Saturday, March 21, 2009

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?

Friday, March 13, 2009

kwik kwoth

it's easy to teach - it's difficult to teach with humility.

life is short. and then you die. THANK GOD! (and do it quickly.)

making decisions:
when choosing between 2 bad choices, be a realist.
when choosing between 2 good choices, be an idealist.

if you're lamenting that your life has no meaning,
if you're feeling trapped and everyone's out to get you,
if you're jaded by everything around you,
if you've lost faith in your own country and its people,
if you've given up your dreams...
try migrating.
to a third world country.

(p.s.: just a bunch of random thoughts coming to me during my moment in the bathroom. of course, they're lessons for me, above all. epiphany toilets rule!)

Monday, March 09, 2009

the point of social theory

how does society function?
how do humans interact within certain overarching environments?
what are norms and why do they compel?
why education? why freedom? why Catholicism?
can there be humans with no society?
...does society function?

social theory is [the remarkably serendipitous attempt] to describe, in a language [just the layman term] which is [usually only somewhat barely] internally rational [as opposed to universally rational, or internally irrational, or plain utter gibberish], the causes [as temporarily determined by the philosophical study of causality], or the processes [i.e. chains of causes and effects] which then result in particular social facts [as observed by the theorist to be observed/observable by everyone else, no less].

as already observable, each word [used so laconically] above could be supported by its own literature of formal theory. in other words, for a good sociologist [in the sense that s/he actually understands others hermeneu-... i mean, properly] to begin engaging any text, s/he must be rather linguistically talented [terminologically ill, verbosely endowed, suffer lexophilia to a less-than-annoying degree].

in themselves, social theories are generally composed, through herculean effort, to remain "neutral", "parsimonious", and "valuable". unfortunately [often also purposefully, for humanity's sake, or neurotically], these "ideals" are never standardised [are un-standardizable, indefinite, or simply piss too many people off with endless debate] such that all other serious sociologists [self-professed, self-qualified, or just selfish] would be compelled to critique it to bits. this does not exonerate the failure of the effort, no matter how herculean.

few social theories are truly compatible with one another - their genesis usually being "in response" to some other assumed-defective theory. occasionally, like-minded theorists may put aside their bickering and actually form a "school of thought" to rally behind and support a favourite theory. inconsequentially, said favourite theory does not thus become "canon" in sociology [or most social sciences], but instead, it simply becomes more widely read, greatly expanded ad nauseum, and create its own school of denigrates.

do theories become better? yes they do - to those who think they do. [no they don't - to everyone else.]

do theories advance our understanding of society? in an oblique way, but ultimately someone has to shirk off the old herculean efforts and actually begin formulating a "methodology" [kind of has its own arena of theory, really] to investigate actual social reality [systematically, formally, in some manner satisfying to the editors of would-be journals] before the theory can produce something fulfilling said purpose to non-sociologists. [certain theorists appear completely vindicated through efforts to simply theorise for theorising's sake - sola theoriae.]

where does that leave us - students of social theory? well, what doesn't kill us can only make us stronger. i just hope that those among us who may work on theory in future do something truly "neutral", "parsimonious", and "valuable" with their publications. [my powers of hoping must be phenomenal, however, judging by the social facts available to me in the form of sociology journals. it is akin to madness: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.]

social theory isn't always intellectual masturbation. [but it almost seems like it.] even then, you don't always need to reach orgasm. [but someone almost always proves relentless in such pursuits.] and ultimately, life moves on. [to other so-called pursuits of less "folly" - as defined by who again?]

existential fatalism! what a way to approach this 15-week module! no no, gerg the pseudo-theory-hater would not appreciate your patronising applause. he would like a good grade instead. the hypocrite.