> "First, emotions organize — rather than disrupt — rational thinking. Traditionally, in the history of Western thought, the prevailing view has been that emotions are enemies of rationality and disruptive of cooperative social relations.
> But the truth is that emotions guide our perceptions of the world, our memories of the past and even our moral judgments of right and wrong, most typically in ways that enable effective responses to the current situation."
Is it generally accepted that the Logic 'vs' Emotion dichotomy is a false one?
I don't know if its generally accepted yet, but I wish it was, and hope it one day is. For the last few years, I've found that Emotions vs Logic is very analogous to Magic vs Science.
"Magic is just Science we don't understand yet"
"Emotions are just Logic you don't understand yet"
When people believed Magic existed, and it was uncontrollable by the majority there were negative outcomes. Those with magic, exploiting those without it. Those without magic, fearing and killing those with it.
However, when the general attitude changed to: Although we don't know the science behind it yet, everything happens for a reason. It gives people hope that they can uncover that reason. They are also less prone to being exploited by it and reduces the chances of fearing it. Succinctly, believing in Science democratizes access to "Magic".
Similarly, if a person believes emotions are outside reason and therefore outside their control, they are more likely to succumb to them. Meanwhile, believing emotions are controllable, not only provides hope for people that dislike their current emotional state, but it is also directly proportional to increasing the belief that you are also in control of your response to those emotions.
Magic has been very influential even to this day. It totally changed the "game" of games with its innovative business model. I learned a few weeks ago that Richard Garfield initially created Magic just so he could fund publishing his "real" game RoboRally which I find hilarious.
Sadly, no. Anyone who's studied human emotion know that the dichotomy doesn't make sense (especially if studying the neural basis of emotions [1]). I hope this movie will help to shift some of that mindset.
[1] My PhD was the interaction between human emotion and decision-making but even defining 'emotion' was tricky.
As another datapoint, people with brain damage causing them to experience very little emotion have great difficulty making decisions, to such a degree that their lives can quickly fall apart. Emotions appear to be an essential element of well functioning human cognition.
No its not, but how do you account for feeling about something that goes against your logic? Ie quitting a job without finding another. How is emotion guiding logic in every case?
Emotions motivate you to act to improve your situation instead of do nothing. They may be illogical, but they kickstart the thinking process. Logic is useless if you don't wake up and use it. Emotions are the first past filter to bring issues to your attention.
The emotion doesn't tell you 'quit without finding another job' it says "I don't like this" which prompts you to use your logic to change your environment.
One logical statement doesn't have to support another logical statement. We wouldn't be able to get logical paradoxes such as the Paradox of the Court without conflicts in logic...
With regards to quitting a job without finding another, taken rationally you could argue that the individual has decided that in order to have the positive outlook required to land a new job they need to remove themselves from a negative environment they find themselves in. Such an outlook is logical, it recognises that emotional state has a large impact on confidence, and that confidence is a very useful attribute for landing a new job. Of course it could also be much simpler than that, that the individual just wants to improve their emotional state in the short term, not all logic has to apply eternally.
That's just a basic example. A more complex example is what we understand by 'truth'. To me, we know when something is true because we feel it, or in other words truth has an emotional response. Is that your experience also?
> "First, emotions organize — rather than disrupt — rational thinking. Traditionally, in the history of Western thought, the prevailing view has been that emotions are enemies of rationality and disruptive of cooperative social relations.
> But the truth is that emotions guide our perceptions of the world, our memories of the past and even our moral judgments of right and wrong, most typically in ways that enable effective responses to the current situation."
Is it generally accepted that the Logic 'vs' Emotion dichotomy is a false one?