Whether Emotions or Reason or Both?
The human person is a composite being of nature. He's a complexity of different elements that work in combined harmony to fulfil the very mandate of building the individual.
Man is an emotional being as much as he's psychological. He is also very much a being of reason as much as he's a mental being. The very reason he derives the description of a Homo sapien.
The complexities of what man is must play their roles effectively to give him the holistic functionality that defines his essence. This is the say, to a considerable level, the composite facets of the human person must impress to assert man as a complete entity.
For now, I will focus on the two critical elements that constitute the human person. These are his emotions and his reasons. I will focus my analytical torchlight on these for the very reason that they are often misunderstood for their seeming opposing extremities.
Yes, the view of reason and emotion is often of two dissimilarities, of factors walking in opposite directions, of warring elements. It's of the assumption that when the other is speaking, its antagonist remains silent. It's of the perception that to consider emotion basically is to mull the viability of reason.
But how true is this assumption? How tenable is this perception, of a seeming contradiction between what forces emotion and reason posit?
First of all, a distinction between the two has to be made; and that would be done by knowing what essentially is reason and what's emotion.
Emotion is the state of being, of one based on involuntary psychological response. It is of a sense of feeling.
Reason or rationale is the faculty of deduction, of judgment. It is of the systematic comparison of facts.
So we see that while emotion is about a state, an internal state, rationale is about an aspect of logic. It is to say that emotion is about the sense of feeling, which by it very self does not suggest any impression to the rigours of rationality and judgment. It is to suggest, and in the contrary, how it must be subject to the rigours of judgement and analysis to be reasonable.
By and large, we could see that emotion is blind to the process of analysis and validation. It acts on what it accept just for the basis that it wishes to and subscribe to accept. The emotion makes its decisions on what suits its feeling, which chiefly is from the sensitivity. It does not question correctness or otherwise in so far the craving sensitivity is met.
On the other hand, reason is an act of the mind that bases its decision on the merits of right judgment. It is one which processes are of logical and deductive analyses. It focuses on the rightness or otherwise of whatever that nudges it.
For instance, a husband who serves on the board of an academic institution governing council might be goaded by entirely his affective affiliation to his wife, who is seeking for employment, to offer her placement even when she falls short of the minimum requirements. Here, reason, which should be based on judgment has been jettisoned.
The place of reason is to subject every applicant to the logical process of analysis that will seek to ascertain the merit of each applicant for the job. The man, acting out reasonably, would deny the wife the job because deductively, she falls short of it.
But how many can do that, considering how we are often emotionally gripped? Can you deny your 'own' a chance when you can because she or he does not meet basic requirements, which is reasonable?
Would you rather act based on emotion or would you act based on reason?
Man is an emotional being as much as he's psychological. He is also very much a being of reason as much as he's a mental being. The very reason he derives the description of a Homo sapien.
The complexities of what man is must play their roles effectively to give him the holistic functionality that defines his essence. This is the say, to a considerable level, the composite facets of the human person must impress to assert man as a complete entity.
For now, I will focus on the two critical elements that constitute the human person. These are his emotions and his reasons. I will focus my analytical torchlight on these for the very reason that they are often misunderstood for their seeming opposing extremities.
Yes, the view of reason and emotion is often of two dissimilarities, of factors walking in opposite directions, of warring elements. It's of the assumption that when the other is speaking, its antagonist remains silent. It's of the perception that to consider emotion basically is to mull the viability of reason.
But how true is this assumption? How tenable is this perception, of a seeming contradiction between what forces emotion and reason posit?
First of all, a distinction between the two has to be made; and that would be done by knowing what essentially is reason and what's emotion.
Emotion is the state of being, of one based on involuntary psychological response. It is of a sense of feeling.
Reason or rationale is the faculty of deduction, of judgment. It is of the systematic comparison of facts.
So we see that while emotion is about a state, an internal state, rationale is about an aspect of logic. It is to say that emotion is about the sense of feeling, which by it very self does not suggest any impression to the rigours of rationality and judgment. It is to suggest, and in the contrary, how it must be subject to the rigours of judgement and analysis to be reasonable.
By and large, we could see that emotion is blind to the process of analysis and validation. It acts on what it accept just for the basis that it wishes to and subscribe to accept. The emotion makes its decisions on what suits its feeling, which chiefly is from the sensitivity. It does not question correctness or otherwise in so far the craving sensitivity is met.
On the other hand, reason is an act of the mind that bases its decision on the merits of right judgment. It is one which processes are of logical and deductive analyses. It focuses on the rightness or otherwise of whatever that nudges it.
For instance, a husband who serves on the board of an academic institution governing council might be goaded by entirely his affective affiliation to his wife, who is seeking for employment, to offer her placement even when she falls short of the minimum requirements. Here, reason, which should be based on judgment has been jettisoned.
The place of reason is to subject every applicant to the logical process of analysis that will seek to ascertain the merit of each applicant for the job. The man, acting out reasonably, would deny the wife the job because deductively, she falls short of it.
But how many can do that, considering how we are often emotionally gripped? Can you deny your 'own' a chance when you can because she or he does not meet basic requirements, which is reasonable?
Would you rather act based on emotion or would you act based on reason?
Comments
Post a Comment