My question is which do you believe is more effective for solving problems that appear within life. Do you believe that cold composed logic is more beneficial or the idea of empathy and emotion as more useful? Why? Also has it made life easier or difficult? How? I understand that in certain proffessions would require someone to be one or the other i.e. a detective or scientist being logical while a social worker being more emotional. My question is is logic or emotion more benficial towards choices in life and even problems that arise while living? I personally believe that logic is the way to go when it comes to most. In fact my mother used to refer to me as Spock as a young boy because I was always calm and logical. I believe that most situations would call for a logical decision made calmly and rationally. I certainly wouldn't like someone screaming hysterically if someone gets hurts nor would I enjoy a conversation where someone gets enraged over the fact that I disagree with them. I tend to notice that when people get emotional they tend to act impulsively and don't keep control which I find highly disturbing. I don't see how someone forms emotional responses to something that clearly requires composure such as a debate. Many times human beings seem to form emotional attachments to ideas and begin to argue more and converse less. Also in many situations that requires logical conclusions such as medical emergency I would certainly prefer someone who thinks what to do instead of hastily acting possibly making the situation worse. It strikes me as more helpful to be logical when you or someone else faces a crisis because getting upset while someone else is upset only furthers the problem. Usually when someone acts on an emotion such as fear, despair, rage or even joy it seems to cause them trouble because they act first and are forced to deal with the consequnces afterwards. An example would be such as someone gets stabbed nearby and everyone rushes to the person's side, but everyone is too shocked and/or frightened to do anything. The blade is lodged deep in his side. Now I could either calmly call for medical aid on a cell phone and even try to stop the bleeding or I could act irrationally freak out and pull the blade from the man's side possibly causing him to bleed quicker. Then frantically call medical services and hastefully yell incoherently at the operator on the other side. Another and less life threatening issue would be say your friend gets dumped by their lover. One could understand that more than likely they'll meet someone else to spend time with and have intimate moments. Just instead trying to be there so their friend doesn't feel alone after the breakup. One could easily explain that they understand the friend's feelings and tell them how their life isn't destroyed by this event. That there are many more people which it can be determined through probability of another person taking an interest in them. One could also merely fuel their friends more than likely pain and anger by being overly "empathetic." This could happen by one getting angry at the friend's ex and trying to possibly convince your friend to get revenge or possibly embitter that person toward the gender they're sexually attracted to with generalizations about that gender like "All men are jerks" or "All women want is money" What does everyone else think on the idea of using logic in situations vs following emotional ("gut feelings") approaches towards life.
Any tool is only as powerful with people as they credit it. In this case [the human case], logic is useful, but not full-proof. The fact of the matter is that it does not really matter if your individual actions are ruled by logic if everyone else's are ruled by their emotions. Take going to war for example. Logically, the current state of Afghanistan was somewhat predicatible. But the US went to war driven on politics up high and emotions across the board. Being coldly logical is not always the best path to take. Take a debate for example. The ability to pull at the hearts and minds of the people is infinitly more appealing and more affective than a logical argument. Logical individuals are sometimes prized, but they often find themselves to be outcast. This is because the rest of the population doesn't like being told that they are wrong. A once-great Greek philosopher [who you should all be somewhat familiar with] was killed for 'corrupting the youth' when in reality all he did was argue logically against a war which the people he was a part of inevitably lost. Humans are social, emotional creatures. Therefore, logic is the preferable route in many instances, but not the route to take. It is an interesting paradox, non?
I agree with Imperial that being purely logic-minded is a bad idea, but for a different reason. Whenever I think of people who think "rationally", I think of people like Benjamin Bloom, John Dewey, and Edward Thorndike. They were social engineers in the early twentieth century with a goal to create a large workforce to fuel the ever expanding industrial juggernaut the United States was becoming, as well as to create the small elite that would rule said workforce. These workers would know nothing, be interested in little, and be easily swayed to rhetoric and propaganda. This feat became known as compulsory schooling. It was a success. Woodrow Wilson: I don't mean for this thread to become a discussion of American education, I'm just using it as an example of how I feel about logic vs emotion. I guess in any debate of morals or in any discussion where morals are called into question, I always side with my emotions, and I always side with a true gut feeling. But I don't hold either in higher regard; like my heart and my brain, they are equally important.
