emotion and reason

i have a theory, and most may agree, that we humans generally appeal to emotion before reason. in any given situation, the heart asks, "do i feel like it?" before consulting the mind, "does it make sense to do this?" this sequence usually functions quite well, since ultimately the person does appeal to both faculties. my theory here is that while emotions are appealed to first, it does not always follow that it decides the final choice.

yet given this simple sequence, it is already likely that many are won out by their emotion before they reach reason: "i don't feel like it" is as good as a stopping point in any train of deliberation.

emotion has a crucial purpose. it allows us to "empathise intuitively" - i use the terms loosely, echoing lay perceptions. when a person feels like doing something, driven by any of a plethora of "categorised" emotions (fear, anger, hate, love, joy, etc.), that person tends to be driven towards said activity for some implicit purpose. further deconstruction may make this little exercise excruciatingly detailed, so i'll suffice for now to leave this as a brief assumption thusly: emotions imply purpose, which may be empathic for self or others.

yet therein already lies the possibility that emotion is "abused" - not all empathic intuition necessarily ties in to its assumed purpose directly. sometimes, feeling like doing something may not necessarily mean the action attains what it was intuitively supposed to attain. this is especially true when the drive is an extreme emotion - thus, abuse of emotion. alternatively, such extreme emotion can be said to purify the purpose (or motive) of the action to the point where all other considerations are ignored.

this is why reason is of utmost importance. in fact, humans who function solely on emotion (i.e. make most decision on a whim) are not likely to do very well, all things considered. intuition may make a good leap from assumption to proposition sometimes, but otherwise, its reliability is not grounded. tempering that emotion with reason helps to avoid absurd extreme reactions rather effectively. reason challenges the person to prove the assumptions, to demonstrate veracity, and most importantly, to judge the plausibility of causality in any given situation.

reason thus grants analysis to intuition - a rather potent combination for self-aware creatures to find their way around any environment. unfortunately, there exists a third case: that of reason without emotion. in many situations, emotion allows the person to skip a few steps of analysis, substituting trust, courage, or determination as "proof" of causality/motive/purpose. in such cases, emotions help individuals to gauge other individuals without the need to deconstruct them on the spot. it also allows us to believe firmly in induction (unlike a certain Hume). overanalysis leads to a state of rationality which would appear "irrational" to those who use emotion as a placeholder. hence, bureaucracies and bureaucrats may seem inhuman at times.

so, are emotions rational? given a social context, where webs of meaning intertwine, it would be an excessively laborious task to analyse certain human intricacies (cf. private investigators, investigative journalism, the uncertainty of social sciences), hence substituting the intuitive judgement would not only be rational, but even necessary, for society to continue functioning. doubtless, the desired mix of emotion/reason in any given scenario may not be attained by the present actors - especially if stress levels are excessive (i.e. wars, deadlines, modern capitalist families) - and so many emotion-reason-deliberated outcomes may seem utterly irrational or unpredictable. this lack of calculability, counter-intuitively, should be anticipated, because of the given contexts. there are few ceteris paribus situations (or they are highly improbable) in human agency.

i initially intended just to explore how a mainly emotionally-driven person differs from a mainly reason-driven person, and then to suggest that a balanced application of emotion-reason may be the most efficient - especially in the earlier suggested sequence. however, it seems that the many terms i've skimmed have turned out to be key assumptions which need to be inquired. here is a list of blatant assumptions employed thus far:

• the link between emotion and intuition: are they necessarily tied together? could they be different in practice?
• different types of emotions: these lead to vastly different outcomes. should they still be considered under one header? should there be various classes?
• emotion implying purpose: this is the most unsatisfying claim of all - yet very central. do emotions necessarily imply "purpose"?
• definition of purpose: i use this word as a clear equal to motive and cause. is there a need to fine-tune this usage? should distinctions be drawn?
• the link between reason and "being analytical": is that the only way of using reason? iow, are non-analytical persons less reasonable? what is the precise connection?
  
• similarly for "proof", "demonstration", "veracity", etc. do these words merely sound rational, as opposed to being sui generis aspects of reason?
• reason and rationality: are these two necessarily paired? which causes/leads to which? are they necessary for each other?
• the use of examples need to be more thoroughly thought out, of course. especially "social" examples in lieu of their presumed complexities.
• can emotion or reason be used parsimoniously as categories? can this topic be inquired in a satisfying manner approaching from top to bottom?