The Logic of Emotion

It has often been stated that logic, by it’s very nature has no place for emotion. Indeed, it has even been stated that logic and emotion are at odds with each other. That they cannot coexist.
To be very ‘Vulcan’ on the subject, emotion is a complete lack of logic. Emotions are not logical.

I was thinking today however, that socially, upon analysis of human nature, logic would be flawed NOT to include the possible emotional state and reaction of an individual.
Is it not logical, in order to understand people, that we factor in their emotional state at any given time?
By doing such we can discern a probable outcome on what they will do, how they will react and come to a logical conclusion on their behaviour and behavioural patterns.

By allowing the inclusion of emotions within logical boundaries we would actually increase the chances of coming to a logical outcome, at least where people and human nature are concerned. To exclude emotional outcomes from logic is to miscalculate, as to omit emotional factors is the very same as omitting a numerical factor in a mathematical equation.

With that, I submit that, if it where possible to accurately predict a persons emotional state at any given time, then it would be possible, through observation, to predict all their actions and reactions or at least to narrow them down significantly through use of probability and even more so with the more data gathered on their core nature.

I bring the fight or flight instinct to the front as an example.

We know that one of our base instincts when confronted with a danger is ‘fight of flight‘.
This is when our brain decides to we try fight off whatever is endangering us or run away.
That instinct is one of our most primal, stemming from back to when we could be confronted with a wild animal at any moment.

Thusly, there are two possible outcomes of such a situation. We fight, or we run.

Logically, knowing that such an instinct and emotional response is ingrained in human nature, we can determine that a human being will most likely follow one of those two paths.

We are creatures of emotion. We lend ourselves to it. Yet people are still surprised by emotional reactions and responses.
Even the most logical of us is emotional in some regard. If not in day to day, then in moments that invoke anger or fear at least.
(The most logical of us could probably be angered by a sheer lack of logic and outward ignorance.)

Perhaps, since emotions are something we will most likely never be rid of (and I do hope that’s true), it would be wisest to actively consider emotional responses, from which we can speculate outcomes and possibilities, thusly limiting, if not eliminating, something that for so long has been considered an unknown variable.

If we are prepared for the possible outcomes, one must be correct, and thusly, it is not unknown at all.

It all seems…so logical.

-K

The good, The Bad and the Uncertain

Nature versus nurture.
That’s a debate that’s been going for some time. I’m not, however here to specifically talk about that.

What I’m considering is something a little more…simple. Something more, black and white.

I’d like to believe that everyone is, fundamentally, at their core, a good person.
However that’s a personal preference and not a fact backed by evidence.

Are there people born basically good and others born basically bad?

I presented an argument recently that, though I would love a society that committed good deeds for the sake of good, currently, as it stand, people need a push. A stimulant. Be that in the form of some figure to lead them or some event in their lives that can ‘push’ them into action. To be good.

I realise, after examining it further, that premise is flawed.

A person may possibly only act as their nature would dictate.

Let us examine an event, such as something simple as finding a wallet and examine it:

You find a wallet, you want to return it because you’re a good person.

You find a wallet, you decide to keep it because you’re a bad person.

Ok, now since we are keeping it simple, we are using ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as very base terms.
We are totally disregarding the grey area and the fact that people have the capacity for both good and evil I am trying to present a theory as to an over all nature of a person.

There where two possible outcomes for this event. A good and a bad.
My point is, a good person is already good. Posing such an event to them is not going to force them to be any more good, but simply allows them to be good. It highlights the fact they where good anyway.
Much the same as the bad person will be bad.

Lets go more extreme.

A man points a gun at a girl.

A good person may jump in the way and try and stop him

A bad person won’t and will stay completely out of the way and let it happen.

Whilst I’m ignoring survival instinct and a million more possibilities that could occur, just bare with me.
My point is the situation only served to emphasize the good nature or the bad nature of an individual.

So good people generally do good things over all.
Bad people generally do bad things over all.

Right.
That still leaves me with my original question however.
Was the good person born good and the bad person born bad?
Was it inevitable that they would follow their natures no matter what nurture and stimuli where put to them?

With that in mind, I began looking back through my own childhood as best I could.

We are creatures of learning. We learn new things everyday.
We had to be taught what was right and what was wrong, but once we are fully aware of that, I believe, we may then begin to show our true nature. The teachings may facilitate our personal nature.

When I was younger, If I did something I knew was wrong, deliberately or by accident, I always remember feeling guilty about it. I was genuinely sorry and from that I choose to do good things, because I simply didn’t want to do bad things.

Like all things, we learn from the positive and negative reactions and emotions. Guilt is of course one of those. It is a negative emotion that we wish to avoid. It aims us toward being good.

So, let’s, for arguments sake, say I AM a good person. (I’m not saying I’ve never done anything bad. But this is for arguments sake.)

Is the urge to do good things ingrained in me? Was I born with it? Is a feeling of guilt when doing something bad a sign of that?
Does a bad persons still feel the same guilt? Do they not? Can they disregard it? Do they feel the opposite in negative actions?

This of course is a purely nature orientated theory.
Let me present another theory though.

What if we are in fact, not just nature driven. We could very well be the result of our entire lives to date. Our nature, our thoughts, our experiences, our emotions: All of it. This is what makes us, us.
It’s what makes you, you. What makes me, me.

We are the result of the cumulative affect of all these things.

Still, I’m left with the possibility that our very nature may be what results in us experiencing things the way we do. It may influence the way we feel, the way we process our experiences and our very thoughts on all things.

It doesn’t eliminate the fact that a stimuli, ‘hero’/ ’leader’ figure or optimal event may be required to urge people into actively doing good deeds for the sake of good, but it does possibly mean that they are good people to begin with, and just need a boost in this muddy mixed up world of ours.

Interesting. And something I’ll continue to think on.

-K