Emotion is the bane of conscious, deliberate actions. Right? Is it not when we are in our fury or lust when we make our most rash decisions—those decisions we quickly regret? It is no surprise that we separate our behaviors and thoughts into what is emotional and what is rational. But what if we categorize these brash actions as instincts and broaden what we call emotion? That is what they are after all, emotion is not necessarily an action; it prepares for action, but the feelings are not the action themselves.
The first thing we must accept in this conversation is that all thought, even our most intelligent thoughts, have their origin in emotion. Emotion is ubiquitous. I think if we can accept this notion we can learn to pay better attention to what our emotions try to tell us, and we can learn about ours values and make more intelligent actions.
The Myth of Pure Reason
When we think in terms of a dichotomy between thinking and emotion, we remove the essential embodiment of our thoughts—we deny that we have human bodies and needs which are the origin of all thought. No matter how rational the thought, it was propelled into attention by something that gives it value: an emotional tie to the thought. The belief in the unmotivated decision or thought, creates an illusion that we are beyond our bodies and beyond our animal natures.
Sure the equation 2 + 2 = 4 is neutral in that it is a fact according to the rules of math, but there was a motive behind using this symbolic structure of math. For instance, in trying to count the number of plates you need to cook if you are cooking for two couples, we come to use all our symbolic structures for pragmatic purposes. There is always a biological push to think, even when we come up with abstract symbolic systems which tell us so much about the objective world.
To someone who does not understand this, a motive behind thoughts will feel like a tainting of the thought. And in debate, admitting a motivation is akin to admitting one’s error. We lose arguments when our biases are revealed—what a nail in the coffin it is for us to explain someone’s belief by calling out their emotional backgrounds! It is as if the argument does not need to be argued, only a thorough account of how little you have invested in your thesis will grant you objectivity. I wouldn’t trust the person who argues their point by claiming to be the on “objective” side. They are just not aware of their motives.
Emotion Is for Deliberation
One of the ways in which we grow to believe that neutral, unbiased actions and thoughts are more rational is that, when looking back on the consequences, we notice the calmest actions are usually less regrettable—they play better into our long-term goals. This is because we orient ourselves to the future in our daily lives and when an emotional upheaval comes, it brings us straight into the present where all that matters is the current actions and thoughts, anything in the future or abstract is subordinated.
But not all irrationality comes from the quick judgements of the passions. Some of our worst irrationalities come from the habits which we never even notice. It is the ignoring of the dissatisfaction of an unfulfilling career that may be most irrational. This neutral, “unbiased,” rational habit of going to work is not necessarily a good choice, even if it prepares for the future. Sometimes listening to that quiet emotion is necessary to make better decisions. That is the purpose of our emotions.
Emotions arise from conflict and they bring attention to that conflict. What we call emotion is the conscious attention to a difficult situation and the impulse to act. It is the emotion that gets us to look at our situation, and it motivates us to consider how to resolve it conflict. Normal emotion is a decision-making phase. However, without the conflict, there is a clear choice, and no attention is needed to make this decision; this is an instinct or a habit. This is an assumption of neutrality, that sometimes appears as a commonsense, unbiased choice.
The Irrational Calmly Sneaks In
We make the mistake of thinking that, because of this bodily neutrality, rationality seems of govern one’s decisions. This may be partly true, but not without qualification. What makes a decision unemotional is that it is no longer treated as a conflict. When we do something multiple times, without any apparent conflict or need for attention, it becomes a habit and does not evoke an emotion. We would rather save that energy for other things. But the result is not a neutral decision but one which does not draw attention to itself. Let us not mistake the undebated decision for the rational one.
This is a partial conclusion that what action or thought is not emotional or affective, does not give you reason to think that it was conceived rationally. In fact, this is an argument that those neutral thoughts are where we are most likely to be deceived, for our motivations can remain more submerged in our habitual action because we never feel the need to direct attention and debate the proper course of action which the embodying of emotion can provoke in us.
I agree that emotional reactions can give us tunnel vision and often do not consider many consequences, and simply following these emotions is not the right way for us to live. But by only considering the strongest feeling an emotion and acting like there is no value being attached to neutral thoughts or actions, is how we deceive ourselves and end up with these bursts of regrettable emotions. We have emotions all the time, because we are motivated to do things all the time. But we do not normally call these motives for action emotion or feelings. Why not? They used to be feelings before they were habits.
The Need to Pay Attention to Feeling
The irony is that it is not the emotional thing which is unexamined, it is the unemotional thing. Emotion provokes examination of an important situation and injects personal values into the situation. Every action has an assumption of these personal values and every action, when scrutinized, will reveal an emotional cause.
The conclusion is that we are ignoring many of the emotions that we face because we have not questioned some of our decisions a long time. And instead of being taking them head on, we rationalize them, literally, by claiming that they are objective and that you are not including any subjective values into what you are thinking.
The mathematician may not be able to question the truth of an equation because it exists in a logical framework, but he or she can question the value of creating that framework and working within it. He or she might see the value in the creative process or see a practical use of the math. Or it may simply be a means to make a living or perhaps avoid or overcompensate for something in life. Questioning the subtle values we give to things simply by doing them is a healthy practice which begins first by listening to your feelings, without labelling or rationalizing them.
