I think dividing "reason" and "emotion" into clean-cut, mutually exclusive categories is a fallacy. Our thoughts and emotions are all swirling around in our brains in the form of electrical signals and chemicals, so of course they're going to influence one another. And yes, I do think it is possible for people to think with both logic and emotions.

A person be both wise and compassionate if they do deeds that improve or help other people while thinking about the results of their actions. e.g. Will anyone else be harmed by my compassionate act?

However, it can go the other way. A person can act with logical malice as well as emotional anger. For example, a person seeking revenge might be motivated by anger as well as a logical idea that "justice" must be carried out.

Emotion provides the impetus for action, whereas reason allows that action to be efficient. It's not a one-or-the-other situation.

I always say, don't act on emotion, act in the way that brings about the emotions you want to feel. That's rational behaviour.

I think it's a clean cut line, but there are a few people that can get the middle, people like Ghandi and Che Guevara and other crazy brilliant people like that.

>>225
This man speaks the truth. If you act upon your reason positive emotions will follow. If you act upon your emotions there's no way for you to know what the consequences will be. If you think you're acting upon your reason and a bad result follows you did something wrong, either in your thought process or in the way you carried out your actions, but; ten faults made through the use of reason is much better than ten rights made through the use of emotion. The man who uses his reason and makes mistakes learns from them and will be better suited to make correct decisions in the future. The man who acts upon his emotions learns nothing and whatever right he made was nothing more than pure chance, the only actual result is that his delusions grow stronger.

It's all emotion. The motivation to do anything is emotional.

When you catch to your wife cheating on you, you paint a still life of three corpses with a shotgun. That is an emotional REACTION.

When you catch your wife cheating on you so you empty the bank accounts, gain custody of the children, get her hooked on smack, and plant CP on her lover's work computer, that is a series of logical DECISIONS and CHOICES.

Fuck, should have read
>>225
before writing
>>231

You can't act on reason alone, pure rationality only leads to nihilism. You need to have value judgments in order to do something; truth is better that falsehood, freedom is better than slavery, helping is better than harming etc. All these value judgments come from emotion, more specifically from the will. Rationality is just there to guide the will as efficiently as possible.

There are two kinds of emotion; basic instincts with which we are born, and learned 'social' emotions. Humans instinctively feel hunger, anger, fear, and curiosity, but emotions like guilt or shame are learnt (either from observation or conditioning.)

The line between emotions, feelings, instincts and sensations is a little blurry, but the line between these and reason is not. They are qualitively different things. Logic can best be thought of as the structure of knowledge; knowledge is not felt, it is recalled and used. Reason involves the logical processing of knowledge, not the emotional processing of feelings.

>>238

Value judgements come from will? I would say that will is the reasoned expression of emotional attachments. Will implies some planned course of action (whether or not it is effective), for which reason provides the how and feeling the why.

I think it's more of a "reason/intuition" divide.

>>241
Sure, but what is intuition if not a feeling? When you feel that x is right you are using your intuition. When you think about it and consider the consequences before you decide you are using your reason.

>>250

Logic is the structure of knowledge. Intuition is the ability of a human being to make a decision based in incomplete knowledge by drawing upon parallels in similar situations.

>>250
I think it's a higher faculty that just happens not to be as useful in today's world anymore. It may seem to draw on emotions more, but perhaps it's just by association, since people who have a tendency toward intuitive thinking also happen to be more emotionally-driven. Whatever the case, emotions themselves are rooted in a more primitive part of the brain.

My initial thought is; reason will always be somewhat influenced by your emotions because you cannot control your subconscious. What you think maybe reason alone my only appear that way because you don't want to think you're making an emotional choice.

Granted if I were watching you make that choice, I could probably tell if it was completely counter productive, or [reason oriented]/productive. An emotional response is kinda relative so it's hard to place my finger on an answer.

NOW WITH READING EVERYONES POST.

1.) Pure rationality leads to nihilism
a.) >implying rationality makes you "evil"
b.) Nihilism can be made of logical choices
2.) There are two kinds of emotion; basic instincts with which we are born, and learned 'social' emotions.
a.) anger leading to murder, and hunger leading to hunger are not true dichotomies because anger can be controlled with will and you will survive. Hunger can be controlled with will and you will die.
b.) But I agree.


I'll stick with my original thought

>>219
Does anyone know roughly how long emotions last or affect you for? And in what direction they affect things, like quantitive estimates for numbers of things in a jar as more or lesss?