|
The following is the way I see things. This is how I believe logic and emotion to be related, and how they come into conflict. I am not a psychologist, and have not based my viewpoint on anyone else’s. Perhaps this coincides somewhat with some theory or other, I don’t know. I the following I use the words “emotion” and “logic” in their loosest and broadest sense possible.
Logic and emotion are not opposites. They are related, and occasionally come into conflict, but they cannot be seen as opposites.
Some people claim that they live their lives completely logically, to the complete exclusion of emotion. Rubbish! Logically, why should you get up in the morning?
People no doubt will attempt to logically reduce these questions.
I get up in the morning to go to work. I work to get money, I need money to eat, I need to eat to survive etc etc.
But why do any of this?
We are driven by our "emotions". Ultimately everything we do is to pander towards our emotions. i.e. the quest for happiness.
Logically there is no reason to be happy.
Emotion is the root cause for your "ultimate purpose". You use both logic and emotion to act in a manner beneficial to this ultimate purpose.
The problem occurs when the two come into conflict. Some people get overwhelmed by their emotions, and lose control. Other people know how to deal with their emotions. Sometimes you need to use logic to override what your emotions tell you. Your emotions can at times be self destructive, and can in fact work against your ultimate purpose. This is when logic comes into play.
Using logic, and you see past the short-term goal that your emotion has set up, and you may realise that the correct course of action is somewhat different. But, though you are using logic to override your self-defeating emotion, ultimately your logical actions are just pandering to a "higher" and more "long term" emotion.
To put this in the context of the situation with your girlfriend:
Her "higher" emotional purpose is to be happy with you and with your life together.
But when she is in a bad mood, the higher purpose becomes obscured, and many minor things start to seem like major issues. She is angry, and a short-term goal is to somehow release this anger. So she takes it out on you.
A very minor thing such a bin not being brought out is used as a reason to cause a big fuss.
A logical person would see this situation differently, and would also feel the "reasonless" anger, but would also take into account the detrimental effects that acting on this anger could have. A logical person would see that screaming about a bin not being brought out goes against the ultimate purpose of being happy with you, and would thus "override" the short term emotional pay-off in order to act favourably towards the "long term" emotional pay-off.
Now obviously enough, my description is very much over simplified. Most notably the “black and white” choices and the existence of only two “levels”. In reality, there is of course a near infinitude of potential ways to act. Also, there would not be merely two levels of “ultimate” and “short term”. There would be many levels, also these levels would not be sharply defined, and immutable. The differences between them would be very much blurred, and over time, the different levels would change.
So in summary a “logical” person is someone who tends to see past the short-term emotional goals, and will always act in a way favourable to the higher emotional levels. An “emotional” person is someone who tends to not see past the lower level emotions and will thus sometimes act in ways detrimental to the higher levels.
A “normal” person is of course someone who acts in a manner lying somewhere between the above two extremes.
__________________
|