Rational vs. Emotional

[Onyx]

From The Nature of Man and the Meaning of Existence by Dr. Harold Saxton Burr, p 69-70:

No man can ever be completely rational and because man has a cortex, he can never be completely emotional. If he is completely emotional, in a very real sense of the word, he is an undeveloped individual. The fact that emotions provide color and some of the excitement of life leads many people to think that this is the highest level of human activity. These are the people who maintain that the primitive in all the things that man has done over the years is really, basically, the central characteristic of human behavior. This, of course, is nonsense; it is not so; the primitive is interesting historically, perhaps, but it is completely devoid of any of the content provided by the logical, imaginative, intuitive, and discriminative functions of the cortex. Emotional life is devoid of ideas, devoid of the highest functional components of the human nervous system. Moreover, it is the kind of behavior that is quite uncharacteristic of man. Remember, that man is uniquely individual. There are no two of us alike. This unique individuality is the consequence of the presence of the gray matter of the cortex. If mankind operated entirely on a sub-cortical level, on the basal ganglia or emotional level, he would no longer be unique; he would be simply one of the herd.

What do you make of Dr. Burr's opinion?

 

[Duke_Leto]

I'm not sure what he's attributing to the cortex exactly, but it seems like he's writing that emotions or emotionality is primitive. I don't see how emotionality is more primitive than any other human function.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I can agree with the first sentence.

Beyond that, I think this argument is pretty vapid: really? Who is it that thinks that emotions are the highest level of human activity? I sense a straw man being created...where is the evidence that supports these assertions...I'm making the guess that he deals with a lot of what I question in the pages prior to this extract...

 

[Mister Silver]

The emotional need for the existence of a higher being does tend to lead to the religious herd mentality, I agree. Those who think more rationally, rather than relying upon emotion to guide and comfort them needlessly through every aspect of their daily lives, are more prone to dismiss theistic concepts.

 

[sun rise]

He seems to devalue emotion. I don't agree.

 

[Sunstone]

The notion that the emotions merely interfere with rational thought dates back in Western culture to Plato 2300 years ago. He essentially invented the ideal of Mr. Spock -- the emotionless but hyper-rational individual. Unfortunately, Plato did not have access to the neurosciences nor psychology of today. Had he known what we know today about the role emotions play in thinking, he'd have seen how wrong he was.

Around about 1990, one or more psychological and neuroscientific studies revealed that emotions, among other things, allow us to prioritize. Without them, we would be inclined to give equal weight to, say, making a shopping list and rescuing a baby from a burning building. With them, we are inclined to see one of those activities as vastly more important than the other.

A real life Mr. Spock might not know whether to go eat lunch or notify Captain Kirk that the Klingons had decloaked off the port bow and were about to attack.

Prioritizing what to think about, what to make decisions about, and which actions to take first appears to be one of the key functions of our emotions. There might even be a sense in which you cannot make rational decisions without them.

 

[Vaderecta]

From The Nature of Man and the Meaning of Existence by Dr. Harold Saxton Burr, p 69-70:



What do you make of Dr. Burr's opinion?

I would probably ask him if this applies to him or her and then go on from there. However I'm not sure we have anywhere to go. What do you make of the opinion and do you think it applies to you or only to others?

 

[osgart]

emotions come from the heart, they are very meaningful, they tell us loves, hates, cares, ambivalences, and conditions of well being, I would never consider that primitive, not useless, its not logical.

 

[Onyx]

Prioritizing what to think about, what to make decisions about, and which actions to take first is one of the key functions of our emotions. There might even be a sense in which you cannot make rational decisions without them.

Given this, might it be safe to say that under pressure we have an unconscious ability to "cut to the chase" faster than conscious thought would typically allow?

 

[Sunstone]

Given this, might it be safe to say that under pressure we have an unconscious ability to "cut to the chase" faster than conscious thought would typically allow?

I think that's safe to say.

 

[Onyx]

I would probably ask him if this applies to him or her and then go on from there. However I'm not sure we have anywhere to go. What do you make of the opinion and do you think it applies to you or only to others?

I see a contrast between the unconscious/conscious mind - the former is "reactionary", the latter is "enlightened". But I don't think I'll separate the two so quickly, as I tend to think the results of conscious thought end up being stored for immediate retrieval in the brain.

I'm not exactly an atheist, but neither was Dr. Burr, the difference being that while he believed in some "designer" of all things, I believe that self-aware individuals design themselves.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

From The Nature of Man and the Meaning of Existence by Dr. Harold Saxton Burr, p 69-70:



What do you make of Dr. Burr's opinion?

I think he published that book in 1962.

Since fMRI scanning is only about 20 years old, I'm not sure how he's not talking out of his rear end there.

 

[Enoch07]

From The Nature of Man and the Meaning of Existence by Dr. Harold Saxton Burr, p 69-70: What do you make of Dr. Burr's opinion?

Jordan Peterson has something to say about that.
Atleast the first few minutes of this video.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not clear how he is using 'emotion' here, because it appears it may be in part 'instinct' behavior.

 

[Vaderecta]

I see a contrast between the unconscious/conscious mind - the former is "reactionary", the latter is "enlightened". But I don't think I'll separate the two so quickly, as I tend to think the results of conscious thought end up being stored for immediate retrieval in the brain.

I'm not exactly an atheist, but neither was Dr. Burr, the difference being that while he believed in some "designer" of all things, I believe that self-aware individuals design themselves.

So the unconscious mind is reactionary and the conscious mind is enlightened? If I understand you correctly I have no idea how you would get that result.