Skip to main content

Rational Vs Emotional

Rational Vs Emotional
I was contemplating for long over what should be my first contribution in this blog. There are so many topics to be decided and hence it’s quite a complex task. My getting emotional about the first entry gave me fodder to think of the topic where man is basically disposed toward reasoning or emotion. Or in more definite terms, is man essentially rational or irrational?
And is our contemporary thinking that emotionless man is the ideal, correct? Or is the contention of a minority, but persistent minority than man must live in harmony with nature i.e. return to the emotional level accurate?
I’m inclined to think that both function in sync to build up the whole man. Most of the intuitions we are subjected to in a sense is not reasoning but an emotional gut feeling. So far, rational man and intuitive man have been considered rivals inasmuch as their philosophies are concerned. A rational man fears intuition whereas the other ridicules conceptualization. A balance of both makes a man less vulnerable to weaknesses either kind.
All the decisions taken by man are essentially a combination of both reason and instinct. They can’t be divorced from one another. So instead of taking foolish positions of taking either side in the debate it is best that we use the one which works. Or as it is remarked “How does it matter whether a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.”
I’m of view that emotions actually make man more intelligent and thus more rational. It feeds the system of reason by way of quick knowledge and we make the mistake of seeking complex solutions making us believe that its incorrect to act under such provocation. All that has to be learnt can’t be made to wait in a queue to partake a slice each time and follow the rigorous procedure of reasoning mind. It has to be quick and instant. Here is where intuition comes to our rescue. Many times we make instantaneous decisions which are found out to be much nearer to truth than those which we reach by careful analysis. Actually analysis is not of much help in this particular case. We just know it. That’s all. In a split second, we act.
But my approval of intuition, must not allow you to judge that I think that reasoning faculty can be disposed of. It is as a matter of fact equally as much important. But we must know where to use it? Even though many of us claim that we’re mostly unbiased, research has proved that we’ve many inbuilt preconceptions about many things and since we see facts through the lens of those conceptions we make mistakes not infrequently. He may for eg be disposed to infer that our supposed enemies are making comments about us even though they might have said perfectly cool things. Even in the light of facts we seldom make remedies for the faults thus arrived.
On the other hand, we tend to be more lenient towards our friends even though he might be clearly at fault. This process of rationalization of things is the most inexcusable bias which is deeply rooted in our behavior. Hence reasoning might actually help us out to minimize the losses thus incurred.
It is thus to be observed that both are actually mutually-inclusive and feed each other. It is to the best of our benefit if we can use combinational strategy to use both at appropriate time. In my next entry I’ll try to narrate under what circumstances I began to study these and scrutinized all the information to seek plausible explanation for the strange events which I was subjected to.
The very bizarre chain of events is responsible for the metamorphosis of mine, and I’m what I’m today precisely because of those.

Comments

  1. intuition or emotions ?? often emotions are pitted against reason ... Intuition i am not so sure ... for one can always reason out his intuitions as they are a hunch .. it's emotions which don't give space for reasons ...
    welcome to blog world .. btw to increase readership
    visit blogrolls of people and read blogs and comment .. ur comments will pull more readers to your blog

    ReplyDelete
  2. You have concluded that one should balance the compass of rational and emotional to avoid the intricates.But the situation of balancing it comes in a very few circumstances. Infact both rational and emotional are intuitive. This intuition is internally controlled by intensity of the emotional tie up that exists between two entities. The two entities always take the stand of emotional if they tightly tied up with strong emotinal knots.On the contrary if the two entities are diconneted by emotions they intuitively act rational. The question of balancing between rational and emotional comes in a stage when two entities are loosely coupled whose threads are still in weak of faith and respect for each other and exchange of warmth of love. This situation of loosely coupling exists
    at 2 stages. one is when disconnected extend hands for tie up and other is when the tightly coupled tie up is worned because of imbalanced exchange of care which is again mostly influenced by the external entities and strong internal one's own ideologies.

    It is not universal and infact may not be true.
    It is my insight for right now.It may be different after a couple of years. But i will always give flexibility until it give better results.....bye for now

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @king, You're confusing cause and effect..Irrespective of any situation we're always faced with the choice of acting either way..even in the very 2 stages u mention, there's scope for acting either way..proximity is a very mental build up..liberty and sentiment are both products of mind.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The concept of Dharma in Ramayana

The concept of Dharma is not adequately understood by Hindus themselves, not to mention others. Dharma is not a set of do’s and don’t’s or a simplistic evaluation of good and bad. It requires considerable intellectual exertion to even begin understanding Dharma, let alone mastering its use.

Is Dharma Translatable?
Few words of a language cannot be faithfully translated into another without injuring its meaning, context & spirit. English translations of Dharma are blurred and yield words like religion, sense of righteousness, discrimination between good and bad, morals and ethics or that which is lawful. All these fall short of fully grasping the essence of Dharma.
Every language has an ecosystem of words, categories and grammar which allow a user to stitch words together to maximum effect such that meaning permeates the text without necessarily being explicitly explained at each point. Sanskrit words such dharma, karma, sloka, mantra, guru etc., now incorporated in English, lose thei…

How Linguistic States strengthened Indian Unity

Be like a garland maker, O king; not like a charcoal burner.” --Mahabharata
[It asks the king to preserve and protect diversity, in a coherent way. The metaphor used is that of a garland, in which flowers of many colors and forms are strung together for a pleasing effect. The contrast is given against charcoal, which is the result of burning all kinds of wood and reducing diversity to homogeneous dead matter. The charcoal burner is reductionist and destroys diversity, whereas the garland maker celebrates diversity.]
Unification of Germany and Italy populated by similar people was achieved by huge armies spanning across decades. In sharp contrast, India under Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel managed to unite a much larger area divided by culture & languages within few years.
The European experience where new nations were carved over little differences in identity, made the Indian experiment appear poised for a breakup sooner than later. Yet, India managed to stay united though the journey wa…

Chetan Bhagat : His Literary Style and Criticism

Chetan Bhagat’s (CB) recent column created a furore, chiefly because of his audacity to speak for Muslim community and what many people conflate with his support for Narendra Modi’s Prime Ministerial ambitions.  
But what interested me most - and what this post would focus on - is questioning of his literary merit (or lack of it). Many journalists ridicule CB’s style of writing and his oversimplistic portrayals of characters sans nuance or sophistication. But I suspect this has more to do with the fact that his readers alone far outnumber the combined readers of many journalists - a point that many don’t appear capable of digesting.
No takers for layman’s language!
When Tulsidas rewrote Ramayana in Avadhi (a local contemporary dialect then), many conservative sections of society came down heavily upon him for defiling the sanctity of a much revered epic (originally written in Sanskrit). When Quran was first translated in Urdu (by Shah Abdul Qadir in 1798), it faced intense opposition by …