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.