Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheAngryApologist t1_j8xe36s wrote

Reply to comment by Hip-Harpist in Reason and emotion are deeply connected. Understanding the interplay between them can help us make better sense of the world but eliminates the promise of objective rationality. by IAI_Admin

> …emotions have potential to be good drivers of instinct and direction of values.

So what? Wouldn’t the instincts and values of an individual determine whether or not we want them to be driven by their emotions?

There’s this idea that instincts and emotions are some sort of source of truth. They aren’t. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Emotions get in the way of truth. And instincts are just non-rational self serving reactions we have to protect our selves in some way.

This is one of the biggest problems with the human race I think. I’ll try not to get political, but we have major human rights issues at the moment and they are primarily driven by emotions. What’s really scary, is that scientists who perform studies and write papers are also subject to emotional bias.

No matter how strongly someone feels about something. No matter are sad they are about it. No matter how nice they are, we shouldn’t accept something as truth if it isn’t true. But we do it all the time and make excuses for it. And also tend to refrain from discussing it in public debate, to protect people’s feelings. It’s apsurd.

2

true_contrarian t1_j8xh0mi wrote

>They aren’t. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Emotions get in the way of truth.

This isn't necessarily true. Emotions can get in the way of truth but not always.

In general, emotions are more "basic" than rational thought and have faster processing time, using less information - they evolved earlier after all. In a crisis where time is a crucial factor, emotions and instincts had the potential to save an organism. However, if time is not as pressing a concern, rational thought then gains the advantage in optimally exploiting a situation. As you say, I think humans make judgement calls based on emotion despite being capable of reasoning simply because people are naturally lazy. Logical thought is more taxing, requiring more energy and time.

6

Hip-Harpist t1_j8xhpuw wrote

I agree that just because one is sad about a fact’s existence, the strength of the emotion will not alter reality to change that fact. Ex. Grandma has cancer, and while it’s natural to be sad, being sad won’t change it. I think that’s a healthy worldview.

At the same time, the emotional response does carry utility in arguments, but it shouldn’t be the primary means to finding solutions. I hope that wasn’t the message you received from my comment.

Continuing on the example of “grandma has cancer.” I’m a medical student who has witnessed numerous end-of-life conversations, and the emotional conflict most families struggle to grasp is the amount of suffering the patient endures. I know this is anecdotal, but the families who seem to struggle less are those who value either a cure to illness or palliative care (pain management, functional support like eating/sleeping, quality of life measures, etc.) Families and patients who identify the particular fear of suffering can make more sound/reasonable decisions.

Families who cannot firmly identify their fears or emotions will firmly grasp onto the plan of “no suffering = do every chemotherapy and surgery and radiation treatment possible.”

So I don’t advocate for the latter scenario at all. Guarding maladaptive emotions is not a productive way to reach good solutions, you are right. At the same time, in the sphere of public opinion, it is considered rude to identify other’s as emotional, but in reality this should be more tolerable. I mean, Snickers can say “you’re not you when you’re hungry” but if you or I said that in a heated debate, our cause would be lost.

1