Logic and Emotion

The question of logic versus emotion is a pretty old one and is one that can be seen throughout the history of western culture. It was embodied in the struggle between the two philosophies of epicureanism and stoicism in ancient times, it could be seen embodied in the conflict between Spock and McCoy of the original Star Trek series, it is a question that was validated by Aristotle and Plato (who believed that human life was indeed a struggle between logic and emotion), and it as a question that can be seen rejected by David Hume (who believed that reason was by nature inherently a "slave" to emotion).

People often consider emotions to be irrational. Literally, this really doesn't mean anything, as a set of beliefs is only rational if they do not involve any contradictions. Of course, we consider something "rational" if it is sensible. Here's an example. Why would it be "irrational" to throw yourself in front of a car to try to save a pet or a loved one? Because you get killed. This is only "irrational" in the sense that it is not sensible, because we don't want to die. So, it is only "irrational" after considering the fact that we don't want to die. That death is a bad thing is not a conclusion that can be rationally reached unless we assume that our intuition about death being a bad thing is correct. We fear death; we feel that death is a bad thing. Perhaps not for itself, but for it achieves (or causes to be unachievable): when dead, we can no longer live and prosper. So the problem here is that sensibility is ultimately based on emotions and/or intuitions, and thus so is “rationality”. In any consideration of the universe around us that is composed of logical steps, at some point it must be said simply that something is just because it is. Just as in math postulates must be assumed to be true without proofs, we work with base truths that are true just because we say they are. In natural sciences (and most others), the metaphorical postulate would be something like "empirical observations yield truthful facts about reality." And of course, this is true, but it is not the sort of thing that can be proven with reason. The point here is that not only are reason and rationality incapable of standing on their own, but that they are not even an entity that stands or does not to begin with. Reason is a means of reaching conclusions based on pre-existing ones. Just as this necessitates axioms in a pure science such as math or unspoken assumptions in other sciences, it means that no action is inherently rational or irrational before you take some intuition or emotion into account. An action can only be rational or irrational if we assume a few things (that are not based on rationality but are emotionally/intuitively obvious), such as "I want to be happy," "I don't want to die," or "I want to be good." And because sensibility (or whatever is considered desirable) is based (in the end at least, when taken to its root) purely on emotions, there is no rationality or irrationality without emotion. Ultimately, the question cannot be literally one of whether logic or emotion is superior, because they are two completely different things. The real question to be drawn from this vague one (logic versus emotion) is the question of what role emotion and logic should play in someone's life.

The idea of "following" or "ignoring" emotions is misleading. In Star Trek, Spock's home planet of Vulcan was once very war-crazed and nearly destroyed itself before the race realized it had to adopt rationality in order to survive and thus began to train in the suppression of emotion. What, I think, is really meant by the stoics' and Spock's critiques of emotion is that there simply isn't enough reason and consideration in people they would consider to be "overly influenced by emotion" (well, it may be just Spock, the stoics may have been genuine in their complete antagonism to emotions). A more accurate way of describing this sort of state of being that should be avoided is that it is one where you do not think, but rather follow your emotions and intuitions thoughtlessly. It is not that someone insults you and you think to yourself "Hmm, how can I rationalize this to convince myself that he is wrong?" You do not think; it is that this is simply what happens. As the stoics put it, such people are like dogs tied to a cart, forced to go where it goes. Well, the epicurean response should have been "and my, what a ride." The stoics were right about the destructive nature of emotions, but it seems they are wrong in the conclusion they reached. They hold that the so-called "destructive" emotions (want for wealth and prosperity, for example) should be avoided altogether. This question of emotion is a different one and should be treated separately (not as if there is a slider between emotion and logic). Take the example of a group of belligerent war-mongerers. The stoics are right that it is their thoughtless following of base instinct that will lead them to an unpleasant future. The stoics believe, however, that also when they go home they shouldn't enjoy alcohol or fine cuisine (emotion will be further discussed later).

I think, however, that rationality is not about ignoring emotion, but rather being open-minded. That is, it is (or should be) about knowing what to do with emotions or about knowing when it's a good idea to do something you feel a want to do. Close-mindedness is the inability to see past base intuitions and emotions. Most of the problems in the world are ultimately caused by close-mindedness. This is true in daily life as well as in worldly matters and politics.

What is the problem with the idea of a nation as we know it today? Most things can be connected to nations' Imperialist nature. While the democratic revolutions were supposed to move away from the monarchal empires of old, this has not happened as much as it should have. America is a prime case. The evils caused by Imperialism are certainly more present in the Russian example, namely that the citizens are merely tools to be used by the state to better the state. But in America, things were not nearly as much of an improvement as one would have expected from the power of democracy. In America, there was propaganda, the red menace, (admittedly limited) militarism, and similar things. In Russia, there were twenty million men sent to their death, much more merciless propaganda, the gulags, and a complete suppression of human rights (all for Russia to be the most influential empire it could be). Why does the democratic model not rid itself of these problems completely? It is clear why the Russian populace was deceived. They were truly oppressed and misled by the government, and there was no free press or free speech. But regardless, some sixty thousand "free" Americans were sent to their deaths in Vietnam in a war that killed millions for no conceivable gain. It is true that the American case was more subtle. But again, it was the lies and false pretences of politicians and the willingness of the media to follow them that were able to play on the average American's fears and prejudices. Ultimately, this is about emotions and intuitions. The Americans were led to fear Communism and believe that there was some kind of genuine threat to America and other democratic nations in places such as Vietnam. Furthermore, their inability to see past these feelings that are invoked in them by media and government propaganda are the real problem. A better way of saying this is that if not for close-mindedness, these problems (the nationalism et al implanted by the government) would not last very long. This is because anyone with the evidence to show that Guatemala was not Communist, that there was no Communist threat in Vietnam, that there was no terrorist or WMD threat in Iraq, etcetera would be able to circulate it and the government would completely lose support. And there is (was) clear evidence for these things and there are (always have been) social activists preaching them. No one really listens; we only know Noam Chomsky's name because he is accomplished in the field of Linguistics. In the Vietnam conflict, the American government wanted nothing more than to secure an American-friendly government in resource-rich South Vietnam as opposed to the more popular Communist one that would refuse to be America's servant, but the populace would not have been willing to go along with this, much less have a draft for it. The populace was lead to believe the war was one of protecting a free South Vietnam from an invading Communist North Vietnam, while America had been massacring innocent Communists (as an organization, they would not even respond to the violence carried out against them) in South Vietnam to ensure their own favored dictator would stay in power. It is because of the populace's close-minded nature that the government was almost able to get away with such a war (even today, it is unlikely that more than a third of Americans have a good idea of what actually happened in Vietnam) by appealing to their fears, prejudices, nationalism, and so on. And it is not just that the people were deceived and nothing could be done. In Russia, this was true. The real problem of close-mindedness is that in America, even with all the social activists that were present at the time, those who believed in the war continued to do so, for whatever irrational causes (nationalism, whatever-ism), regardless of the readily available evidence to the contrary.
Rationality and open-mindedness are not just important, but absolutely crucial if the world is to become a better place. Of course, this is about as much of a tautology as saying badness should be avoided if the world is to become better.

Now, how about emotion? The epicureans, too, believed in reason, something that is overlooked when the term is used to mean something more like "hedonism" or "gluttony" today. The stoics remark on the destructive nature of emotions and claim that the average person follows them like a dog tied to a cart. But, in seeing this, they generalize this to all emotions and decry them altogether. It is like seeing a congested city street with cars crashing and whatnot and then later, given the opportunity to drive down a completely deserted street to work every day as opposed to walking, denying it. Their mistake is encapsulated in Cleanthes's quote, that the wicked man is "like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes." The epicureans believed in moderation and reason, but sure, an epicurean still "follows emotions." But that is fine. If one is rational and does not follow them blindly (that is, without consideration or open-mindedness), the danger the stoics so vividly saw in emotion is non-existent. And if the metaphorical cart is emotion (the original quote was referring to ethics and virtue), it is indeed the only way to achieve any happiness. Thus, "what a ride." So in essence, the use of reason prevents the destructive effects that the stoics saw so vividly in emotion by means of moderation, or knowing when and which emotions it is okay to "follow."
The epicureans of course had very specific ideas for what was okay (according to them, gambling was not, friendship was, etcetera), but the general idea of using reason and rationality to make decisions as opposed to close-minded following of one's base intuition is there. Now, epicureanism also makes all sorts of other claims about various things. Its main tenet was that the avoidance of pain and the seeking of pleasure is the sole good in the world. Regardless of how accurate these other aspects of the philosophy are, it did, in its combination of an understanding of the necessity of emotion and an emphasis on the importance of reason, prove to be quite a bit more in touch with reality than stoicism was.

In the end, it is not emotion that should be avoided. Emotion and intuition lead to all the world's problems, but only in the same way we have murderers is "only" because we keep having children - if we didn't have children, we wouldn't have murderers. Similarly, emotion is not just absolutely necessary, but inevitable too. What really should be avoided is the following of emotion and instinct without thought.

Coming to Terms

Today, I came to terms with sunlight, lab reports, geometry sets, and electromagnetism.

I never really liked sunlight. In Florida, it was the general state of the weather, and things like overcast and rain were welcome rarities. Overcast meant that the sun wasn't in my eyes, and rain meant that I'd be able to cool off a little. Similarly, having been raised until seven in Chicago, gray and fog were more nostalgic and reminiscent than irritating. So although the sun was generally a welcome thing in Chicago, the sort of affinity that people have for the sun did not stick with me long after I left.
I never really liked the physics of electromagnetism. It was always some sort of weird force that couldn't be understood in the same, fundamental, way that kinematics could be understood. Things like equal opposite reactions, mass times gravity, friction, and whatnot make sense. Magnets and electricity do not. It's not that I didn't read those children's books and sit through science courses about it, it's just that those sorts of explanations and understandings never rang through for me in the way that solid, tangible things like kinematics do.
I probably don't have to say much about my history regarding lab reports.



First of all, part of my peace with lab reports comes from today being the first day I was completely finished with my report when I woke up in the morning. I felt insanely good about it, a sort of exuberant and radiating joy. Upon the ringing of my alarm, I bolted out of bed, ready to face the clichéd day. And that was quite a feat, given that I slept about four hours total the previous night and afternoon (power nap).
Secondly, my love of geometry sets today started with the Fermat test. They didn't give the diagram to scale, so I made my own.

However, the main period of time that is responsible for my accordance with the aforementioned lab reports, sunlight, geometry sets, and electromagnetism, was after school. The thought of the sun was forefront on my mind as I walked back with the damn thing in my eye. I had the drawings for a certain physics lab to finish. I probably would not have if Karlming had not been there, for I had little idea what the drawings were supposed to be anyway. He was nice enough to help me out by describing just what the drawings had to be of.
Now, these were perhaps the most fun lab drawings I have ever done. I had something beyond just a perfectionist attitude towards the drawings - it was something more like my process in making an n level. It wasn't perfectionist at all in that I allowed some errors to go without white out or erasing. It still had to be good, but I also obsessively followed any whim that came to mind for the sake of it. I drew a top down view of the CRT with the magnet near it, with much help from my geometry set. The idea was to make a single elaborate drawing so that I could afford to make the four drawings of the deflections with varying magnetic field strengths a bit more simplistic. I had spent enough time on it, especially the lines of the magnetic field (which had to be done by hand without aid of any tool), that I did not want to repeat it on the next page for the solenoid acting on the CRT. I especially cannot draw things twice. It is a curse placed upon me, that if I should draw something, the heavens inevitably feel that I never shall again. And, indeed, the solenoid drawing was in most any effect the same, with a coil instead of a bar magnet. The magnetic field lines would not differ. I wished that I had some way of tracing it, alike to those lighted surfaces that paper can be placed upon and permeated by light. Woe, even a makeshift solution to the problem was not supplied, though it would have taken but the smallest twist of fate to do so. Even 'twas denied me.

Then I remembered the sun, that old dog, and the glassed front door. In that instant of epiphany, it was the most perfect tracing pad conceivable. The sun had been my most despicable foe for the past years, and these minutes of tracing upon the door were a reacquaintance with the old friend behind the heartless, merciless waves of radiation. In meeting with that friend again, and seeing the good in such a despised enemy, I in a rush regretted all the time I had focused my hatred so. It had been my madness that led me to such a rash aversion, with little regard or consideration.

Enlightened in a sense, or at least in increased consciousness, I set about continuing my drawings. In this new world vision, I was considerate of the good in all things around me. I even saw application to my current task in them; a loonie and two varyingly sized cups proved excellent for drawing circles about the magnet field. Perhaps by a by-product of my then-current state, the natures of electric and magnetic forces seemed to make themselves clearer to me. In the least, it was a step towards the level of familiarity I hold regarding the more tangible kinematics.
Without further event, I completed the drawings. My geometry set, having consisted of the various gallant machinations necessary for the work, was crippled. Little remained of its former glory, and I mourned its loss, but I knew not to linger overly on such an inevitable passing. As surely as the seasons change, the noblest of souls in all planes of existence must do their duty and accept the possibility of an untimely demise as undeniable side effect of their heroism.

This was a lesson I should have actually learned from the last lab: that doing physics labs is actually quite fun and should not be hurried by tardiness. But while I blundered in a sense this time too, it did not end at all badly. In the end, it is clear that while I had once thought that the fates had conspired against me, they had rather brought several adverse circumstances together for a greater good.

Rationalization

Consider a thief. If you read in the news about someone who's stolen a car (say, from a poor senior on welfare), you probably feel disgust. But if you hear that he had mental illness or was regularly abused at home, you may feel sorry for him too. Most likely, you won't have as strong of a negative attitude toward him. Some courts may even loosen their convictions.
What do we say if asked why we don't hate the thief who is mentally ill, or a bully who is abused at home? They couldn't help it. They were a victim of society or consequence. It's the parents' fault. Et al.

But really, in effect, it is simply the case that we understand the source of their actions. It is the fact that there is a blaring, over-evident factor in determining their action. It makes understanding (or an illusion of understanding if you so wish to call it, it does not matter) them easy and unavoidable. And so, in these extreme cases where there is one clear factor that so strongly affects a person's actions, courts are willing to bend and people to sympathize.
However, the question is whether certain factors in affecting people's actions are "good" while others are "bad." (N.B. The factors could probably be called "reasons," but this is about the actual, ultimately physical, factors that determine what action a person will take, not the "reasons" they did it.)

As alluded to earlier, a common source of defenses and rationalizations is the matter of nature and nurture. All factors that affect how a person acts can be grouped into nature and nurture. A mental illness is an example of a really powerful factor due to a person's nature. Constant abuse by parents at home would be an example of nurture being an extremely influential factor. But since both of these can be justifications for someone's actions (in court, in our minds), it does not seem that the question of nurture versus nature is what makes a reason good or bad.
For further example, if someone is convinced or coerced into stealing someone else's wallet, you might defend said person's actions by saying it was the coercer's fault and not their own. Similarly, if a manic (assume they have bipolar disorder genetically) gets into a fight, many would forgive them, saying that clearly they cannot be held to account for their genetic deficiency.
So they are not responsible, it isn't their fault but the disease’s or the coercer’s.

Of course, it is usually only in these extreme cases that we consider these crimes okay in the sense that we say it’s not their fault. If the person had no genetic diseases and a good home life (and no other major sources for their action are in sight), how do they justify a crime? Why is it that they will be criticized by society, while a manic (who beat someone up because he was in his manic and aggressive stage of his mental illness) will not? As stated earlier, a seeming explanation of this is just the very fact that there are extreme factors. But this does not mean that it logically follows that they should or shouldn't be criticized (i.e. that they are good or bad).

Everything is determined by factors. Starting from the extreme case: no one will say that someone should be held to account for their own genetic mental illness. How about high testosterone levels? They didn't choose to have that. Clearly, they cannot be held responsible for that. Their parents abused them? They did not have control over that either. How about being greedy? They didn't choose that either. Or, did they? Here’s where people begin to blame. It's in their nature, but they can also change, can't they? And so we blame them for not changing (or at least we use the argument that they could have changed against those who say that they didn’t choose to be greedy). But, is this the right way to look at it? One must consider what affects how greedy people will be. Things like watching movies and television, being lectured/conditioned by parents, and the direct results of one's greed will affect whether or not one continues to be greedy or not (albeit one's intelligence and general nature will affect how this input is turned into change). Where does choice come into the equation? The clay being molded doesn't have choice. The flower growing doesn't have choice. The only possible distinction is that different clays will have different textures and whatnot, and will respond to input (nurture) differently. Whether or not you change your greediness, or your dishonesty, or whatever vice or sin, is determined by factors, not some magic force beyond this physical universe with a sign labeled "CHOICE." So, no, one cannot be held accountable for one’s own greed any more than for a mental illness. Society’s views on when immoral acts are defensible and when they aren’t are severely flawed. More importantly, our intuitions on what is okay and what is not okay are contradictory and hypocritical.

The old idea of turning society’s hatred on the criminals is outdated as well. The most vile and evil murderers and criminals of society and the most unscrupulous mass-murderers of history acted on the same human tendencies, whether of greed or anything else, that can be found in every single other human being in the world. When these tendencies are self-destructive, the instinct is to feel pity. When the tendencies turn on others, it is replaced with hatred. Yet those who hate the criminals have acted on the same tendencies before. For example, everyone has acted, at some point, on the malicious tendency of greed and stolen something that did not belong to them. Why, even in their hour of overcoming this tendency and turning to a "good" or "moral" life, will a human be willing to hate a fellow human who was not as able to escape?

"I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves."
-Orson Scott Card, Ender’s Game


Also, a small clarification should be made at this time. Stating something like "Luc broke the lamp because he was in a manic phase" is not a thorough description of the factors that affected his decision to break the lamp. Stating reasons/factors is generalizing the physical nature of our universe, of course, but one must also not be disillusioned into thinking stating a single reason/factor (even if it is, as in this case, a very major one) is even a superficially thorough description. It's not that we need list all the reasons/factors, just be aware that there are a near-infinite number of factors affecting pretty much any outcome.

Title of First Blog Post Describing this Blog

This is the first post of the blog. It is here mainly as a formality, as I really have no introduction to make. This isn't really going to be a proper blog. It's not even going to be random ramblings. The real fact of the matter is that I'm not really sure what I'll be using it for, although I would hazard to guess that a general pattern will emerge.

Eventually.

Also, Kant is a dick. That is, Kant's a dick.