, B.

            A -> B

         This symbolic logic is a pure way
of reasoning. It is a way of imposing pure reason that reduces to basic
relational knowledge that is easily understood between a communicator and an
observer. If you replace A or B with any statement, I will know exactly the
nature of your point. In this way I define logical communication, one that
bases on the logical knowledge of relations, symbolic logic, mathematics, truthiness,
and causal and correlational defined knowledge. The language of logic is
available to everyone, as it is a human construct and is completely objective
to the observer’s opinions.

knowledge is a different type of knowledge disparate from logical reasoning.
Emotional knowledge and reasoning has no logical basis, no “because” relations,
is purely subjective and based on the internal language only available to the
observer or experiencer. Emotional language does not contain objection. The
first word that comes to mind when one defines an action based on an emotional
reaction is irrational. There is no rationality in using emotional motivations
to communicate thought and purpose. When one is in the throes of an emotional
turmoil and says “I want this because”, or “I hate you”, one is most likely
acting based on emotionally motivated desires and behaviors. Although there is a
reasoning to this emotional methodology – one can state that they “feel bad and
must feel good by doing X”, or “this is the way it is supposed to be”. There is
nothing wrong with this, and it can be a truth and relational statement. Doing
X satiates the need of feeling good. Feeling good is a great experience.

         The dichotomy
between the two could be best described as “thinking fast and thinking slow”.
Logic takes time to move through the reasoning of the argument, which may
contain complex relations and many steps, is stepwise and sequential, and
decisive. Emotion on the other hand is non-sequential, it is spontaneous,
abrupt, intuitive, experiential, and not easily controlled. Logic can overpower
emotion (especially if one knows much about behavior and biological basis of
behavior) by reasoning through the causes of the emotion. Likewise, emotion can
overpower logic by clouding judgment and preying on basic human desires. It
would most likely follow then that those less versed in the ways of logic –the
less educated- will tend to be more emotional and commit large irrational
fallacies, while those highly educated (especially in the mathematics, logic,
and psychological sciences) rather logical and methodological. Although it is
possible for one less education to innately have a methodological thought
frame, and an educated person to have a more emotional and intuitive approach.
There is nothing wrong with this. Both methods of reasoning can be applied.    

         Rational logic
can be argued to be to be superior in the way that science has categorized the
world. Without logic and math, science would be fairly trivial. Logic and
science has imbued us with many technologies that “work”. Computer science has
endowed us with computers and smartphones that are more powerful than the first
rockets into space. Science works, thus reasoning works. Science has advanced
society in ways that are beneficial to humanity. Logical is a (rather) simple
form of communicating ideas and sets of ideas to those around you that are
legible and intelligible. The basis of logic has ground in a common set of
rules and laws that can be learned, and thus contribute to very much truthiness
of communication, and is comprehended in terms simple and congruent. If I say “It’s
raining”, you know the roads will be wet because “when it is raining, the roads
will be wet; it’s raining; thus the roads are wet”. Logic, though, can be a lonely
endeavor. Logic is a static thing that has no ups and downs. It can be pretty boring.
Logic might not explain some thing in nature. How do you explain how I am
conscious is we suppose a dualism or metaphysicism? Why does the experiential
feel of the situation give me knowledge of that I cannot logically relate to?
The intuitive knowledge of some experiences are seemingly superimposable upon
logical and rational thought. Thought science categorizes nature as being
logical and ordered, perhaps nature is in its very nature irrational and

         Emotional logic
gives us knowledge of a perspective of humanity that logic is not supervenient
upon emotional knowledge. How do I know instinctually what you are feeling,
even though I have only glanced at you for not even a full second? Why does a
fear reaction (loud noise) cause me to prepare to flee or hide when I have done
nothing to warrant the behavior? Why can I captivate people by expressing my
desires and emotions, even though the logic in these emotions are illogical?
Emotional communication has an essence about it that people understand, even
though there is no basis or rules about what emotion is. Even each experience
of emotion is private and subjective, yet it works. Psychology presupposes that
logical reasoning and emotional intelligence stem from different modalities in
the brain. I believe this also. One may be emotionally intelligent, yet
logically unintelligent. Emotional intelligence stemming from the limbic
system. To know emotional knowledge is to know how a person will react given a phenomenal situation. The way in which we think on an intuitive basis. It is like folk psychology. We also have to note that social consciousness is not a rational thing. Collective intentionality does not arise from reason, but arises naturally from evolution of thought.

         Perhaps one is
not better than the other. As many philosophers and educated people might argue
is that logic trumps emotion. Perhaps in one sense. Perhaps we can find a
middle ground, or somewhere in between pure reason and pure irrationality. My
guess is that the general population lives somewhere in the 20/80 rational/emotional
divide already. Reason and logic may be successful in some domains, and
emotional intelligence in others. It seems counterintuitive to impose emotion
into logic. How might we even go about doing so? When we enter some situations,
we can make choices to listen to reason, or listen to intuition. Should we do
what necessarily will follow, or shall we do what we would like to follow?

         My opinion about nature is that anything that
is natural is not necessarily rational. It possesses some sort of metaphysical element
to it –a natural phenomenon cannot be fully described by words and reason
alone. It comes to be sometimes that we generally “know” some things
intuitively, things that are natural, yet inexplicable. An example that comes
to mind is Sartre’s keyhole example, or his idea that we “automatically know”
that someone, something exists when a person is within our/their attention. How
do you explain such phenomena? A perspective to take on this position would be
to reason about most things synthetic and semi-synthetic. Most synthetic things
were created through reason and logic in the first place. I cannot presuppose my
computer “enjoys” when I type on the keyboard and spend time with it, or it “struggles”
when I boot it up and I hear it whirring and buzzing. That is silly. When we
interact with people, there is a phenomenal element that transpires. How do you
explain the ultimate pleasure and elation of sexual intercourse? Perhaps you
could say that dopamine and serotonin coupled with endorphins and oxytocin
create a mental environment conducive to a state of pleasure and elation.
Nonsense. We have not yet figured out the mind-body link –the hard problem of
consciousness. So a pure physicalist view is garbage. Many arguments from
myself that we are simply biochemistry has always backed me into a dark corner.
There is more than just chemicals that create who we are. Perhaps looking from
a more representationalist view is that it is my belief that I am performing an
act of utmost pleasure and doing the most intimate act possible with the
partner I will spend the rest of my life with. Yes and no. The modes of thought
of human belief is conducive to such happenings, but it doesn’t explain the
whole story. Thus, if it is argued that a dualism exists (and that we are separate
from the physical), to become a being of pure reason is nonsense. It would be also
nonsense for me to state that my spirit acts on a different plane or different
dimension than the physical, and in this plane, when vibrational energies align,
this causes my soulmate and I to experience “bliss”. Although a metaphysical
view leaves much to be desired, this desire has not yet been assuaged through
other philosophical means.  

         Both methods of
reasoning should be used since the problem of philosophy of science arises. We
presuppose order and categorize nature using our models and equations, yet
nature is not inherently static. A model is a static way of representing the
world to the best of our knowledge. Many of the variables in a model are
ceteris paribus while we measure the variable in question. In nature this is
not the case. Macroenvironmental forces could cause an unforeseen change in the
natural environment but not in a laboratory environment. A secondary (and
mostly unrelated) system might have a change that influences the primary
system. Conducively, there are variables and phenomena that are present in
nature we can’t recreate in a model. What if our widely accepted and simple
view of the atom leaves out something? This unknown variable might have an
unknown effect in a system. If Panpsychism is true, this supports my story.
This mind-stuff, or consciousness that is inherently a fundamental part of
nature will affect the system in immeasurable ways. As Chalmers pointed out –science
is a big stepping stone to solving the hard problem of consciousness, yet we
lack the ability to solve the problem only using science. This is the most
intimately acceptable statement I could think to devise. We need to incorporate
other methods of reasoning, and other theories incompatible with science in
order to solve natural problems. Science isn’t natural, thus cannot fully grasp
the essence of nature. We cannot supervene disparate domains, just like it is
impossible to supervene chemistry and sociology. My argument here is that using
logic is like creating a static model. We need to dismiss the model, or leave
an open end in order to leave room for what else is out there.

         We are not just reason
and thought, we are not solely spirit or nature. We have devised humankind as
arisen from the natural dust of life and imposed thought patterns and culture
onto the beast. We are neither only reason, nor are we solely instinct. Nature
created one part of humans, while humans themselves evolved their secondary
features – logic. To leave nature behind is to disrespect the creator (whomever
or whatever he/she so is), and to dismiss logic is to once again become animals
and lose the advantage of knowledge that humans possess over other natural
sources. To live purely reasonably is nonsense, and to live solely irrationally
is barbaric. To live a logical emotionality is bliss.


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Leave a Reply

Find-Info.Org © 2015 All Rights Reserved Frontier Theme
The owner of this website is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon properties including, but not limited to, amazon.com, endless.com, myhabit.com, smallparts.com, or amazonwireless.com.
Home Privacy Policy Terms Of Use Contact Us Affiliate Disclosure DMCA Earnings Disclaimer