If one were to analyze the process of human thought, one would find one rather striking discrepancy in this very process. This discrepancy is not some inherent flaw in the human mind. On the contrary, this discrepancy is often considered a gift to all of human kind. This discrepancy, dear reader, is emotion. Emotions at all times bear some influence in everything we do. Thus, one cannot help but logically deduce the undoubtedly large effect influence has on the process of thought. If the process of thought is subjected to emotional influence, then one cannot help but question the whole definition of rational thought in itself! That sheds some rather suspicious light on the whole realm of rationality as well.
If something as sacrosanct as the very act of thinking could be influenced by the realm of human emotion, it only means that this process of rational thinking is diluted or compromised to a certain extent. Could emotions be a hindrance to the synchronized, harmonic and indeed efficient functioning of the human mind?
It seems hard to believe that the two most sacred faculties of human existence could cross paths in a manner such as this. Indeed we hold these two faculties critical to our existence and our identities as well. One also needs to consider the converse which follows logically from the interference of emotions in matters of rational thought – The interference of rational thought in matters of emotion.
How could these two realms co-exist if such interference actually does occur? The answer to this question seems to lie in the understanding of the mode of functioning of these very faculties.
Consider rational thought first.
The basic “function” of rational thought is to formulate streams of facts or ideas and present them as logical means of expression or to analyze existing ideas and search them for logical convictions. If that is the general function of rational thought as performed by the human mind, then one could easily apply this function to everyday life.
Rational thought by its very nature is deemed to possess the unscathed quality of impartiality. This quality of impartiality, however, could be deemed a touch “too” impartial at times. This again raises questions when one tries and considers the very meaning of the words “too impartial”. This form of thought, viz. rational thought, is solely endowed with an aim to find or apply logic. This logic, be it in the form of mathematics or just plain reason, usually only conforms to one ideal. This ideal is one which puts logic above everything else. This ideal is one that makes logic the foremost pedestal of sorts which can only be governed by itself. Thus it deems everything else worth contemplating only if it conforms to the very core set of beliefs that logic provides for. In simpler words, rational thought maintains the following credo whose modified version is much flaunted in cartoon shows – “Logic, or bust”!
Now consider the realm of emotion as an independent entity which is deemed with its own identity and process. One could also try and narrowly define the “function” of emotion. As I did with rational thought, I shall now take the liberty to provide this definition of function myself.
In my opinion, the “function” of emotion is to “enhance” a human being’s experience of existence by providing a new dimension to one’s way of life. This dimension is that of “feeling”.
If that small (but in my belief rather accurate) definition could in fact be the plausible “function” of emotion, then I believe one wouldn’t find it hard to relate to this definition.
Of emotions, it could perhaps be said that they add the “human” element to all of us human beings. While this might sound rather ridiculous, I suppose one could understand this statement by considering what a human being would be without emotion. This human being would, in other words, be one whose life is governed solely by rational thought.
To such a human being, nothing would appeal greater than logic. No joys would come out of anything which didn’t seem to suit some particular logically sound purpose at some point in time as deemed important by the logically dominant brain. To such a human, there would be no such state as that of happiness as he/she would be incapable of feeling anything. A human such as this would find life run by only two main pillars of action – Necessity and action to fulfill that necessity. This necessity wouldn’t be one of satisfaction or self contentment. Indeed, there would be no such thing as self contentment. To put it simply, it would be an organism which believed in the supremacy of the “live to give life” ideology. Such a human being would find no purpose greater than the sustaining of one’s life for as long as possible through nutritional and other needs. It would also find a logically sound purpose in ensuring the continuity of the human race. Beyond this, however, it would find no need to apply its thought to.
Now, consider the logical (no partiality intended) opposite of the human being considered above. This would be the human being governed solely by emotion. This by itself sounds ridiculous as a lack of rationality only guarantees destruction. In order to go beyond this rather general dismissal of our poor second human, let us ignore this fact for the time being. Such a human being would be walking the proverbial emotional tightrope for all of his/her life. A human being such as this one would only find satisfaction in the pursuit of “happiness”. These definitions of “happiness” would obviously vary from individual to individual owing solely to the inconstancy of emotion. As a result, such a state of existence would be more impulsive than calculating as a result of which one could possibly sacrifice long-term well being for short term satisfaction. A very deadly mistake indeed, don’t you think?
Now consider us humans as we are today. We obviously don’t fall into either category of humans as the ones I’ve discussed above (well most of us, at least!). If your mind’s working towards a conclusion of your own, you should beat the same conclusion I have drawn. The interference I speak of isn’t even interference if one actually puts some thought into it. If an organism is doomed without either one of these faculties, then it only is logical to assume they don’t hinder the other’s functioning. If you truly do analyze the nature of our very own mode of existence today, then you would find that rational thought at certain instances is better left “interfered” with. In a similar way, emotional thought is at some times better left “interfered” with by rational thought.
Such a state of co-existence is essential to the progress of the human race as a whole. In fact, it is this state of emotional and rational harmony that has been responsible for all of our developments in every conceivable field. If one was ruled by rationality alone, one would not find it necessary to maintain, let us say, a system of education if indeed the “live to give life” ideal was subscribed to. The emotional dimension enables the mind to yearn for something better for the individual as well as the collective whole. Similarly, if man were ruled solely by emotion, even if he did indeed recognize an educational system as a method of self improvement, he would still lack the rational insight to bring about the existence of such a system.
Such is the way of the human mind that two completely antagonistic realms find their means of co-existence for the betterment of the human race. One could never doubt the power of thought and one could never suppress the necessity of emotion. Thus, the so-called battle between rationality and emotion isn’t really a battle at all.
By,
Nikhil Menon
