Are emotions rational or irrational?

As i see it both are labels the mind attaches to emotions. It's not the labels themselves that are important/interesting, but it's the motivations and the process of labeling that's important.

As i see it both are labels the mind attaches to emotions. It's not the labels themselves that are important/interesting, but it's the motivations and the process of labeling that's important. — skyblack

Well, labels are context dependent. But, there are some situations like labile emotions where they seemingly spontaneously arise, which might puzzle a person experiencing them.

Well, labels are context dependent. — Shawn

They may or may not be context dependent, but in many cases they are certainly convenience dependent

.

But, there are some situations like labile emotions where they seemingly spontaneously arise, which might puzzle a person experiencing them. — Shawn

Anything will puzzle the puzzled, unless they start looking and inquiring for themselves.

This might seem like a straightforward question given how it's phrased; but, is there another classification for emotions that neither labels them as "rational" or "irrational"? — Shawn

Adaptive vs maladaptive.

Maladaptive emotions don't align with the situations that they arise in, like something benign triggering a panic attack when there's no actual threat. Somehow that conditioning developed. Fortunately it can be reconditioned.

I hope it makes a little sense to avoid the dichotomy of either treating emotions as "rational" or "irrational"? — Shawn

It can make sense to avoid the dichotomy, insofar as rational/irrational implies logical judgements based on reason, whereas emotions imply aesthetic judgements based on feelings alone. It follows that emotions need not be treated as rational/irrational, thus avoiding the dichotomy.

Humans, after all, reason to a logical judgement, but reason from an aesthetic judgement. On the one hand, we have to understand things about an object before we know what the object is, but on the other hand, we very well may already have feelings about something before we know what it is about it, that causes those feelings.

Expressions of emotion may be rational/irrational. But emotions themselves, as purely subjective conditions, are not.

. Unless you see things ... as they are ... directly ... without any medium ... between ... you ... and ... reality ... between you ... and ... that which is ... without any so-called Pedia ... as Wikipedia ... reality cannot ... and will not ... blossom to you ...

. Emotions are ... irrational ... they cannot be rational ... by the very nature of it ... because they're comming from the very center of your being ... which is the Heart ...

. Emotions have the quality of transcendence ... they do express that ... which nature cannot be expressed by the mind ... by your thoughts ... by your so-called reason ...

. That ... whose nature ... cannot come out of the mind ... you simply ... watch it ... with total awareness ... and you'll see ... something coming up ... rising through your whole being ... a warm energy ... which was never experienced ... before ... in your Life ...

. Just look into it. If you are laughing, it is beautiful. In fact, if you ask me, even crying is beautiful; nothing is wrong with it. If you really ask me, then I will say accept whatsoever is. Accept the real, and then crying ... which is comming out of emotions ... is also beautiful.

. And there is no need to go into the inquiry of ‘why’ — because that inquiry distracts you from the factual.

. Then crying is not important, but why you are crying is. Then the real disappears and you go on chasing the cause. Where can you find the cause? How can you find the cause? You will have to go to the very beginning of the world — and there has never been any beginning. The world has been here always.

. No question is needed to live. And don’t wait for answers; start dropping questions. Live with the fact.

. If you are crying, cry. Enjoy it! It is a beautiful phenomenon — relaxing, cleansing, purifying.

. Laughter is beautiful. Laugh, and let laughter take possession of you. Laugh, so your whole body throbs and pulsates with it. It will be purifying, it will be vitalizing; it will rejuvenate you.

. But remain with the fact. Don’t move into causes. Remain with the existential. Don’t be bothered why it is so, because it cannot be answered.

This might seem like a straightforward question given how it's phrased; but, is there another classification for emotions that neither labels them as "rational" or "irrational"? — Shawn

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, in their book, Thinking, Fast & Slow, described the function of Emotions in terms that don't demean them as "irrational". Emotions (Happiness, Sadness, Fear, Anger, Love) are typically quick automatic responses to situations that have been encountered before, and recorded in memory as beliefs about what's good or bad, and what behaviors worked in the past, to maximize the good and minimize the bad. Although some innate responses seem to be somehow recorded in genes as "race memory".

Those encoded beliefs were a rational, but subjective (good for me), condensation of specific complex experiences in the past. And they prepare us for fast reaction to future challenges. But, when we encounter novel circumstances, those old responses may not work as well in a different context. So, we have a backup plan : to take more time to examine the new case in detail. Then, instead of just generalizing the old knee-jerk response to different contexts, we can tailor our reaction to the current conditions. :smile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

Race Memory : a supposedly inherited subconscious memory of events in human history or prehistory.

Humans, after all, reason to a logical judgement, but reason from an aesthetic judgement. On the one hand, we have to understand things about an object before we know what the object is, but on the other hand, we very well may already have feelings about something before we know what it is about it, that causes those feelings.

Expressions of emotion may be rational/irrational. But emotions themselves, as purely subjective conditions, are not. — Mww

I like the distinction that emotions provide an aesthetic 'intuition' about a decision and its potential outcome based on reason. How do these aesthetic judgements arise or change in one's mind?

The heart has reasons that reason cannot know. — Blaise Pascal

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. — David Hume

Firstly, emotions tend to have causes e.g. when you see a gorgeous person, one experiences love and happiness; when someone insults you, sadness and hate well up inside you. You get the idea. Try and feel happy/sad/love/hate/anger in a causal vacuum and you simply can't - there has to be a cause that's specific to the emotion that it elicits as outlined above.

Secondly, reason's views on the causality of emotions seems to be marked by disapproval in that emotions, whatever form or shape they assume, are logically inappropriate or disproportionate i.e. there's something terribly wrong with emotional causation. As to why reason is so deeply concerned about feelings, the obvious answer is emotions interfere with reasoning and though emotions seem to be primal survival-oriented psychological tools, reason has an edge over it in being a more reliable means of living to see another day so to speak. The bottom line is that emotions can spiral out of control in the blink of an eye and that instantly puts reason out of commission and no prizes for guessing how that ends - if one's lucky only minor cuts and bruises but if one isn't a sticky end can't be ruled out.

Thirdly, from the above we seem fully warranted to conclude that emotions that are both appropriate and proportionate are completely acceptable. Thus, for instance, a fit of rage when someone tries to shoot you with a gun for no rhyme or reason is not offensive in any way. The caveat though is that in the heat of passion, reason takes the day off and that, as we all know from personal experience, spells trouble with a capital "T". There is a clear and present danger if feelings have a say in one's decisions - situations can quickly get out of hand - and reason recommends that to be on the safer side, to err on the side of caution we should simply refuse to entertain any and all emotions. That means we'll have to keep even the good emotions like love, wonder, etc. at arms length just to make sure the bad ones don't tag along into the sanctum sanctorum of reason and cause havoc.

Last but not the least, there's been a lot of commendable work done on Emotional Intelligence/Quotient. One model (Salovey &Mayer) recommends that,

1. We should be able to perceive emotion in ourselves and in others; learn to detect and decipher emotions from speech, facial expressions, and body language.

2. We should understand emotions i.e. get a handle on their complex interrelationship and have a good grasp on their causes and how they evolve.

3. We should use emotions in the sense work with them, channel them, tap into their potential, all in order to make our lives more productive.

4. We should manage emotions i.e. control/regulate them so that we can both minimize their negative effects and capitalize on what they have to offer.

Easier said than done but I'm just so bowled over by how reason hasn't thrown the baby out with the bath water and wants to forge a more mutually beneficial partnership with emotions.

emotions provide an aesthetic 'intuition' about a decision and its potential outcome based on reason. How do these aesthetic judgements arise or change in one's mind? — Shawn

By the creation of an object of desire or inclination, from practical reason, by which the subjective condition explains itself to itself. I may have feelings about something, not necessarily because of what it is, but merely from how I am inclined to think of it, or, for some affect I wish it to impart to me.

It should be noted that emotions, while prevalent, are not necessary for humans. We know there are things for which we have no feelings at all, things for which no judgement is made with respect to that thing’s affect.

I think, technically, we don’t know how aesthetic judgements arise, but only speculate on the conditions under which they become possible. It is plain they are merely subjective, because it is plain one subject may have very different feelings than another, given exactly the same circumstance. And anything purely subjective, is pretty much impossible to quantify across the board.

Is this based on Schopenhauer? It sounds like Schopenhauer or Kant?

Good catch. I like them both, but favor Kant.