Divergence of Emotion and Logic

Working under the proposition that ‘emotional thought’ and ‘logical thought’ have diverged how much is there to say for emotive and logical thought as a unity? There is such a vast variety of approaches for the regard toward what is ‘emotional’ and what is ‘logical’ that we’re faced with the question of how best to differentiate them at all. The commonly held division is often framed as ‘empirical’ and ‘ideal’; the former is a measurement and the later a judgement. Or we may look to say quanta and qualia - both terms reliant upon the other.

In psychological terms what is there to say of some proposed ‘emotional thinking’ and ‘logical thinking’? Do we find greater success in exploring these as sharing a common source, or as being one and the same; only possessing a facade of difference? Or even, as being wholly different and actually converging rather than having diverged?

Firstly, to look at the physiology, emotions are bodily felt. To feel angry there is a somatic substrate; physiological markers required to ‘feel’ angry (raised heartbeat and muscular tension). Given that we’re creatures in constant contact with the sensible (we are because of sensibility) we’re necessarily led by, and leading into, actions as part of a greater landscape which is only ever partially held in immediate attention. We’re emotionally extending ourselves towards aims; to ‘resources’ of some sort (real and/or imagined, material or otherwise). Logic, on the other hand, is a non-guiding force - it isn’t a ‘force’ at all really! When emotionally directed, as we must be, we measure and explore via the unearthing of syllogisms, and by refining them with experience and subjective investigation after committing to more basic drives for sustenance (real and/or imagined).

In the above sense it doesn’t seem to hold that ‘logical thought’ and ‘emotional thought’ have diverged from a singular source. Logic was discovered whereas emotions are perpetually ‘felt’ - they are of sense not non-sense. What could be said is that ‘emotion’ is the physical landscapes and that ‘logic’ is the imaginative landscape - or rather, the ‘landscape’ revealed by emotional reclamation of memory (logic discovered not created).

Now to turn to social issues and human interactions in regards to the best means of harnessing our ‘emotional’ and ‘logical’ dispositions.

It could be said that social and political disharmony may grow quickly due to the emotional and logical dispositions of people becoming moe polarised. It does seem quite logical to say that cold hard logic is bereft of humanity and that pure emotional reactions are dangerous and indicative of violent and irrational behavior, leading to great tensions and turmoil - both on an individual scale and in the broader public sphere (for logic and emotion both to be clear). In this broader sociopolitical sense is emotion better than logic, or logic better than emotion? And how best can such widely perceived contrary positions be used in an overall positive manner?

What cannot be overlooked is that any logical investigation is driven by an overarching emotional need; be this simple curiosity or as applicable to a real life problem. Logic helps us to orientate ourselves between ‘truths’ and to avoid illusions and delusions. Our emotional understanding is complimentary to the life-world and society. We understand the pain of others due to empathy, which only exists due to the logical leap brought about through theory of mind; the understanding of another’s position - albeit in an inexact, approximate manner. If we’re more inclined to an overtly emotional disposition in a group discussion then our wants and wishes will override the drive to understand and empathise with others; we’ll lack the opportunity to embrace another’s perspective, as if our own, and remain entrenched. If we’re more inclined to an overtly logical disposition we’ll disregard the humanity of the discussion; yet will, at least, present articulate and dispassionate arguments that are necessarily open to listening and reasoning through the perspectives espoused. The larger the gathering the more logical argumentation is required in order to hold off a mob-like mentality. Conversely, when it comes to discussion on a one-to-one basis, or rather a stream of private thought, items of emotional content can be more readily addressed as in group discussions there is always an ‘ethical’ umbrella the exchange operates under - by ‘ethical’ I am referring to the general societal field of thought about what is ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ behavior and speech; an incentivisation to not say something deemed irrational, obtuse, or simply repugnant, even if meant to open up the discussion to explore hidden, and unpleasant, aspects of human nature and societies at large.

Clumsy use of terms spewed out can instigate all sorts of problems and derail any chance for moderate discussion difficult topics. In this sense I would say such emotional flames are best if contained. Once the inner flames subside then the individual can pick over what pieces forged are pure in the cold light of logical elucidation, and how best to judge the heat they may still hold and how dangerous such could be in the painful display of social revelation - all useful exchanges necessarily carry the burden of someone having to make a painful readjustment.

So we slowly advance toward the ‘better approach’ in regards to ‘logical thought’ and ‘emotional thought’. What I observe is a pulling, a stretching out, between critical thought and emotional reaction. In group debates, en masse, the fear is we are being driven purely by a mob mentality, so we’re better off - in this regard - to act more critically and apply logic, yet when it comes to forming an individualistic position we’re seduced by logical validation without putting weight on the moral position. The individual, then, is better off being emotional and applying this emotional content to public criticism; whilst the logical aspect of a person is then both the giver and receiver of critical thought once an emotionally driven idea (which all are - as previously shown) is brought into the public sphere.

An emotion, being physically felt, can only properly be dealt with once revealed and verbally expressed. The power of logical thought helps us understand how our emotional being directs itself and of the possible dangers exposed; both by ignoring emotions and by surrendering to them. Only a critical analysis can allow us to tame our emotional dispositions, and only our unbound emotional, inner-self, can reveal what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ in its outward effect. Our drive to find out what is ‘better’ is an emotional drive, therefore the individual - in isolation - should attend to their emotional content. The decision of what is ‘better’ inwardly can only lead to a more conclusive/valid determination if the individual brings the emotional content into social play with a logical disposition toward it. To put up the content as a ‘feeling’ in order to pick out the use of such ‘feeling’ to orientate oneself with oneself and in the public sphere.

Divergence of the emotional and logical comes down to how people are disposed toward the life-world they find themselves in. The hermit has to guard against pure isolated emotion and the social butterfly has to guard against neglecting emotion - often hidden by rationalising their public actions. Living publicly one is always looking backward and rationalising acts to suit societal narratives, whereas living in isolation one is living in a forever present situation removed from hindsight of action in a logical/rational manner. The convergence of logical and emotional output gives foresight; the recognition of a supposed middle-ground, an emotionally idealised foci that is logically impossible to meet - humility ensues much as Sisyphus rolls his boulder.