Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IAI_Admin OP t1_j8wakjw wrote

In this debate, Julian Baggini, Güneş Taylor and Tommy Curry analyse the nature of the relationship between reason and emotion. The speakers provide compelling arguments both for the view that reason must be detached from emotions and the argument that reason is crucially linked to emotional experiences. Güneş Taylor argues that it is appropriate to conceive of reason and emotion as separate: reason does not have a biological or physiological basis, while emotions do. Therefore, the power of reason is that it can be divorced from emotions, allowing us to make judgements about a situation even when we are not directly affected by it emotionally, she says. But it is important to understand the interplay between reason and emotion. Julian Baggini contends that we cannot make sense of emotions without reason. Similarly, Tommy Curry rejects that idea that reason can be entirely separated from emotion. Instead, he suggests we must understand it as post-rationalisation of our emotive reactions.

10

bit1101 t1_j8wdm0n wrote

Seems more like a discussion on terminology.

Good reasoning leans away from emotion toward logic. Objective rationality is when all reasonable opinions are the same because of the lack of emotion employed.

10

BenjaminHamnett t1_j8wxvz1 wrote

Seems more like a discussion on terminology.

This is what most philosophical debates usually boil down to, especially if heated

3

bumharmony t1_j8wgsz0 wrote

What does logic ultimately evidence? Induction is not really possible, only as a sociological study of existing judgments. There was no such a promise of objective reasoning in the first place.

−4

bit1101 t1_j8wio98 wrote

I think objective reality would rely on deduction, not induction.

I perhaps agree though that objective reality as perfect reasoning cannot exist.

11

bumharmony t1_j8wvdri wrote

You need induction to make up concepts by giving them definitions: raven has features x. Deduction is the surface level comprehension: ”that is a raven because it has features x” when a data base has been established and concepts agrees upon.

But on the cartesian level you need water proof deduction to go forward and begin inference.

But induction can just make conceptions, observations and data bases of the observable objects whether they exist outside some alleged virtual reality for example. It is after all the reality where at least i’m personally forced to live in.

2

Quarter13 t1_j8wdthq wrote

As someone with anger issues, this makes sense. Ive learned that my rationale often conforms to my current feeling. I often feel different about situations after the fact when I'm calm

9