The influence of emotions on logic

Shaya

New member
I've been wondering about what impact our emotions have on our logic for a while now. I haven't worked it all out and so far I haven't been able to find much in the way of scientific research on this. Those with a philosophy background may have more luck attacking this problem than those with a science background.

There's no doubt in my mind that emotions influence our logic. What I'm interested in is complicated and may take a few sentences to explain. Imagine a decision or a fact that you would under normal circumstances only partially agree with, but may become more agreeable to if you were under the influence of drugs or alcohol or just a strong emotional state. If you verbalise your agreement whilst in that state, do you then tend to agree with it more even when you're out of that emotional state?

Example 1:
Your partner wants you to see a movie they know you don't want to see. They get you a little tipsy (not too drunk), or they start showering you with affection, then playfully ask about it whilst engaging your sense of humour. You say no, they tease you a bit and you both share a laugh ending with you saying yes. When your mood returns to normal, you kindda think "It's not really my movie but..." and then agree to see it and walk into the theatre surprised you're not dragging your feet. What I'm trying to illustrate here is that you verbally agreed to something you may not usually have agreed to, but did it whilst in a heightened emotional state. When the heightened emotional state resolved, you felt compelled to keep your prior promise. Further examples push this analogy into more important topics.

Example 2:
You are in an argument and you say things you've always felt (emotionally) were true about your partner but say it in an exaggerated manner that is hurtful. You have never said or believed this exaggerated version but your emotional state is heightened and it falls out of your mouth without having been properly thought through by your brain. When your emotional state resolves, you feel that some of the extra oomph and exaggerations are not true and you apologise. However, I wonder if you now feel rationally more biased towards your exaggerated comments - not that you accept the exaggerated comments fully, but just whether you now think a little more about their exaggeratedness and whether there is more to the topic than you had previously thought whilst feeling emotionally normal. What I'm trying to illustrate is that a belief got verbalised in an exaggerated form whilst in a heightened emotional state, and when the emotional state resolved, some aspects of the exaggerated belief remain, even though emotions and logic have returned to normal.

Example 3:
Imagine you're high on drugs or alcohol. Sex feels fantastic. You're now no longer high or drunk. Your emotional memory remains and you feel that sex was fantastic and attribute it to the person you were sexing with.

Example 4:
Imagine someone presents a conspiracy theory to you and you laugh it off but don't think much about it. Months later, whilst drunk or high on drugs, a different friend presents the same theory to you with what you feel has more evidence. Your heightened emotional state make you agree emotionally at the time. When the drunkenness or drug-induced state wears off, you no longer really agree, but your interest is piqued. You enter another heightened emotional state and again the same conspiracy theory is presented, this time with google evidence (as an aside, google "first black president" and google's first hits will not be Barack Obama, and instead be a conspiracy theory - please don't derail my thread by commenting only on this). Over the course of a few months with these guys, you find yourself warming up to a theory you wouldn't usually consider, even whilst sober. What I'm trying to illustrate is that logic could be fickle when emotions are involved. If you emotionally agree with a topic and voice your agreement, then even when your emotional state has resolved, your logical brain remembers your verbal agreement and is now biased in its assessment despite the now-normal emotional state.

In summary, what impact do you feel decisions made whilst being emotional have after you have dropped from the emotional high (or recovered from the emotional low)? Equivalently, how often are our logical processes hijacked in this manner when we are emotionally sober, if the logical process was started whilst emotionally heightened?

The practical impact of this would be:
a) to be aware that such bias exists in our cognitive thinking and to consciously attempt to compensate for it.
b) avoid voicing things out loud during times of heightened emotions so as to avoid compounding the bias (ie avoid arguments when angry, avoid major decisions whilst in NRE, avoid voicing life-changing statements whilst very happy or very sad).
c) Deliberately use this to engage in positive communication when feeling happy so as to bias topics with happy emotions. That way, when emotions return to normal, bias remains, but the bias is a positive bias.

What do you guys think?
 
I suppose there's some truth to it. But I've experienced it the other way around. Such as being caught up in an emotional frenzy, and saying things I later regret (when I've calmed down) to the point where I kind of believe the opposite (of what I earlier said). Interesting note ... I've found that I tend to believe things more strongly when I (type them or) write them down, than I do when I say them by mouth. The spoken word tends to be more flexible. For me anyway.

Interesting topic.
 
Kevin, I wonder if that has to do with how your brain processes information? I know that I'm a visual learner...I will remember a name, for instance, if I read it with my eyes, but not if someone speaks it to me. So written information is always more valid and memorable, and I have a hard time even recalling with high accuracy, anything I only hear, especially without repetition.

Shaya:

I don't use alcohol because the idea of not owning your words or actions really bothers me. I do think that a person can be forgiven for having emotions that are not within their control. But what we SAY and DO, even under the influence of said uncontrolled feelings, is within the realm of things that we should be expected to control and take responsibility for.

I have had men (and boys, my sons) disagree with me. They have told me that they have an easier time controlling their emotions, but if they let their emotions get out of hand, then they won't be liable for their words or actions that result. I find that difference in thinking...intriguing.
 
I think that emotions are integral to the lens that any person experiences/perceives the world through. They can't be separated from outside input, making pure logic an impossibility. Being aware of the ways my thoughts and conclusions are influenced by my emotions and possible inaccurate thought process has helped me to be a better person by being able to see a version of reality closer to the truth. I think its the responsible thing to do. I do also think we create portions of our own realities and I might as well make mine nicer if I can't make it more true, provided I'm not misrepresenting the things to anyone.

While not exactly emotion-vs-logic, I found learning about cognitive biases to be extremely helpful.
 
I think that emotions are integral to the lens that any person experiences/perceives the world through. They can't be separated from outside input, making pure logic an impossibility. Being aware of the ways my thoughts and conclusions are influenced by my emotions and possible inaccurate thought process has helped me to be a better person by being able to see a version of reality closer to the truth. I think its the responsible thing to do. I do also think we create portions of our own realities and I might as well make mine nicer if I can't make it more true, provided I'm not misrepresenting the things to anyone.

While not exactly emotion-vs-logic, I found learning about cognitive biases to be extremely helpful.

I don't like the notion of emotion versus logic. And I don't think that pure logic is desirable, or that logic without emotion is better.

This is a difference I have in many an internet argument.

I consider anecdotal evidence to be valid. I trust my gut, and my own senses. I trust what I've seen, heard, and experienced directly, MORE than I trust a "peer reviewed empirical scientific article" linked on the internet, sources cited, and the "purely logical" arguments people use online so much.

I think that only by combining all available input, INCLUDING emotion and gut, in an analysis of a situation, can a person be as fully rational as possible. I don't consider emotions to be irrational, unless a person chooses to exercise no self control in the expression of them.

You want to talk about bias? Show me anything with no bias. Science is biased. You can come up with maths to prove almost any theory you want, especially if someone is paying you enough to do it. Show me where there is human function and activity at work, with no bias, no agenda.

From where I stand there is no one Objective Truth. It does not exist. We're all just bubbles of individual perception floating around, bumping up against one another. You have your own bundle of beliefs, thoughts, and experiences, language to describe it, feelings about it...and I have mine. Yours is not more valid than mine, and I don't give a god damn how many other primates agree with you. If I don't agree, I'm going to continue to not agree, until I decide by whatever means is meaningful to me, to change my own mind.

As a thinking creature, I have that prerogative.

I'm bloody sick of this human urge to try and strongarm other humans into agreement with things. And that ranges from the religious, who just fecking NEED to get people to agree that they are right and everybody else is wrong, to various systems of governance and political parties, to people arguing over dumb shit on the internet. No, I don't have to agree with you. You can't make me. If you get the last word, you can sit there feeling smugsauce but it still doesn't make you right, it probably just means I found something better to do with my time.

So in this light...people having these conversations, rather like the sexual ethics thread where Marcus wanted to corner me into admitting or confessing that my position held an illogical (and therefore somehow invalid) basis for existing... What others might not understand is that I don't consider a basis of "I believe this because my gut says so" to be less valid than "I believe this because <cite source> <cite source> <cite source> other monkey say so, everyone says so, it's the consensus, there have been things written and studies done." Yeah, that's interesting and all. But I still reserve the right to follow my internal "gut" compass if I want.

I think that so long as one behaves mindfully, and keeps one's behavior in check and owns the consequences of one's actions...emotion enhances logic. It doesn't necessarily compromise it.

Not like I'm the one making the rules anyhow, for anyone but my own self.
 
I used to struggle long with the war between heart and mind. For me? .....

Emotion is information, valuable information, but can also color your perception.

Too often people use their minds to suppress or judge emotion, saying, "this doesn't make sense, so I shouldn't feel this way"

Too often people lead their mind with their heart , "I feel this is true, so I will try to think/argue why it is true"


Take your emotions for the information it is, but don't let it dictate your thoughts, actions, or conclusions. Take your thoughts and reason for the useful tool it is, but don't let it tell you how to feel.


Ultimately, your heart tells you what you want/don't want, your mind tells you how to get it (and if you should).
 
Also, I think spork might be misinterpreting Epione 's post and that cognitive biases are more what the OP is questioning.
 
I know I come off as being argumentative, but I'm trying to say that I think, and the post I quoted really did touch on this, that many people have more faith in, and place more importance on, concepts of TRUTH, than I do.

OK certainly there are things that we need to represent honestly and everything, communicating accurately what we are able.

I'm just saying that I think that there are SO MANY things in the world where truth is NOT absolute, and anyone who claims to have the truth and argue the truth, is only very firm in their own particular interpretation of the world around them. How often do we have to agree to disagree in the world? For me, that would be all the time. I am not so pretentious as to believe I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I am right...for me. In my bubble, I'm right. But I recognize that others have their own bubbles, their own hills to be king of. I'm not out to challenge everybody who doesn't agree with me in a need to establish that my truth is THE TRUTH. And I'm trying to express here, that I see so many people trying to do (seemingly) just that, and I feel it's a tremendous waste of time, largely unproductive. (However, how I choose to spend my time is my business, and how others spend theirs...clearly not my business.)

And that said, I believe that my emotions influence my logic, my logic influences my emotions, my genetics, hormones, upbringing, blood sugar, amount of sleep I've had lately, overall stress levels, the input of my senses and the function of my brain...all influences emotion, and logic. We're complex meat machines.

Now for me personally, the typical format of things is that I first have an emotional response or a lack thereof (which is notable also) to any particular input, whether that is input from outside of me or a thought or idea that has bubbled up in my head. I'll FEEL something, I'll recognize that I feel something, I'll ask myself if that emotion is warranted by my logical position on the matter. If my emotion reinforces my logical position, then fine. My stance has been confirmed by yet another idea or experience.

Example: I read a story about animal abuse. I'm enraged and horrified. I recognize those emotions. They confirm my logical position that animal abuse is unconscionable. Everything jives, no conflict. I wish we could shoot the abusers of animals and I go on with my day.

Or alternately I might feel something, recognize that it does NOT agree with my logical position, and commence a deep, mucky process of chewing on the matter in my head...I'll deliberately think triggering thoughts, feel what I feel, then change the thoughts, and analyze the feels, and try to basically "argue" with my emotions...and I will analyze mentally my own history and try to find other instances in memory that trigger those emotions, and work out where the "bad code" got written into my brain's emotional response circuitry. Does this make me stop feeling that feel? Well, not always, no...but if I experience conflict between what I feel, and what I think I should feel, I will always see that as cause to do some "self work."

Now the OP talked about getting drunk or high (mentioned the influence of disinhibiting substances more than once) to illustrate that in a state of high emotion, you might say things you regret and all...and personally, I don't think that is a valid excuse. I think that what you say, you have to own. If you say or do something you regret, then you apologize for it. I do not let slip the "real truth" about how I really feel, I speak my authentic feelings on blast or I suppress them for good reasons. If I suppress them, then no one has any business getting "accidentally" blasted in the face with them. That is irresponsible. If I know, and all adults should, that I lose control of my behavior when I drink or take drugs, then I figure I've got a responsibility to STOP DOING THAT. No one has to drink, you know. But also, no one HAS to be a socially terrified, boring, inhibited little mouse, simply because they are sober, either. We get to actually control how we act, what we say and do.

That is not a very popular opinion in our culture, I don't think, but it's my opinion and it is True in my own bubble. Your mileage may vary.

My thoughts are more a sharing of my own ideas on the subject than an effort to directly argue with either the OP, or Epione, though...if I were arguing with them, I'd have to imagine myself more right than they are, and I don't. Except for my own self.

(Though I could just be arguing in my spare time. :D )
 
Ok, but nothing you said contradicts what Epione was saying. Could you take a look at the link and see what she was talking about and how useful looking at those things can be to a person?

Edit to add: and maybe consider that your other arguments in other threads may be coloring how you understand what she was trying to say?
 
What I was perceiving in that post:

-I try to be careful and aware of how my emotions influence my logic, so that I can avoid my emotions warping my logic and so that I can be truthful.

What I keep trying to say and apparently failing:

-I think that emotions AND logic can all be part of what makes up your truth. Your emotions don't always drag your viewpoint off kilter into fantasy-ville.

When you look at lists of "cognitive biases" you are looking at the list of arguments that people on the internet use to say, "you're wrong and I'm right, you're being emotional and I'm being logical, my views are valid and yours are rubbish." And frankly, I am not buying it.

And that is colored not only by other threads here, but other discussions in every sordid corner of the interwebs.

Am I usually under the influence of various forms of bias? Yes. I think everyone is. But that doesn't always mean that our positions are invalid.

Now to the OP, which asked about emotions "hijacking" our logical processes. As though if we could only remain cool, sober, and rational, we would always be our most true selves, but when feelings get involved, they steer us off the map somewhere, and before we know it, we're thinking things that are not real, and drugs and alcohol are repeatedly mentioned as the catalyst for kicking our thinking brains out of the driver's seat, and putting those loony toony emotions in charge.

That's what I was seeing in the OP.

And I think that
1. It's critical to note that there is a third factor on top of emotions and logic, which is BEHAVIOR, because you can experience all of that internally and sit and do nothing and say nothing. But as the OP notes, add drugs or alcohol and your self control (over your BEHAVIOR) diminishes.
2. If there is a constant battle between what you think and feel and they never really agree, then I'd say that maybe some therapy or processing is called for. And especially if you very often find yourself doing or saying things directed by emotion that are at odds with your logic. If your emotions "hijack" your logic and pull you off course then that indicates that your emotions and logic aren't pointing due north on the same issue at the same time...which while I think it's normal for most people to experience this sometimes, if it is a habitual problem or if you make it other people's problem instead of trying to work on it yourself...that's not so good.

I was trying also to say that I might come off in an argumentative tone but I'm not really arguing. And now you are telling me that I'm not arguing effectively, when I said I was not really arguing at all, just sharing thoughts and speaking my mind.

Was the issue the last line? The arguing in my spare time bit? That was a joke. It's a reference to a Monty Python sketch, "Argument Clinic."
 
Again, what you are trying to say about the use of emotions with logic doesn't contradict what she was trying to say, and with your dismissal I really think you didn't read the list or even really understand what cognitive biases are, why we need them, and how knowledge of them can help us.
 
Did you not see the indications that emotionality is inferior to pure logic?

That is the main point I was pushing back against.

And seriously, I know damn well what cognitive bias is, and I did look at the link, did you see something different from what I did? I saw a list of things human beings have a "tendency" to do that is presented as ways to illustrate how our positions are skewed and distorted and therefore (it follows, and this logic is SO often used on the internets) invalid.

And I said that I do not think that emotionality invalidates one's position, that it is only yet another tool in the human toolkit. Not inferior to logic. Not necessarily warping and distorting it. I do not agree with the common use of the concept of cognitive biases to push over what I consider to be perfectly valid positions, even if someone has strong emotions about them, and even if we do not agree on the matter.

And I have repeatedly said that I am not TRYING to directly contradict either the OP or the post I quoted, and I wanted to add my thoughts. I neither fully agree nor disagree with either of them.

I am not seeing the problem that you seem to be seeing here.
 
The first sentence in my first post was about how I think emotion is integral to how a person perceives the world. Nowhere did I state a preference for pure logic, rather a preference for knowing how my mind works in relation to the world around me. I also made zero references to emotions lacking validity.

I thought that if the OP wasn't aware of cognitive biases it might help them understand the phenomenon they were describing better.
 
Well, I don't really know any other way to say it, so I'll keep it simple.

you misunderstood her post and the use of and mention of cognitive biases here.
 
Well, that I will contradict. I think I understood just fine. I just wanted to take that subject and wander with it, and the moment it came off argumentative in tone, the firm "you don't get it" wall came down and everything after that was lost.

I wasn't arguing with Epione. I've said that a few times now. I was, if anything, arguing against something bigger and more generalized I've observed in the world, which Epione's post reminded me of.

But once again, I've found the brick wall of "now things are looking repetitive, we clearly aren't communicating well, and I'm wasting effort."

Carry on without me, friendly forum-goers. I will stop.
 
Ok. No hard feelings on any of it. And I wasn't trying to say you were arguing with her, just that you misunderstood. I can tell from where you clearly stated what you perceived from the post.

I know, because I know Epione and this is a subject we've discussed at length for years. (Don't worry, I'm not normally this protective, but it was her very first post!)

I hope at a later date you two find an understanding of your messages, because her views are incredibly similar to those you posted here. Maybe you will be more interested in finding out what she was trying to say after some time has passed? Communication break downs don't have to be permanent. :)
 
Dear Epione, Sporke and ArtemisHunt,

I have found the contrasting viewpoints you have presented really interesting. Thank you. I thought I'd try to summarise your viewpoints to see if I have understood you correctly.

Post#1 (Shaya): A person may use logic to arrive at one conclusion on one day, then decide differently on a different day without any change in the logical circumstances. This difference may be attributable to emotional bias, hence the topic of this thread - the influence of emotions on logic.
  • For example: Anyone who has seriously thought whether they should stay or leave a long term relationship will know what I mean - one day you think "I can stay" and another day you think "I should leave" - nothing has changed from day to day, merely emotions swaying your thoughts one way or another.
  • I am not used to having my emotions sway me in this manner, but exploring polyamory has me flying emotionally all over the place and I was hoping others who have been through this before could help me make sense of this new aspect of myself.

Post #4 (Epione): Hi Epione, were you trying to say that pure logic is an impossibility since we are human beings who obviously see and experience the world through a (human) emotional lens? Am I correct in interpreting that you feel that you are a better person for being able to identify the emotional lens through which you see your world in order to compensate for this (human) bias? By the way, I found the concept of cognitive bias extremely useful. Thank you.

Post #5, 9, 11, 13, 16 (Spork): Hi Spork, I've found what you're saying really interesting. Thank you for a different viewpoint to mine. My interpretation of what you're saying is
  • Emotions and logic are entwined in a manner that is inseparable. I hear you say that because we are human, there are few instances where you can have pure logic or pure emotion and most situations are a blend of both.
  • I feel you are arguing against objective truth and that you feel there are many situations where two different people can have their own two different truths. In the context of my opening post, would you be arguing that these two people experience their two different truths because they are two different people, with different emotions and different logic, potentially both equally valid for their respective owners despite being entirely different?
  • Am I understanding you correctly when I interpret you saying that emotions don't necessarily screw logic or hijack logic, but sometimes add or complement your logic in order to arrive at an answer that is correct for you? Are you saying that emotions can help some people arrive at their "gut instinct" faster than cold hard logic can?

Post #6 (ArtemisHunt): I think you summed up your own thoughts on this issue very nicely - "Ultimately, your heart tells you what you want (while) your mind tells you how to get it (and if you should)."


I would like to hear if I have understood you all correctly. Post #7 to #17 were all written in less than 24 hours. I was hoping for many people to chime in their thoughts but I'm aware that as threads go on for pages and pages, people stop looking at it and become hesitant to post their reply. I was hoping for a summary page (like what I just wrote above and was hoping you could help fix my summary to a version that more accurately reflects what you are saying), then if we are all in agreement, I would contact a moderator to chop out Posts #7 onwards. My aim in doing this would be to reduce the thread so as to be more inviting to new people to post their own thoughts without feeling the need to read through pages of material.

Please let me know what you feel about this proposal, Epione, Sporke and ArtemisHunt. I don't mean to silence your viewpoint, but the aim of my thread was to help me understand this new aspect of myself and I feel that a shorter thread that engages more people would be more helpful to me. Thank you.
 
Post #4 (Epione): Hi Epione, were you trying to say that pure logic is an impossibility since we are human beings who obviously see and experience the world through a (human) emotional lens? Am I correct in interpreting that you feel that you are a better person for being able to identify the emotional lens through which you see your world in order to compensate for this (human) bias? By the way, I found the concept of cognitive bias extremely useful. Thank you.

Hi Shaya :)

You've got it. Although compensate might not be the best word. Perhaps, just being aware of it. I deeply value my emotional experience and that of others.

I can go on about this at length, it truly is one of my favorite subjects to dig into the details of. How the mind and experiencing the world work. Everyone else deserves a chance.

I would like to hear if I have understood you all correctly. Post #7 to #17 were all written in less than 24 hours. I was hoping for many people to chime in their thoughts but I'm aware that as threads go on for pages and pages, people stop looking at it and become hesitant to post their reply. I was hoping for a summary page (like what I just wrote above and was hoping you could help fix my summary to a version that more accurately reflects what you are saying), then if we are all in agreement, I would contact a moderator to chop out Posts #7 onwards. My aim in doing this would be to reduce the thread so as to be more inviting to new people to post their own thoughts without feeling the need to read through pages of material.

Please let me know what you feel about this proposal, Epione, Sporke and ArtemisHunt. I don't mean to silence your viewpoint, but the aim of my thread was to help me understand this new aspect of myself and I feel that a shorter thread that engages more people would be more helpful to me. Thank you.

I would be okay with this, however I reconize that I have the least input in the area you are proposing to cut out. My agreement is in recognizing that the interaction could detract from the conversation you wanted to have here rather than any desire to silence anyone.



@Spork I don't know if it needs or should be said, but there are no hard feelings from me :)
 
I don't mind a request for an edit, though typically mods tell us that we have an edit window and after that, they don't delete stuff. But you can always ask!

I feel that I was starting to get repetitive because I was experiencing some frustration, once we get to "You don't understand!" "Yes I do understand, I simply have this to add to the discussion." "Yes but you don't understand." "OK I do, I promise, but I just want to also say THIS." back and forth... That's why I stepped out.

I was not trying to completely agree or to contradict any particular post in a full on 180 degree manner. I was only trying to express the facet of the issue I see it through. And yes, Shaya, you got it pretty much right. And no, I have no hard feelings against anyone, I just chose to stop before things got any more...unproductive, if you will.

Post #5, 9, 11, 13, 16 (Spork): Hi Spork, I've found what you're saying really interesting. Thank you for a different viewpoint to mine. My interpretation of what you're saying is
  • Emotions and logic are entwined in a manner that is inseparable. I hear you say that because we are human, there are few instances where you can have pure logic or pure emotion and most situations are a blend of both.
  • I feel you are arguing against objective truth and that you feel there are many situations where two different people can have their own two different truths. In the context of my opening post, would you be arguing that these two people experience their two different truths because they are two different people, with different emotions and different logic, potentially both equally valid for their respective owners despite being entirely different?
  • Am I understanding you correctly when I interpret you saying that emotions don't necessarily screw logic or hijack logic, but sometimes add or complement your logic in order to arrive at an answer that is correct for you? Are you saying that emotions can help some people arrive at their "gut instinct" faster than cold hard logic can?
  • (Speaking to your first and third points) I believe that emotions and logic are all functions of the brain. Logic is the business of analyzing input that an individual has accepted as factual and drawing conclusions from it. Emotion is everything from a response to a trigger programmed into us from childhood, to a sensing of a threat or a suitable mate. It's our primitive brain telling us to feel happiness, grief, fear, anger... We then can choose to act on that, or to sit and analyze it and figure out (logically) where it comes from and if we should act on it (as stated by another poster, what we want, whether we should)... Say you're walking down a dark alley and you get a bad feeling and you high tail it out of danger before some threat is able to cause you harm. Or you just know that someone is untrustworthy, even though you don't have evidence of it. Your brain is maybe analyzing subtle nonverbal input and giving you a FEELING that, if you pay attention to it, you'll benefit or avoid harm. In its own way, it is actually very logical...but linked intrinsically to your own perceptions, and usually subconscious, and likely utilizing a different section of the brain, like the nucleus accumbens for motivations and inhibitions for instance. Should it be considered superior to more "logical" processes? NO, but it is just other kinds of brain function, various tools in the toolbox. You can't be human and not have emotion, you're not a computer, and as clever as computers are, look how many times we program them to think in sophisticated ways but still they cannot do everything the human mind can. I think that our emotions make us MORE, and prefer not to see them as a handicap, but that doesn't mean they get to knee-jerk us in any direction at any time. We get to choose how to use, or not use, any mental information at our disposal.
  • Is the sky still blue, if you're blind? I do argue against objective truth. The closest we can come, is something that most reasonable human beings agree upon. I love science, but it's the never ending business of refining and expanding our understanding of the world around us, and is rife with debate. Thing is, there are times where even if one person is clearly right and one clearly wrong, you simply can not convince the wrong one to agree with the right one. So you walk away letting them be wrong. But in their bubble of reality, they are absolutely correct, and you're wrong. Humans have killed one another over this insistence that a group who is in conflict of ideology ("wrong") change their worldview to agree with a group that thinks they are "right." I mean, if you debate it right into the ground and cannot agree, what's left but to beat each other over the head, no? Well. You could set aside your ego, and embrace the "agree to disagree" mentality. The harder we cling to Objective Truth, the harder it is for humans to coexist peacefully. Sometimes, I'm inclined to choose the way that lets us get along...

And on that note, where do you file religious faith? The skeptical atheist will say it's an appeal to the emotions...fear of dying perhaps, or religious rapture. But it surely is not LOGICAL. But in many cases, it's simply taught to people growing up, presented as absolute fact and truth. I believe that the moon landing happened, and the Holocaust happened, and I would not in a million years deny those things...yet I have not observed personally, any actual material evidence of them. Similarly, most people believe in some kind of God. With no evidence. But they hold it as fact.

Each of us has made many choices of what we accept to be TRUE.

I think that there are actually fairly few who have all of the SAME exact set of "truths," large and small, filling our brains. So, even logic and truth...are imperfect and subjective. We can throw tantrums over the heterogeneous nature of human belief-sets, because it's terrifying for some to deal with other people being or thinking differently and not being swayed to agreement... Or we can just accept that my bubble of perception is mine, yours is yours. In which case, so long as we control how we manifest it in our BEHAVIOR...it does not matter that much what anyone thinks, feels, OR believes.

Do I allow my logic, or my emotion, or my faith, to dictate my BEHAVIOR...? How much time do I have, in order to decide how to act? A big, dangerous threat is menacing my child, if I stop and think I'll realize I stand no chance of winning this fight, but because I have no time and my child is in peril, I WILL fight, with everything I've got. "What were you thinking?" I wasn't! Sometimes, we don't get that luxury. Mothers who think too hard about this example will in fact feel adrenaline beginning to surge in their bodies. Sometimes, emotion is our superpower.

Yet a sophisticated and complex upright mammal must also know how to control emotional impulses, and when to do so. We can't go around attacking everyone who upsets us, obviously. Good thing our awesomely complex brains are capable of telling us when to drop the checkered flag, and when to stop and apply some logic....though it's arguable that some of us are better at judging which situation calls for which response.

I find this extremely interesting too.
It's very hard to stop talking about it, and once I get started, it's incredibly hard for me to be concise in any way (just...my own communication habits and style.) So yeah...aside from this, I do still want to limit my involvement in this discussion. But thank you for checking in.
 
Back
Top