The Role Of Emotions In Reason

Science & Technology Biosciences
1

Hello, first allow me to introduce myself. My name is Jiah, I am school pursuing my first degree in liberal arts: mathematics and sciences with my ultimate goal as being a neuroscientist.

I found out about this site through an argument on another site. I am arguing the role of emotions in cognition as being a byproduct of higher life forms. In research, I have found several papers supporting this notion. It is being said that emotions were developed along the evolutionary path prior to the evolution of reason. This can be seen in lower life forms that we believe do not reason, yet they seem capable of showing emotions/feelings. To get you familiar with my side I will post the original link, so I do not have to repeat myself a million times.

http://s7.invisionfree.com/Breaking_The_Pa…topic=2658&st=0

This basically is challenging one of the many main principles of objectivism, that emotions are the byproduct of reason, when science shows that reason only exists because of the ability to show emotions. In sense, emotions control the ideas that will be present at the times of using rationality. You will have a biased mindframe from emotion anytime you make a decision, this has been shown in neuroscience’s research in decision making and the many models of decision making it has spawned.

I am posting this here because I feel objectivism should through the hardest opposition against such things and you will get to the point instead of going around in circles with me. Someone here will succesfully challenge and defeat my view, or they will not. Either way, I do not have time to be thinking about bullshit, and if this is indeed what I am thinking, someone show me why. I want science btw, not drawn out philosophical arguments. Please get to the point if you can.

I am a fulltime student/worker/musician, so I cannot respond much, but I will try to get here as much as possible.

~jiah~

2

This basically is challenging one of the many main principles of objectivism, that emotions are the byproduct of reason, when science shows that reason only exists because of the ability to show emotions.

The fact that we see emotions in other animals does not at all challenge Objectivism. Philosophy is concerned with the nature of man and it is in this context that Objectivism establishes “emotions as a product of ideas.” Furthermore, the fact that animals also experience emotions does not lead to the conclusion that “reason only exists because of the ability to show emotions.” It’s unclear what you mean by this statement but philosophy says what it says about reason and emotions antecedent to what science has to say on the subject; in other words, philosophy says “we know that man is a rational animal, here is his nature as such” whereas science says “we know that man is a rational animal thanks to philosophy, now here is how he became such.”

I do not have time to be thinking about bullshit, and if this is indeed what I am thinking, someone show me why. I want science btw, not drawn out philosophical arguments. Please get to the point if you can.

First of all, if you accept any old scientist’s conclusion simply because it was printed in Science or in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, then you are leaving yourself no grounds on which to reason. Of course, we all hope that published material in a scientific journal has been meticulously verified and that the conclusions are correct. The truth of the matter is, however, that these journals can and (on matters of consciousness more often than not) do print mistaken conclusions. It would do you well to study philosophy to aid you in your analysis of these very abstract conclusions otherwise you will be at the mercy of popular opinion and I’m sorry to say that 1,000 scientists can be wrong..

Again, what you are asking is a philosophical question. The nature of reason is established by philosophy and all of science depends on this. If, when he observes a gazelle running from a lion, a scientist concludes that reason is derivative to emotion, it is not a threat to philosophy; he is very plainly wrong. When he concludes that this shows reason to be subordinate to emotions, he is worse than wrong…he is now a (fill in the blank) _____.

3

I don’t mean this to be a long philosophical rant, but I think you have misunderstood Objectivism’s view of emotions. First you need to understand that; then look for evidence for justification.

Rand simply defines emotions as responses to facts of reality or responses to entities. Most basically, a response to reality requires some way to perceive reality, that is, some method of “sense.” I think you will agree that animals possess senses. If you consider the stages of cognition that Rand outlines–sensation, perception, and conception, I think it would be logical to say that, animals, because of their similar biological organization (that is, a skeletal system, muscular system, etc, most importantly here, a nervous system) would respond in a manner similar to humans at each stage of cognition. The only difference is animals never reach the conceptual stage of cognition–they can sense entities, identify entities, and respond to entities that they have already identified. Those responses include, if not are in their entirety, emotions. The difference is, humans can identify those emotions, isolate what caused them, and logically process the new information into a system of living. Yes, emotions come before reason, but reason is not built on emotions. And emotions can be the byproduct of certain tasks of reason, that is, organizing what one knows is good or bad for his happiness, but they are not caused by reason. The root of emotions lies in entities and a response to them. Reason is just the means to properly identify and organize such responses.

4

I don’t mean this to be a long philosophical rant, but I think you have misunderstood Objectivism’s view of emotions…  Yes, emotions come before reason, but reason is not built on emotions.  And emotions can be the byproduct of certain tasks of reason, that is, organizing what one knows is good or bad for his happiness, but they are not caused by reason.  The root of emotions lies in entities and a response to them.  Reason is just the means to properly identify and organize such responses.

This most certainly is not the Objectivist view of emotions. Man’s emotions are a direct consequence of his rational faculty. Or, as stated in Galt’s speech, “emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind.” Emotions do not “come before reason.” Emotions are the effect, and man’s cognitive faculty is the cause. The “root of emotions” does not lie “in entities and a response to them,” but rather the root of emotions lies in the cognitive judgments we make. Emotions are the form in which we automatically experience our estimate of things in relation to ourselves, but those emotions are the direct result of the judgments that we make (or, fail to make).

5

My take on the issue:

There are four steps involved in emotions:

  1. Awareness of the object of the emotion

  2. Identification of the object

  3. Evaluation of the object

  4. Automatic and Lightning like triggering of the emotion

I would pinpoint the differences between animals and man to steps 2 and 3. In step 2, an animal can only make a perceptual level identification whereas man can make a conceptual level one. In step 3, an animal’s evaluation is restricted to pleasure/pain connected with the perceptual object by past association whereas man has an entire moral code at his disposal.

In otherwords, animals are only capable of a primitive form of emotions, restricted by their inability to conceptualize or evaluate in terms of morality.

6

Stephen,

I apologize for misrepresenting the Objectivist view of emotions. I’m attempting to learn the philosophy alone with no prior education in philosophy, and to the extent of my knowledge that was a correct interpretation. What I meant when I said emotions come before reason was that emotions come before the power of the mind which separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. What exactly is your definition of reason. I don’t understand, however, why you say that emotions are the product of reason. Do animals possess the capacity to reason? Did I not say that emotions are a product of the cognitive faculty? I agree that MAN’s emotions are a direct result of his rational faculty, but usually animals respond immediately to the effect of an emotion, they don’t take the time to analyze what they feel and why they feel it. Isn’t this the rational faculty you’re talking about–the ability to identify and classify the cause of an emotion? I think I should have said that the root of emotions lies in entities and a response to them with regard to the self. Isn’t logical to say that one cannot respond to an entity one has not perceived? So before one can analyze a response, there must be something to which to respond. That’s all I meant by that.

“rather the root of emotions lies in the cognitive judgments we make”

It think that’s more what I was aiming to say, and that animals do this on a much more basic level–the perceptual level, right?

Again, I apologize if I have misrepresented Objectivism in any way. That’s why I tell people I’m a student of Objectivism, not an Objectivist.

7

Thanks for the replies

First off Bowzer, if I accepted any old scientists research do you think I would be looking for the other side right now in an objectivist forum? :rolleyes: don’t worry, I cross check references and look for any papers contradicting my studies. Researching happens to be one of my stronger points (I am an INTJ).

As much as I love philosophy, science can eventually prove or disprove the claims made by philosophers. A philosopher can create a logically valid argument that “proves” the earth is flat, but eventually a scientists will come along with proof that the earth is in fact round. When I started school I was very interested in philosophy, and then psychology. My quest for truth has lead me to the school of science that will eventually tell us which philosphers were right, and which were wrong. So, saying that, before I continue I need to have something more accurately explained to me:

“emotions do not come before reason”

Why do you say this? Do you claim it is true because it happens to be an integral part of the philosophy many of you claim to exist by? Remember, you can win an argument and then take the counter and win that one as well (Ellsworth Toohey comes to mind). The argument doesn’t have to be right, it only has to be logically valid. So what if your premises you are using to argue your philosophy was wrong? Would you ammend your conclusions to contain the correct premises, or would you simply dismiss the contradictory evidence and polarize your beliefs?

I ask this, because I have a numerous amount of research that backs up the following statement:

“The ability to reason comes from the ability to produce feelings/emotions proper”

I won’t lie, I am not much of a debater, and plenty of you can probably beat me if this turns into a full pledged debate. I used to believe that your conclusion is correct, but as I become more and more involved in the world of neuroscience, I have realized that we are not the only animals that can feel. We are not the only animals that can show emotion. We are, however, as we currently understand, the only animals that have the ability to rationalize. So how have you concluded that emotions come from the ability to reason, when in fact only higher organisms have evolved the (known) ability to reason?

Will it even be worth my time supporting this argument; will you just dismiss it with the usual irrational contradictory bias?

8

As much as I love philosophy, science can eventually prove or disprove the claims made by philosophers. A philosopher can create a logically valid argument that “proves” the earth is flat, but eventually a scientists will come along with proof that the earth is in fact round.

You have an entirely backwards and wrong view of the place of science and of philosophy. No philosopher can or could claim to prove, on the basis of “philosophy” and not of “science,” that the earth is flat.

And the idea that philosophers are just men arguing postulates, castles in the clouds, is the result of the modern FAILURE of philosophy and you should not allow their failure to slander the profession as a whole.

The axioms upon which all of science is (implicitly or explicitly) based are philosophical in nature and cannot, by definition, be proven. Philosophy IS a science, and is in fact the FIRST science. To claim that “over here is philosophy and over there is science” is a slander against philosophy, science, or both.

You should stick around; you might be intrigued by what a RATIONAL philosophy will show you.

9

I don’t think the statement that emotions come before reason contradicts Objectivism, IF you are strictly speaking in the context of evolution.

If my hypothesis is correct, that animals simply possess a primitive form of emotions, then it is the evolution of the rational faculty in man that has drastically expanded that primitive emotional apparatus that evolved first.

A dog can be happy at the fact that his master is feeding him, a fact he can see and understand perceptually. A dog does’t feel anything when his master struggles to earn a living that is used to purchase the food to feed the dog, a fact that can only be understood conceptually.

10

As much as I love philosophy, science can eventually prove or disprove the claims made by philosophers. A philosopher can create a logically valid argument that “proves” the earth is flat, but eventually a scientists will come along with proof that the earth is in fact round.

The question of a flat Earth vs a round one was never a philosophical question. Your statements are ripe with the fallacy of accepting the Analytic/Synthetic dichotomy. Leonord Peikoff has an excelent essay blasting this dichotomy in the expanded second edition of Rand’s “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemolgy”. I highly recomend reading this essay, and the entire book if you havn’t read it either.

… I have a numerous amount of research that backs up the following statement:

“The ability to reason comes from the ability to produce feelings/emotions proper”

I am highly skeptical of this statement because it fails to coincide with a single one of my introspective observations. Please do more to support this point.

11

I am highly skeptical of this statement because it fails to coincide with a single one of my introspective observations.  Please do more to support this point.

I will do so

I am at work right now, and all my papers/books are at home. I will try to put together a fairly comprehensive essay on this by this weekend, and I will list all my sources you can check them.

12

As much as I love philosophy, science can eventually prove or disprove the claims made by philosophers. A philosopher can create a logically valid argument that “proves” the earth is flat, but eventually a scientists will come along with proof that the earth is in fact round.

This is very wrong but you should start another thread if you want to debate this since it is off the main topic.

So, saying that, before I continue I need to have something more accurately explained to me:

“emotions do not come before reason”

Why do you say this?

Where did I say that? That is a very confusing statement and your line of questioning displays this same confusion. I will try to answer the best that I can since I still am not sure what you are asking.

I ask this, because I have a numerous amount of research that backs up the following statement:

“The ability to reason comes from the ability to produce feelings/emotions proper”

What do you mean by “comes from”? Are you speaking in terms of how man evolved with the faculty that he has? Or are you saying that the faculty that produces our emotions is the same one that gives us the power of reason? The former is a scientific question while the latter is concerning man’s nature. Philosophy may not have much to say depending on what you are asking.

You ask if I have come to my conclusions dogmatically. No. I have formed my conclusions about the nature of emotions through introspection. I observe that ideas that I have automatized (through repetitive reasoning) lead to certain automatic psychosomatic responses on the part of my subconscious mind. As my ideas have changed (and they have quite a bit over the years), so have my emotional responses to such things as art, people, news, etc. The fact that my cat experiences panic upon hearing certain loud noises does not change my conclusion in the slightest. Her emotions come from a different source than mine, obviously, since she lacks the ability to form concepts. When she sees terrorists on the TV threatening the country that she lives in, she doesn’t wince like I do…this is a very simple observation and it reinforces my philosophy versus contradicts it.

The fact that my cat experiences emotions and that she does not possess the faculty of reason does not contradict what Objectivism has to say about the nature of emotions in man. As I stated above, philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental nature of man and his relation to existence as a whole. Whatever scientists continue to discover about emotions in non-men will not impinge on these conclusions.

I won’t lie, I am not much of a debater, and plenty of you can probably beat me if this turns into a full pledged debate. I used to believe that your conclusion is correct, but as I become more and more involved in the world of neuroscience, I have realized that we are not the only animals that can feel.

Look, I’m not posting this to “save” you nor am I trying to “save face” with some sort of “intellectual victory.” This is a topic that happens to interest me and I enjoy writing about it. It’s as simple as that. :rolleyes: Objectivism doesn’t say that animals don’t have emotions; it really doesn’t say much at all about animal consciousness. If you really want to do some research, I suggest that you read chapter 5 of OPAR particularly the section Emotions as A Product of Ideas. If you plan to go into the field of neuroscience, you should be armed to the hilt with good philosophy; OPAR is one of the best place to start equipping yourself.

13

You should stick around; you might be intrigued by what a RATIONAL philosophy will show you.

I will do so, as I tend to agree with the objectivist philosophy (at least what I know of it) more than any other school of thought. Although I might have to find a socialist site so I can hear what the other side has to say… :rolleyes:

14

I will do so, as I tend to agree with the objectivist philosophy (at least what I know of it) more than any other school of thought. Although I might have to find a socialist site so I can hear what the other side has to say…  :rolleyes:

Most of Rand’s writings include accurate critiques of Socialism, unlike the opponents of Objectivism, which nearly all fail to understand exactly what Objectivism is.

I say “accurate” critiques because I have spoken with many a socialist and they never deviate from Rand’s assessments.

15

thanks bowzer, that post actually cleared some things up for me.

Tonight I will post a model of decision making as presented by Ohio State researchers, I wish for you all to take a look at it and tell me what you think. Being that I don’t have a scanner, I will draw it in paintshop or something.

I will check that book out, and when I go to RPI to get my four year degree, I will be minoring in the philosophy of science and logic. I will also be taking several communications courses. I suck at presenting my ideas, due to my work ethic. I spend all my spare time perfecting my craft (making music). To say I am introverted is an understatement. Oh well, these outlets allow me to keep my sanity and feel some sense of humanity.

can you please elaborate on introspection? Your ideas seem very useful…

16

Most of Rand’s writings include accurate critiques of Socialism, unlike the opponents of Objectivism, which nearly all fail to understand exactly what Objectivism is.

I say “accurate” critiques because I have spoken with many a socialist and they never deviate from Rand’s assessments.

yeah bro, I was actually attempting sarcasm. As a matter of fact I have never heard a socialist attempt different rhetoric than the one that came before him/her. I have read a couple books on socialism, such as against capitalism, and I must say, none of the arguments impressed me at all.

17

yeah bro, I was actually attempting sarcasm.

:smiley: Whoops! I should have gotten that from mister frustrated-face. I figured maybe you felt you had to, but did not relish the thought.

Maybe this expresses the sentiment? :smiley: :rolleyes: :stuck_out_tongue:

18

yeah bro, I was actually attempting sarcasm. As a matter of fact I have never heard a socialist attempt different rhetoric than the one that came before him/her. I have read a couple books on socialism, such as against capitalism, and I must say, none of the arguments impressed me at all.

lol, I will have to use that combination of smilies next time I attempt sarcasm :rolleyes:

19

can you please elaborate on introspection? Your ideas seem very useful…

Introspection is the same as extrospection differing only in the object of observation. Extrospection is observation of objects external to the mind via your 5 senses. Introspection is observation of your own psychological processes.

20

I apologize for misrepresenting the Objectivist view of emotions.  I’m attempting to learn the philosophy alone with no prior education in philosophy, and to the extent of my knowledge that was a correct interpretation.

In many ways your lack of “prior education in philosophy” may indeed be a benefit for you, in that your mind may not be as filled with so many nonsensical and contradictory notions as to short-circuit your reasoning processes. It is rather sad what passes for philosophy in many universities.

What exactly is your definition of reason.

The Objectivist definition of reason is “the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.” (“The Objectivist Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 22.)

I don’t understand, however, why you say that emotions are the product of reason.

The two main functions of reason are cognition and evaluation. Reason as evaluation is the process of judging what things are good or bad for us. And the particular values we choose, based on the judgments we make, are the things that we act to gain and/or keep in the actions we take. The conscious judgments we make are stored in our subconscious, and emotions are the form in which our subconscious feeds us the results of the thinking that we have already done. Our value-judgments, therefore, are the cause of our emotions, a product of the thinking (or lack thereof) that we have done.

Do animals possess the capacity to reason?  Did I not say that emotions are a product of the cognitive faculty?  I agree that MAN’s emotions are a direct result of his rational faculty, but usually animals respond immediately to the effect of an emotion, they don’t take the time to analyze what they feel and why they feel it.

But man’s emotions are likewise experienced automatically and virtually immediately, and we can sometimes act without taking the time to first analyze what we feel. In emergency situations, for instance, our emotions present us with the result of the thinking that we have already done, and we take an appropiate action without having the time to reflect on the process. Without this ability we would be at the mercy of any random event that could hurt us before we had the time to consciously think and evaluate a course of action.

Isn’t this the rational faculty you’re talking about–the ability to identify and classify the cause of an emotion?

No. That is a process after the fact of already forming the emotion by a process of conscious evaluation. Again, the value-judgments are the cause and the emotions are the effect.

It think that’s more what I was aiming to say, and that animals do this on a much more basic level–the perceptual level, right?

Man gets to choose his values, and therefore his emotions. An animal’s values are are consequence of his biological nature and it has no choice about deciding what is good or bad for it.

(As an aside, I have never been entirely comfortable with attributing emotions to animals in the same manner as emotions are experienced by man. On the other hand, the more simplistic state of feeling is too much on the level of sensations. I speculate that for an animal what we attribute to emotions is a conscious state somewhere between feelings and full-blown emotions, but this is just sheer speculation at this point.)

Again, I apologize if I have misrepresented Objectivism in any way.  That’s why I tell people I’m a student of Objectivism, not an Objectivist.

That is the perfectly proper thing to do.