| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> Where they wrong? About feelings?Question:Were "they" wrong when it was said that feelings can not prove anything logically? By they I mean anyone who thought this or thinks this now. Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Were "they" wrong when it was said that feelings can not prove anything logically? By they I mean anyone who thought this or thinks this now. I asked a similar question, check it out. Great minds think for themselves (Disney commercial) An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others. An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others. ________________ Just happen to pick the same quote. Mine was from http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/em... HEY>>>>> Copy and Pasting above.... Thought as much..great minds... instant feelings need to be examined and revised based on introspection and reasoning. a logical proof is like a math proof. The rules of logical proofs donot require emotional arguments. emotions declare what feelings someone has and dont intend to proof something. Often feelings and emotions give the energy for somebody to proof something in a logical way. So, 'they' were right. People are forever mixing up feelings and cognition. Feelings don't prove or disprove knowledge. Feelings are independent. They are certainly generated in response to things we learn, such as a kind act done for us, and it is a form of knowledge to know your sister is sad today - but they are two different domains of human experience and one does not support the other. |