Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the March 2023 Philosophy Book of the Month, Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness by Chet Shupe

Our emotional lives are so repressed that, as civilized beings, we entirely overlook the significance of our feelings. Feelings have no place in our way of life, which is dictated by our belief that life is a rational process. To us, feelings are not the source of order. They are, instead, the source of disorder, because feelings are the culprit whenever we fail to follow the rules!

(Location 244 - Kindle Version)

As human beings, we often strive for rationality and logic in our lives, viewing emotions as an obstacle to achieving order and stability. However, the quote mentioned challenges this notion, suggesting that our emotional lives are repressed to the point where we overlook their significance entirely.

So, let's delve into this topic further. Can a life devoid of emotions be fulfilling, or is it the balance between our emotions and our rationality that leads to a fulfilling life? Are our emotions a source of disorder, or do they serve a purpose in guiding us towards what is important to us? How can we find a balance between our emotions and our rationality?

[Pattern-chaser]

Our emotional lives are so repressed that, as civilized beings, we entirely overlook the significance of our feelings. Feelings have no place in our way of life, which is dictated by our belief that life is a rational process. To us, feelings are not the source of order. They are, instead, the source of disorder, because feelings are the culprit whenever we fail to follow the rules!

(Location 244 - Kindle Version)

As human beings, we often strive for rationality and logic in our lives, viewing emotions as an obstacle to achieving order and stability. However, the quote mentioned challenges this notion, suggesting that our emotional lives are repressed to the point where we overlook their significance entirely.

So, let's delve into this topic further. Can a life devoid of emotions be fulfilling, or is it the balance between our emotions and our rationality that leads to a fulfilling life? Are our emotions a source of disorder, or do they serve a purpose in guiding us towards what is important to us? How can we find a balance between our emotions and our rationality?

This is an interesting and relevant choice of topic, I think. My first reaction is that we need to consider very carefully the exact words we use to describe these things. For example, when you wrote "How can we find a balance between our emotions and our rationality?", I wondered if it might be closer to the reality we experience to ask, "How can we discover the balance between our emotions and our rationality?"?

To me, that balance already exists, it's just that we aren't really aware of it. I think this has to do with our hope — or need? — that life is rational, predictable, consistent, and certain, despite the fact that our experience of real life points to the opposite conclusion. But maybe I'm getting several topics mixed up when I say that?

Our perceptions and understanding of life are a mixture of the contributions of emotion, and our more rational inclinations. And I think, and suggest, that that "mixture" is inextricable, and even that the two are indivisible, for practical purposes, at least. If we (somehow) remove from ourselves either emotion or rationality, I suspect the result would be a dysfunctional or — more likely — non-functional human being. I think both are necessary.

As for the balance, I think it is there to be discovered, as it always has been. It was just lurking there, waiting for us to notice. Perhaps this topic is the impetus we need to confront this consciously?

[Sushan]

Our emotional lives are so repressed that, as civilized beings, we entirely overlook the significance of our feelings. Feelings have no place in our way of life, which is dictated by our belief that life is a rational process. To us, feelings are not the source of order. They are, instead, the source of disorder, because feelings are the culprit whenever we fail to follow the rules!

(Location 244 - Kindle Version)

As human beings, we often strive for rationality and logic in our lives, viewing emotions as an obstacle to achieving order and stability. However, the quote mentioned challenges this notion, suggesting that our emotional lives are repressed to the point where we overlook their significance entirely.

So, let's delve into this topic further. Can a life devoid of emotions be fulfilling, or is it the balance between our emotions and our rationality that leads to a fulfilling life? Are our emotions a source of disorder, or do they serve a purpose in guiding us towards what is important to us? How can we find a balance between our emotions and our rationality?

This is an interesting and relevant choice of topic, I think. My first reaction is that we need to consider very carefully the exact words we use to describe these things. For example, when you wrote "How can we find a balance between our emotions and our rationality?", I wondered if it might be closer to the reality we experience to ask, "How can we discover the balance between our emotions and our rationality?"?

To me, that balance already exists, it's just that we aren't really aware of it. I think this has to do with our hope — or need? — that life is rational, predictable, consistent, and certain, despite the fact that our experience of real life points to the opposite conclusion. But maybe I'm getting several topics mixed up when I say that?

Our perceptions and understanding of life are a mixture of the contributions of emotion, and our more rational inclinations. And I think, and suggest, that that "mixture" is inextricable, and even that the two are indivisible, for practical purposes, at least. If we (somehow) remove from ourselves either emotion or rationality, I suspect the result would be a dysfunctional or — more likely — non-functional human being. I think both are necessary.

As for the balance, I think it is there to be discovered, as it always has been. It was just lurking there, waiting for us to notice. Perhaps this topic is the impetus we need to confront this consciously?

Indeed, the question of balance between emotions and rationality has been a longstanding philosophical inquiry. As you pointed out, perhaps the balance already exists, and it is our perception and understanding that need to be adjusted.

Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that a fulfilling life is one of eudaimonia, or flourishing, which is achieved by living a life of virtue, balance, and moderation. This concept could be applied to the relationship between emotions and rationality. Striking a balance between them might lead to a more fulfilling life, as one navigates through the complexities of human existence, making sound decisions while also experiencing the depth of emotions.

In the 18th century, German philosopher Immanuel Kant emphasized the importance of reason in human life but also acknowledged that emotions play a role in our moral development. According to Kant, emotions can help us recognize and respond to moral issues, but it is our rationality that ultimately guides our actions.

Some modern philosophers, such as Martha Nussbaum, advocate for the idea of "emotional intelligence," which argues that emotions can contribute to our rational decision-making processes by providing valuable information about our values, needs, and desires. In this view, emotions and rationality are not inherently opposed but can work together to enhance our understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

To find a balance between emotions and rationality, one might cultivate self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and critical thinking skills. By becoming more attuned to our emotional states and understanding their origins, we can better integrate our emotions into our decision-making processes. In doing so, we can embrace the richness of our emotional lives while maintaining a rational perspective, leading to a more fulfilling and well-rounded existence.

[Stoppelmann]

I am reading an interesting book at present in which the author speaks about rationality and emotion, comparing Western with Eastern thinking:

Kant gave us a transcendental argument that sought to show that space, time, causality, and enduring physical objects are necessary conditions of the unity of consciousness. He also thought consciousness was or could be pure: that is, he saw the mind in the typical Western philosophical fashion as capable of pure reason unalloyed with emotion. But in the Far East our human psychology isn’t thought of in this way. It is assumed that reason(ing) and emotion cannot fundamentally be separated, and the terms xin in Chinese, maum in Korean, and kokoro in Japanese all reflect the latter assumption: that is why it has seemed so natural to translate all these terms into English as “heart-mind,” not “mind.”
The latter word connotes at the very least the possibility of purely rational and non-emotional psychological functioning, and that is what Eastern thought typically doesn’t subscribe to.

If we can show that pure reason isn’t possible and that “xin” and so on characterize our psychology better than “mind” does, then a major part of Kant’s enterprise is undercut and/or seems beside the point. But we may be able to learn something valuable from Kant’s method of proceeding even if not from the assumptions he made in proceeding as he did. In this chapter I want first to try to vindicate xin, and so on, over mind, but having done that, I want to offer a kind of transcendental argument vis-à-vis the heart-mind (rather than the mind). I hope to show you that yin-yang is a necessary precondition or presupposition of the heart-mind: more specifically, that the functioning heart-mind necessarily has a yin-yang structure.
Slote, Michael. Between Psychology and Philosophy (Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy) (pp. 16-17). Springer International Publishing. Kindle Edition.

The point is that, although Western philosophy tends to think of emotion separate to reasoning, Eastern philosophy uses a terminology to include it and practises methods to balance it.

[Sushan]

I am reading an interesting book at present in which the author speaks about rationality and emotion, comparing Western with Eastern thinking:

Kant gave us a transcendental argument that sought to show that space, time, causality, and enduring physical objects are necessary conditions of the unity of consciousness. He also thought consciousness was or could be pure: that is, he saw the mind in the typical Western philosophical fashion as capable of pure reason unalloyed with emotion. But in the Far East our human psychology isn’t thought of in this way. It is assumed that reason(ing) and emotion cannot fundamentally be separated, and the terms xin in Chinese, maum in Korean, and kokoro in Japanese all reflect the latter assumption: that is why it has seemed so natural to translate all these terms into English as “heart-mind,” not “mind.”
The latter word connotes at the very least the possibility of purely rational and non-emotional psychological functioning, and that is what Eastern thought typically doesn’t subscribe to.

If we can show that pure reason isn’t possible and that “xin” and so on characterize our psychology better than “mind” does, then a major part of Kant’s enterprise is undercut and/or seems beside the point. But we may be able to learn something valuable from Kant’s method of proceeding even if not from the assumptions he made in proceeding as he did. In this chapter I want first to try to vindicate xin, and so on, over mind, but having done that, I want to offer a kind of transcendental argument vis-à-vis the heart-mind (rather than the mind). I hope to show you that yin-yang is a necessary precondition or presupposition of the heart-mind: more specifically, that the functioning heart-mind necessarily has a yin-yang structure.
Slote, Michael. Between Psychology and Philosophy (Palgrave Studies in Comparative East-West Philosophy) (pp. 16-17). Springer International Publishing. Kindle Edition.

The point is that, although Western philosophy tends to think of emotion separate to reasoning, Eastern philosophy uses a terminology to include it and practises methods to balance it.

Thank you for sharing this thought-provoking excerpt from the book you're currently reading. It highlights the fundamental differences between Western and Eastern perspectives on the relationship between rationality and emotion. The concept of "heart-mind" in Eastern thought suggests a more integrated and holistic understanding of our human psychology, emphasizing the inseparability of reason and emotion.

This perspective can offer valuable insights into the question of whether a life devoid of emotions can be fulfilling. If we accept the idea that reason and emotion are intrinsically connected and cannot be fundamentally separated, then a life without emotions is not only unrealistic but also misses the essence of our human experience.

Our emotions serve a purpose in guiding our actions and decision-making processes, allowing us to navigate the complexities of life. They can be a source of motivation, inspiration, and personal growth, and can help us forge connections with others. Emotions also provide us with the capacity for empathy and compassion, essential components of a fulfilling life.

To find a balance between our emotions and rationality, we can learn from Eastern philosophical traditions that emphasize the importance of harmony and equilibrium. Practices such as meditation, mindfulness, and self-reflection can help us cultivate an awareness of our emotions, enabling us to manage them effectively without being overwhelmed or controlled by them.

In conclusion, rather than striving for a life devoid of emotions, we should embrace the interconnectedness of our emotional and rational selves. By acknowledging the value of our emotions and seeking a balance between the two aspects of our psychology, we can experience a more fulfilling and meaningful life.