Rationality And Emotion: Intertwined Or Independent?

The relationship between emotions and rationality has been a topic of debate for thousands of years. The ancient Stoics believed that emotions involve the judgement of harm or benefit. Philosopher Sorabji points out that the mere intellectual appreciation of benefit or harm does not constitute emotion, but there must be some physiological disturbance.

Emotions are an essential part of human life and have helped our ancestors survive and thrive. All emotions serve a function and are therefore positive. They are also necessary for survival, procreation, fulfilment, and happiness.

Emotions can be meaningful judgements that assign value to things and tell us what is worth wanting. They can also discern value and gauge subjective worth and objective value. Emotions can be rational or irrational, depending on whether the object of the emotion warrants the reaction.

Emotions are also trainable and can be developed, practised, and refined. They can be harnessed towards rational purposes and can be pointed towards achieving our goals.

Emotions are meaningful judgements

The idea that emotions are at odds with rationality is a common misconception. In fact, emotions are meaningful judgements that can be rational or irrational, depending on the context.

Emotions are often seen as irrational because they are visceral and automatic, lacking the conscious control that we associate with rational thought. However, this view fails to recognise the important role that emotions play in decision-making and cognition. As the ancient Stoics noted, emotions typically involve the judgement that harm or benefit is at hand, implying a degree of rationality.

Research has shown that people with severe emotional deficits struggle to make rational decisions, even when their cognitive faculties are intact. This is because emotions serve as essential guides for our choices, providing evaluative judgements in a visceral, intuitive, and kinesthetic way. They assign value to things and tell us what is worth wanting, often containing a wisdom that our analytic brain cannot reach.

Emotions can discern both subjective worth and objective value. For example, a soaring mountain may elicit a feeling of awe, while the story of a courageous warrior may elicit veneration. A friend's father's death should elicit empathy, and an act of unfaithfulness should elicit shame. These emotions are rational because they are appropriate responses to the situation.

Emotions can also be trained and refined. By intentionally exposing ourselves to a range of emotional stimuli, we can learn to access and express a full spectrum of emotions. We can also learn to manage our emotions in a healthy way, reflecting on how and why our feelings align with objective reality.

Furthermore, emotions are the engines of action, prompting us to engage with the world and take action. They represent the essential way we orient and attune ourselves to our surroundings and to one another. By harnessing the power of emotions, we can make more rational decisions that advance our short-term and long-term interests.

In conclusion, emotions are meaningful judgements that can be rational or irrational depending on the context. They play a crucial role in our decision-making and can be trained and refined to align with objective reality. By recognising the rationality of emotions, we can make more informed and effective choices in our lives.

Emotions discern value

Emotions can not only assign significance, but can also discern it. They gauge not only subjective worth, but objective value.

Nearly all religions and philosophical schools posit that there is an underlying natural order to the world, and that Truth with a capital T is that which most clearly reflects and explains this reality. As C.S. Lewis writes in *The Abolition of Man*, to uphold this “doctrine of objective value” is to believe that “certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.”

If one concedes the existence of objective value, then “objects [do] not merely receive, but [can] merit our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt.” This is to say that certain things should elicit certain emotions: The soaring mountain should elicit a feeling of awe; the story of a courageous warrior should elicit a feeling of veneration; a friend’s father’s death should elicit a feeling of empathy; being unfaithful should elicit a feeling of shame; a kind act should elicit a feeling of gratitude.

From this perspective, emotions can be rational or irrational, depending on whether the object of the emotion warrants the reaction. To feel something you should feel is rational; to feel something you shouldn’t feel, or to not feel something you should, is irrational.

So, for a philosopher like Aristotle, to witness an injustice and not feel anger isn’t an admirable feat of self-control, but a pitiable demonstration of irrationality. Injustice should elicit anger. As Solomon writes, this is why the philosopher “insisted, in line with the Homeric heroes, that there are times when one would be a fool not to get angry, not only because the situation calls for it but because otherwise one degrades oneself as less than a fully functioning human being.” A rock may be impervious to what goes on around it, but a rock doesn’t constitute a rational mind.

Likewise, the death of a loved one should elicit mourning — even of the deep, agonizing, incapacitating variety. So while a Stoic philosopher would say that grief, even over the death of one’s own child, is irrational, since death is natural and not something you can control, Aristotle would say that not grieving a loved one is irrational, since the loss warrants that response.

We intuitively recognize this idea, of course. As Solomon observes:

> Grief is a moral emotion . . . It is for this reason that grief is not only expected as the appropriate reaction to the loss of a loved one, but it is in a strong sense obligatory. We are not just surprised when a person shows no signs of grief after a very personal loss. We are morally outraged and condemn such a person.

If grief were simply a negative reaction to a loss, or even a physical condition that (it has often been pointed out) fits the definition of a mental disorder, a medical illness, this would be incomprehensible. Such a person would be considered fortunate, like an athlete who has a high threshold of pain, or a brave risk-taker who remains unafraid in circumstances that would scare the wits out of most normal people.

Even someone truly committed to the Stoic philosophy would almost assuredly find it unseemly rather than commendable to see that a friend who had tragically lost his wife accepted the loss with complete equanimity, and was thus ready to date again the day after the funeral. This is because we believe that if the husband really loved his wife, really valued her, the loss of that love should, quite rationally, provoke great grief.

Emotions Are Trainable

Aristotle would say that emotions are rational when they come at the right time, for the right reason, in the right amount — when they are on target and the object of emotion justifies the degree of reaction. Solomon explains the standard this way:

> We get angry at someone, about something. The important question, accordingly, is whether the anger is rightly aimed, whether it has picked out the right object (the offender), and whether the anger is warranted by the situation. (The person targeted may in fact be the offender but the offense is so minor that it does not warrant the anger.) If both the object is right and the seriousness of the accusation is warranted, then the anger is rational and reasonable.

Naturally, emotions do not always meet these criteria, and the judgements they make are not always sound. We may feel worry, fear, or anger that is disproportionate to the cause, or we may feel apathetic indifference in cases where our passions should be aroused.

The fact that emotions can miss the mark is one of the big arguments against their rationality, but one that is premised on the idea that emotions are essentially involuntary — evolutionary instincts and automatic neurological and hormonal responses. If our feelings just happen to us, then whether they miss the mark is largely a matter of chance, and the control we exercise over them is limited to managing their expression.

While it’s true that emotions aren’t under volitional direction to the extent that thoughts are, and that they are hard to control in the heat of the moment, we can shape the type and degree of emotions we experience through what we do and think before and after they arise. Emotions can in fact be trained, developed, practiced, and refined.

One’s sentiments have to be intentionally educated in order to be more congruent with objective truth and reality. As Lewis notes, while this kind of training was considered central to a man’s development throughout antiquity, it is a concept we’ve lost sight of in the modern day.

Emotions Are the Engines of Action

Emotions are frequently thought of as passive, self-contained forces. But it’s overly strict emotional control, a retreat to an inner citadel, that really breeds passivity.

Emotions are in fact our primary way of engaging with the world. Emotions are indeed internal, but they are prompted by an object that is external; they thus get us outside of ourselves, prompting interaction and involving us in situations and relationships. They represent, Solomon says, the essential way we orient and attune ourselves “to the world and to one another.”

“The felt desire to do something,” he adds, “is a part of almost every emotion.” Emotions are thus the engines of action — pointing and nudging us to do something.

In the abstract, we like to believe that we should, and can, take action through cognition and discipline alone — that we will address injustice, or do the right thing, or simply go after our goals simply because we know it’s the moral thing to do, or the thing we consciously want to do. But this is an idea that works better in theory than reality. Human nature is such that we need emotion to move us to action.

Hardly anyone would commit to a marriage in which they didn’t experience strong feelings of love, so why do we think it wise to try to take on other commitments with a strictly cognitive approach?

Of course, the desire attendant to emotion can move us to actions that are both negative and irrational as well as positive and rational. Fortunately, they can be pointed towards the latter aims, because not only are they trainable...

Emotions are trainable

Emotions are often seen as the opposite of rationality, but this is a misconception. Emotions can be trained, developed, practised, and refined. They are not fixed but can be educated to be more congruent with objective truth and reality.

The "curriculum" for training emotions can be broken down into three main areas:

Accessing the Full Spectrum of Emotions

This involves getting in touch with one's own feelings and allowing oneself to experience the full range of emotions. It requires one to be open to and accept the full intensity of their feelings. This can be achieved by engaging deeply with different areas of life, such as literature, music, and art that stirs and heightens emotional responses. Surrounding oneself with people who express their emotions freely can also help normalise the experience and expression of emotions.

Experiencing Emotions About the Right Stimuli

This involves learning to direct one's emotions towards the right set of stimuli or objects. It requires the ability to discern the worth and salience of a situation, which is influenced by one's personal values and principles. For example, if one values loyalty, they are more likely to feel ashamed if they let down a friend.

Managing Emotions in a Healthy Way

This involves learning to regulate and manage emotions so that they are expressed in a way that is socially acceptable and aligned with one's values. It includes reflecting on past emotional responses and adjusting them to be more proportional to the situation that triggered them.

By training one's emotions in these three areas, it is possible to increase their rationality and align them with one's long-term interests and well-being.

Emotions are the engines of action

Emotions: The Engines of Action

Emotions are frequently thought of as passive, self-contained forces. But it is overly strict emotional control, a retreat to an inner citadel, that really breeds passivity. Emotions are indeed internal, but they are prompted by an object that is external; they get us outside of ourselves, prompting interaction and involving us in situations and relationships. They are the essential way we orient and attune ourselves to the world and to one another.

Emotions Are Meaningful Judgements

We think of our thoughts as being under autonomous control. We use our cognition to weigh options and make decisions. In contrast, we perceive emotions as just happening to us. They are visceral, automatic, and, if not outright dumb, then lacking in what we think of as “intelligence”.

We therefore conceive of our feelings as clouding and muddying our thoughts – our “real” minds. If this model were correct, then if we could take emotions out of the equation altogether, our decision-making capabilities would be nearly perfect. However, research shows that what actually happens when you remove emotions from judgement, is that people struggle to make choices at all.

Emotions Discern Value

Emotions can not only assign significance, but can also discern it. They gauge not only subjective worth, but objective value. Nearly all religions and philosophical schools posit that there is an underlying natural order to the world, and that Truth with a capital T is that which most clearly reflects and explains this reality. If one concedes the existence of objective value, then “objects [do] not merely receive, but [can] merit our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt.” This is to say that certain things should elicit certain emotions.

Emotions Are Trainable

Aristotle would say that emotions are rational when they come at the right time, for the right reason, in the right amount – when they are on target and the object of emotion justifies the degree of reaction. Naturally, emotions do not always meet these criteria, and the judgements they make are not always sound. We may feel worry, fear, or anger that is disproportionate to the cause, or we may feel apathetic indifference in cases where our passions should be aroused.

The fact that emotions can miss the mark is one of the big arguments against their rationality, but one that is premised on the idea that emotions are essentially involuntary – evolutionary instincts and automatic neurological and hormonal responses. If our feelings just happen to us, then whether they miss the mark is largely a matter of chance, and the control we exercise over them is limited to managing their expression.

While it’s true that emotions aren’t under volitional direction to the extent that thoughts are, and that they are hard to control in the heat of the moment, we can shape the type and degree of emotions we experience through what we do and think before and after they arise. Emotions can in fact be trained, developed, practiced, and refined.

Emotions Are Strategic

“Rationality is maximizing (or together, optimizing) our well-being,” Solomon writes. “Our emotions are rational insofar as they further our collective as well as personal well-being, irrational insofar as they diminish or degrade it.” Another way to say this is that emotions are rational or irrational to the extent that they advance or impede both our short-term and long-term interests.

By this definition, emotions are popularly believed to be irrational, in that they supposedly disrupt your tranquility and get you off track with your personal progress. Feelings certainly can lead us astray, prompting us to eat the extra bowl of ice cream, or insult someone in anger, or worry so much we become paralyzed with anxiety. For this reason, much of psychology and personal development advice focuses on techniques designed to diminish the role of hot, “irrational” emotions and increase the influence of cool, calculating cognition. And indeed, gritting your teeth and utilizing willpower and logic can be effective sometimes. But, as anyone knows from experience, it also very frequently fails. Relying on willpower is tiring, and often leads to throwing in the towel.

Fortunately, discipline is not the only strategic tool we have at our disposal. If some emotions can sabotage our goals, others can help us achieve them; while emotions can in some circumstances diminish our self-control, in others, they can strengthen it.

Emotions are strategic

Emotions are frequently thought of as passive, self-contained forces. But it is the retreat to an inner citadel, that is, too much emotional control, that breeds passivity. Emotions are indeed internal, but they are prompted by an object that is external; they get us outside of ourselves, prompting interaction and involving us in situations and relationships. They are the essential way we orient and attune ourselves "to the world and to one another".

Emotions are our primary way of engaging with the world. "The felt desire to do something," is a part of almost every emotion. They are thus the engines of action — pointing and nudging us to do something.

In the abstract, we like to believe that we should, and can, take action through cognition and discipline alone. But this is an idea that works better in theory than reality. Human nature is such that we need emotion to move us to action.

Hardly anyone would commit to a marriage in which they didn’t experience strong feelings of love, so why do we think it wise to try to take on other commitments with a strictly cognitive approach?

Emotions can be pointed towards our aims, because not only are they trainable, but they can also be harnessed towards rational purposes. While it’s true that emotions aren’t under volitional direction to the extent that thoughts are, and that they are hard to control in the heat of the moment, we can shape the type and degree of emotions we experience through what we do and think before and after they arise.

Emotions can in fact be trained, developed, practised, and refined. They can be educated to be more congruent with objective truth and reality.

Emotions can be rational

Emotions can be rational or irrational, depending on whether the object of the emotion warrants the reaction. To feel something you should feel is rational; to feel something you shouldn’t feel, or to not feel something you should, is irrational.

Emotions are meaningful judgements

We think of our thoughts as being under autonomous control. We use our cognition to weigh options and make decisions. In contrast, we perceive emotions as just happening to us. They are visceral, automatic, and, if not outright dumb, then lacking in what we think of as “intelligence”.

We therefore conceive of our feelings as clouding and muddying our thoughts — our “real” minds. But research shows that when you remove emotions from judgement, people struggle to make choices at all.

Emotions serve as essential guides for our choices — evaluative judgements that function not consciously but in a visceral, intuitive, and kinesthetic way. They make our judgments less logical yet more meaningful.

Emotions discern value

Emotions can not only assign significance, but can also discern it. They gauge not only subjective worth, but objective value.

Nearly all religions and philosophical schools posit that there is an underlying natural order to the world, and that Truth with a capital T is that which most clearly reflects and explains this reality. If one concedes the existence of objective value, then “objects [do] not merely receive, but [can] merit our approval or disapproval, our reverence or our contempt.” This is to say that certain things should elicit certain emotions.

From this perspective, to witness an injustice and not feel anger isn’t an admirable feat of self-control, but a pitiable demonstration of irrationality. Injustice should elicit anger.

Emotions are the backbone of reasoning

The whole field of emotional intelligence is still being debated and explored but is surprisingly not as implemented or taught in the real world as the emotional quotient has a lot of impact on many areas such as well-being, academic success, work performance, and life fulfilment.

Emotions are useful in making decisions

Emotions are somehow ‘useful’ in making decisions, and a natural conclusion would be that they have evolved to be so. With this in mind, the simplest idea is that they are the result of natural selection.

Emotions permit humans to respond better to the challenges of their existence. Certain ‘basic’ emotions, such as fear, have obvious evolutionary advantages, but when, for example, fear interferes with the capacity to reason, it becomes clear that we have to conduct a deeper analysis to understand the current role of the emotional faculties that have evolved over a very long period.

Emotions allow intertemporal exchanges — past anxiety can be transmuted into relief. As soon as we take account of the complexity of emotions and their varied roles in determining behaviour, we discover that not only do they provide us with the simple heuristics needed to find rapid solutions to decision-making problems, but they also contribute to the complex structures of trade-offs between the different features of a situation that need to be weighed against and related to each other.

Emotions are inextricably interlinked with rationality

To understand the usefulness of neuroscience in examining the rationality of decision-making, it is worth looking at an example. Current neurological research shows that people with orbitofrontal cortical lesions have difficulties in anticipating the negative emotional consequences of their choices. People with healthy brains, however, seem to take account of these emotions, which are mediated through and are consistent with counterfactual thinking in the assessment of choice alternatives.

More generally, results from psychological and neurological research show that emotions and affective states are not just sources of biased judgements, but may also serve as essential functions leading to more appropriate choices.

Frequently asked questions