Emotions vs. Words
Emotions and words are incompatible. They come from different places in the brain. Words are built on logic essentially, coming from the Greek word for logos. Emotions are inner subjective experiences that have little or nothing to do with logic. We use words to try and describe emotions, when an image or a video, or even a song is much better at conveying its meaning. It seems that words are great at conveying ideas, but an emotion is not an idea, it’s an experience, and in this task they fall short.
Pressing further with the biologic incompatibility of thoughts, consider for a moment an orgasm. Whether self-induced or otherwise, we can hopefully all relate to this experience. It doesn’t need words since it has been shared by all. It is understood better through experience than through a description. But I want you to focus on the precise mental space during an orgasm. I want you to relive the mental experience when that orgasm occurred, no matter how brief or long. What was the first thought that popped into your mind? Was it related to anything sexual? Was it a random image, a word, or something indescribable? Was it just a complete blankness, with no thought or word at all - a total absence of thought? The inability to control one’s thoughts or images during an orgasm hints at the incompatibility between the two processes. It seems that when the brain is experiencing a rush of extreme and intense emotions our mind can’t simultaneously create cogent thoughts and words.
What are the implications of this? That strong emotion and reason should not occur simultaneously? Essentially, yes.
Technically, reason and emotions should be separate when looking only at the logic of an argument. Emotions don’t improve our logical reasoning, rather they cloud it. The more emotional we become, the less clear our thinking becomes. Thus, a highly impassioned speaker, exuding emotions and arguments simultaneously, will become more precise and cogent if he discards the emotions temporarily.
This is not to say that emotions should not be considered when it comes to persuasion, debates, legal arguments, or policy decisions. Emotions are the fuel for our actions. They drive us to do things. They are the fire beneath our bodies that propel us with motion and intent. Emotions should be included in discussion of serious topics pertaining to human lives. But mixing emotions and logic together, and trying to weigh them is a foolish thing.
Suppose for a moment that you’re trying to decide whether to rebuild an old bridge, or scrap it altogether and build a new design. The logical argument might be easily made, citing improved engineering, lower build costs, longer-lasting durability, and a lower carbon footprint by scrapping the old bridge and constructing a new design. The emotional argument, however, emphasizes the historical aspect of the design, the connection that people have with the place and the bridge, the aesthetics of the ‘old way,’ and the sadness that is felt when imagining the bridge being replaced with a new design. In this argument both logic/reason and emotion should be weighed. But listening to a person who is intensely emotional try to argue with logic is the problem. As soon as emotions start to rise in a person, their thinking is inherently impaired, as is their logic.
Thus, the ultimate goal is to not have a battle between logic and emotion. The goal is not to vilify emotion, or accuse logical people of being cold or callous. Instead, we need to recognize the concrete differences between the two brain operations, and acknowledge the benefits of each, independently. We need to open our arms to both logical people, and emotional people, and help to balance these two essential, yet simultaneously incompatible processes as we make decisions about our future. A future without logic will be utterly flawed, and a future without emotions will be a robotic nightmare. It is only by carefully, and steadily blending the two can we achieve the proper recipe for a healthy human future.
