Have your world views been based on emotions or deep analysis and reason?

[Magical Realist]

Being honest with myself, I see my worldview more determined by my emotions than by reason. Even the news we watch slants reality towards a storybook like drama where good guys win and bad things rarely happen. Yet we know everyday there are thousands of horrible random accidents, mutant births, terminal diseases, suicides, killings, and senseless assaults that don't get reported. I like to think the world is more orderly than it is, that what happens usually happens for a reason, and that human rationality rules over everything. It comforts and assures me to think this. But deep down I know it's not true--that chaos and randomness are breaking out all around us unseen and undiscussed.

[Leigha]

Thank you for the thoughtful replies! If I'm honest with myself, I've allowed my emotions at times to make decisions for me, without employing enough reason. Then, a few weeks goes by, long after a decision is made over something, and I'm brimming with regret. That's a bit dramatic lol not brimming.

But, I have used analysis and logical reasoning as pathways to world views, as well. I wouldn't advise to make decisions based on one's emotions, for emotions are fleeting, but regret is forever. Although, you can change your mind, even if you have carried a particular view for a long time.

I don't know if any of us could honestly say that emotion never comes into play when we form opinions on various subjects, or when making decisions. Unless you're a cyborg.

---

Being honest with myself, I see my worldview more determined by my emotions than by reason. Even the news we watch slants reality towards a storybook like drama where good guys win and bad things rarely happen. Yet we know everyday there are thousands of horrible random accidents, mutant births, terminal diseases, suicides, killings, and senseless assaults that don't get reported. I like to think the world is more orderly than it is, that what happens usually happens for a reason, and that human rationality rules over everything. It comforts and assures me to think this. But deep down I know it's not true--that chaos and randomness are breaking out all around us unseen and undiscussed.

This is interesting, and I've always enjoyed reading your posts, especially on the science forum because it's refreshing to read thoughts that go against the grain. (But, I understand the angst that many have over pseudo-science, etc) Just curious, what do you think drives your belief in the paranormal? I don't disbelieve in it, but sometimes, I fear that I may be easily convinced in believing something, without ''rational'' evidence to support it. Do you believe that you reason towards your conclusions, or do you rely on emotions/feelings/guesswork when it comes to the paranormal?

---

Is anyone likely to admit, even just to themselves, that their views are largely emotional? Our ability to deceive is no greater than when we deceive ourselves.

Perhaps a more telling question would be, how do you justify your world views. That would more readily demonstrate the rational behind them, without engaging a person's self-reporting bias.

We can only deceive ourselves for so long, right?

I did admit it to myself, and now in this thread. I'm evolving. You employ emotion too, which is why your arguments are very...um...passionate. That will be the word we use. 

---

Time for some self inventory. Most likely, we all succumb to viewpoints based on emotion now and again, but the question is designed to get you to think of how you form opinions and make decisions, primarily. Do you employ reason or do you tend to lean on emotion?

I'm a skeptic. David Hume (who held that passion rather than reason governs human behavior) is my hero. Emotion has nothing to do with my viewpoint unless incredulous counts. Experience(s) influence my decision making above all else. I'm pretty much unwilling to or simply just can't believe something without hard evidence.

Interesting, Z. But...does emotion and experience intersect on some level? Like could your personal experiences influence your emotions, which in turn might interfere with your ability to objectively reason?

[Magical Realist]

This is interesting, and I've always enjoyed reading your posts, especially on the science forum because it's refreshing to read thoughts that go against the grain. (But, I understand the angst that many have over pseudo-science, etc) Just curious, what do you think drives your belief in the paranormal? I don't disbelieve in it, but sometimes, I fear that I may be easily convinced in believing something, without ''rational'' evidence to support it. Do you believe that you reason towards your conclusions, or do you rely on emotions/feelings/guesswork when it comes to the paranormal?

My reason for believing in the paranormal is as rational and evidence-based as my belief in evolution or climate change or the Big Bang. The emotional aspect doesn't enter into it all. In fact I'd be more emotionally comforted if the paranormal wasn't real. Nobody likes to think about such things on dark lonely nights. Emotionally I am confused as to how to react to the reality of this dimension. But I can't deny the evidence. Reason prevails in this case.

[Zinjanthropos]

Interesting, Z. But...does emotion and experience intersect on some level? Like could your personal experiences influence your emotions, which in turn might interfere with your ability to objectively reason?

Ya Wegsy, I'm passionate about being skeptical so by default, I guess I'm emotional about it too.  My reason is that it seems so reasonable to be a skeptic.

[Leigha]

Interesting, Z. But...does emotion and experience intersect on some level? Like could your personal experiences influence your emotions, which in turn might interfere with your ability to objectively reason?

Ya Wegsy, I'm passionate about being skeptical so by default, I guess I'm emotional about it too.  My reason is that it seems so reasonable to be a skeptic.

Fair enough. But, what about imagination? Does everything that you believe have a rational explanation? Would you consider yourself a materialist? I'm not interviewing you, maybe I am. 

[Magical Realist]

Interesting, Z. But...does emotion and experience intersect on some level? Like could your personal experiences influence your emotions, which in turn might interfere with your ability to objectively reason?

Ya Wegsy, I'm passionate about being skeptical so by default, I guess I'm emotional about it too.  My reason is that it seems so reasonable to be a skeptic.

Fair enough. But, what about imagination? Does everything that you believe have a rational explanation? Would you consider yourself a materialist? I'm not interviewing you, maybe I am. 

I am a dualist in that I recognize the dual realities of mind and matter. They both exist independently and yet interact with each other to form Reality itself. I'm pretty sure there's lots of things that lack rational explanations seeing that rationality is a human capacity. It would greatly surprise me if reality conformed to human reason in all of its details.

[Zinjanthropos]

Fair enough. But, what about imagination? Does everything that you believe have a rational explanation? Would you consider yourself a materialist? I'm not interviewing you, maybe I am.  

[Image: biggrin.png]

No problem. I'm not a believer, I'm a skeptic. Naturally I may lean one way favorably but it's like filling out your favorite restaurant's customer survey..... when the top answer is 'best I've ever eaten' would you tick that box? No, because you may not know what the best tastes like. 

Materialist? Probably so because I think everything we experience has a natural explanation. Thing is, I'm willing to change my POV but no one has ever convinced me enough. I wouldn't be a skeptic if I thought my thinking was infallible. 

[Syne]

Is anyone likely to admit, even just to themselves, that their views are largely emotional? Our ability to deceive is no greater than when we deceive ourselves.

Perhaps a more telling question would be, how do you justify your world views. That would more readily demonstrate the rational behind them, without engaging a person's self-reporting bias.

We can only deceive ourselves for so long, right?

I did admit it to myself, and now in this thread. I'm evolving. You employ emotion too, which is why your arguments are very...um...passionate. That will be the word we use. 

Yeah, some people are better at deceiving themselves than others. Frequency of exposure to contradictory views seems to make some difference.

I'll let you in on what few seem to catch.

I employ emotion as a rhetorical device, especially against arguments I perceive as being largely emotional. After all, how else can you address any argument if not on its own terms? If someone is making emotional decisions, reason is not likely to reach them. You actually have to engage them emotionally to have any hope of your points landing.

Many don't seem to realize that I routinely match the tone of the responses I get. Admittedly, we could argue how well calibrated it is in various cases, but that's a liability of text communication. So MR gets a lot of his ad hominems right back, as well as SS, when she seems to get frustrated and relies on them herself. Some arguments are only a lose lose proposition. If someone calls you a bigot, trying to rationally defend yourself only lends it credence, as an accusation worthy of such effort. The fact is that making such accusations without evidence just makes the accuser an asshole, and it deserves nothing but having that pointed out.

In other cases, the need to engage someone emotionally may take kind of shaming them for their lack of well-reasoned argument. Once they have an emotional response, they are often invested enough to engage where they would be apt to dismiss a rational argument without ever really contemplating it much.

But of course, I know many people will only see that as a rationalization by a hateful guy. C'est la vie.

[C C]

Time for some self inventory. Most likely, we all succumb to viewpoints based on emotion now and again, but the question is designed to get you to think of how you form opinions and make decisions, primarily. Do you employ reason or do you tend to lean on emotion?

Reasoning itself requires adopting preconditions for operation before being turned-on and running (like, say, a principle of upholding identities properly throughout the process; consistency). Or in being receptive to those templates already in circulation (they're rarely invented / re-invented by their user). So...

I expect I first lean on the momentum of practical habit or routine. Then guidelines or established conventions (orthodoxy); and then any quirky "emotion" of pursuing / realizing personal interests differently than usual. The former includes publicly conforming to the already existing thought orientations / worldviews of a local community or society at large. [Which will also usually include some formal or informal representation of the natural world's authority, as well as any potential for a bureau of deities, oracles, etc.] With decisions falling out of individual liberty only being exercised in terms of what that group consensus and a social environment of the moment allows as such options to the individual. The alternative route would be my having a preference instead for incarceration, stigmatization, ostracism, rehabilitative treatment, or a range of trivial to traumatic consequences, etc.[*]

Both passion and reason enter the picture via accepting those dominant social contracts, conceptual constraints and philosophical prescriptions to begin with. And in decision-making at the specific, immediate, contingent, or imperfect level which the ideal system(s) or overarching apparatus may be too broad or general in its rules and theory to precisely regulate us like puppets or robots, anyway. But my decisions resulting from both "impulses and the directions of feeling" and the analysis and synthesis of "thinking guided by formula" are occurring within those already existing background standards. "Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --George Orwell

footnote

[*] Since even eliminativists are coming out of the closet with websites these days, perhaps the solipsist might also no longer be considered a purely fictional component of thought experiment or impugning rhetoric. Solipsism would provide an extreme example of the consequences of going against the grain, guaranteed to provoke a negative response in almost any community (as mental illness, pathological worldview, etc).

Society by its very nature abhors such a deviant orientation. Multiple reasons for that. Like an organization of people itself lacking the capacity to dream / have experiences (does not qualify as a candidate for the possibility of solipsism). And because dominance-wise it is higher in rank than the individual (which the latter would usurp via solipsism, though only beyond or prior to rules of "this" virtual world of his/her's which even the solipsist's avatar must conform to). A community also requires government and moral structure which (if it is to survive long-term) must embrace its own authority and group-needs above those of a single member (no matter how much it may propaganda-wise try to accommodate the individual). At least superficially or in terms of gut-reaction, solipsism endangers that hierarchy. As well as its perverse school of thought conflicting with the coherence of whatever body of justifications and knowledge which the collective of people wields to uphold its lofty status and belief in its substantive existence (as something more than just another predictable and persistent resident of personal experiences or manifested awareness).

- - -

[Yazata]

Have your world views been based on emotions or deep analysis and reason?

In my case, probably neither.

I think that most of my views on metaphysics, ethics and the philosophy of mind (and everything else) are based largely on common-sense.

By that I mean the evidence of my everyday life. I walk through doors and not through walls. So I'm inclined to think that walls are solid. I can't jump over the Moon. I sit in chairs, put objects on tables, and look for food in the fridge or at the supermarket. I interact with people every day and have a vague sense of how they will respond to various things I say and do. (Not always reliable, in this rapidly changing, increasingly censorious, morally judgmental and puritanical day and age.)

That's my data set, my initial raw material. It's obviously open to countless spins and can be interpreted any number of ways. That's where emotion and reason come in.

Rationally, that's where my interest in philosophy and science arise. I have this insatiable curiosity to figure it all out, to penetrate to the bottom of it. (I have no illusion that I will ever succeed.)

Emotionally, I tend to favor interpretations that agree with things that I already believe. And I tend to favor interpretations that are in my interest somehow. (I think that everyone does that.)  

Do you employ reason or do you tend to lean on emotion?

They blur together. It's usually very hard to assign an objective numerical value to how convincing a rational argument is. Sometimes there are several reasonably plausible (but often imperfect) arguments for very different conclusions. So I go with my instincts, which can sometimes be colored by emotions and personal interests.

But I do tend to cover my ass with my fallibilism, by my rarely (if ever) assigning absolute certainty to anything I say or believe. All my opinions have informal non-numerical plausibility weights attached in my mind. Some are guesses and hypotheses that I might abandon tomorrow. Others are heavily weighted fundamentals, the evidence of my own senses and my own experiences perhaps, my deepest values, and it would take a lot more to budge me off of those.