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
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
On The Past and Causality
It only seems all too poetic sometimes - This thing we casually refer to as life. What is rather remarkable, is how an action which was dealt a hand that deemed it nearly insignificant, could one day acquire a form of sheer power to drastically effect one's life at another point in time. Cruelly unfair, I'd like to think. Cruel, because it seems like one could be subject to 'persecution' for something which wouldn't normally be noticed in passing. Cruel, because it requires one that is living to truly conceive every possible outcome in all its various permutations and combinations before performing an action. Cruel, because it ruins the relevance of all that is temporarily insignificant. Cruel, because it makes the word temporary redundant in its own right.
How relevant is the past anyway? What is the point of what has already come to pass? Do those events, or those actions whose sole purpose was condoned by the simplicity and the spontaneity of a single moment truly earn a right to have some bearing in later times? Like I've said before, I believe it is cruel that they do.
After giving some thought to this whole concept, I believe I see only one logical path to define our mode of thought. When it comes to our actions, we perform each one with our own present scenarios in mind. We deem the action to be performed as 'beneficial' to our current needs, or if not 'beneficial', we maintain only our most immediate situation in mind. However, by virtue of being human we do, consciously or subconsciously , bear something else in mind. By our own innate tendency to want something better, we are only too human to avoid glancing at the action's implications on another sacred section of time - The Future.
I suppose I've answered my own question on the relevance of the past through my last sentence. By committing an action with a view to it having some bearing on the future, then I believe the past does automatically get endowed with the ability to drastically, or in some small way effect later times. It has only just dawned on me. Come to think of it, I change my view on this whole concept. It isn't cruel at all. It is merely a verification of the principle of Causality. Our actions don't innately and spontaneously possess the power to come back and haunt us one day... We give it that power.
Causality - The belief that everything happens due to a reason; The belief that everything exists due to something; The belief that something necessarily presupposes everything. More importantly, this is the belief which warrants the existence and exactness of reason itself. Personally I believe Causality is as fundamental and as logically justified as our need to breathe. It is that which exists so that the existence of everything else is deemed to have a presupposing reason. Causality, is that which exists as a product of reason itself, and promotes the faculty of thought to the highest degree.
One false belief, however, is that the principle of Causality necessarily warrants the confirmation of the hypothesis widely popular as the concept of 'Destiny' or 'Fate'. I believe this concept is a misguided interpretation of the principle of Causality.
Defenders of the 'Destiny' hypothesis who are familiar with Causality and its provisions seem to subscribe to a modified version of Causality's credo. Causality states -
"Everything happens due to a reason."
These fine crusaders of the 'Destiny' hypothesis subscribe to the following (false) summarization of Causality -
"Everything happens FOR a reason."
This, to me seems more like a poor understanding on their parts, rather than an attempt at chicanery or manipulation.
If you find my idea a little obscure, then let me point out to you the difference between the two summarizations and the drastic alteration in meaning when the word 'for' is used instead of 'due to'.
The first statement, which for the sake of casual reference and analysis I shall name True statement 'A', conveys a meaning which deems everything's existence as a result of something else. 'Everything' here, must not be restricted to material objects but also emotions, actions,etc. It merely highlights the logical conclusion that for an action, there necessarily must exist an originating cause. Hence, the name 'Causality'. Perhaps my using the word 'merely' is understating the importance of this ideology. Causality has far-reaching effects in the realm of human belief and intellectual thinking. Indeed, the principle of Causality, when clearly understood, provides an alternative route for rational thought processes. It also provides a completely different outlook on life. Thus, True Statement 'A', in all its simplicity possesses phenomenal meaning. It eliminates the need for the word 'coincidence'. It replaces that word with 'consequence'.
Now consider the second statement which I shall (again for the sake of analysis) name Altered Statement 'B'. Although it differs (literally) only to the extent of a single word, its meaning and thus, its implications drastically differ from those conveyed by True Statement 'A'. Where True Statement 'A' highlights the action as a result of a specific cause, Altered Statement 'B' aims to present the action AS a probable cause itself. It modifies the core value of Causality by presenting a view that an action was MEANT to happen as a part of some 'grand scheme of things'. This 'grand scheme' forms the core value of the 'Destiny' hypothesis. It provides for the possibility that whatever has taken place, could not have happened any other way. This then sheds light on the act of choice. It presents the act of choice as an illusion only meant to serve the immediate conscious senses. Thus, Altered Statement 'B' negates the existence of choice itself!
A world without choice sounds rather difficult to perceive don't you think? Well it most certainly is. In order to envision such a world, one would have to believe that everything from when a nation goes to war, to why you rest your head on your right hand instead of your left at your desk has already been decided. You would have to believe that everything in the world is in accordance with some divine script written by some unseen hand. Even if one were to try and deliberately defy one's 'Destiny' and continually change one's decision on a subject, even then the missionary of Destiny would argue that your final decision has already been made and irrespective of one's choice, that decision was in fact preconceived. Personally, I find that rather amusing.
Causality and its far reaching effects are manifested in our lives everyday. It is in the nature of the way we go about things. In short, Causality is the one force one cannot avoid. It underscores the importance of reason and the importance of the faculty of thought. Everything must have a reason. Even if that reason is not apparent at the moment, it does not provide any 'divine' implications. The reason always exists. After all, reason presupposes existence and existence to us, is sacrosanct.
How relevant is the past anyway? What is the point of what has already come to pass? Do those events, or those actions whose sole purpose was condoned by the simplicity and the spontaneity of a single moment truly earn a right to have some bearing in later times? Like I've said before, I believe it is cruel that they do.
After giving some thought to this whole concept, I believe I see only one logical path to define our mode of thought. When it comes to our actions, we perform each one with our own present scenarios in mind. We deem the action to be performed as 'beneficial' to our current needs, or if not 'beneficial', we maintain only our most immediate situation in mind. However, by virtue of being human we do, consciously or subconsciously , bear something else in mind. By our own innate tendency to want something better, we are only too human to avoid glancing at the action's implications on another sacred section of time - The Future.
I suppose I've answered my own question on the relevance of the past through my last sentence. By committing an action with a view to it having some bearing on the future, then I believe the past does automatically get endowed with the ability to drastically, or in some small way effect later times. It has only just dawned on me. Come to think of it, I change my view on this whole concept. It isn't cruel at all. It is merely a verification of the principle of Causality. Our actions don't innately and spontaneously possess the power to come back and haunt us one day... We give it that power.
Causality - The belief that everything happens due to a reason; The belief that everything exists due to something; The belief that something necessarily presupposes everything. More importantly, this is the belief which warrants the existence and exactness of reason itself. Personally I believe Causality is as fundamental and as logically justified as our need to breathe. It is that which exists so that the existence of everything else is deemed to have a presupposing reason. Causality, is that which exists as a product of reason itself, and promotes the faculty of thought to the highest degree.
One false belief, however, is that the principle of Causality necessarily warrants the confirmation of the hypothesis widely popular as the concept of 'Destiny' or 'Fate'. I believe this concept is a misguided interpretation of the principle of Causality.
Defenders of the 'Destiny' hypothesis who are familiar with Causality and its provisions seem to subscribe to a modified version of Causality's credo. Causality states -
"Everything happens due to a reason."
These fine crusaders of the 'Destiny' hypothesis subscribe to the following (false) summarization of Causality -
"Everything happens FOR a reason."
This, to me seems more like a poor understanding on their parts, rather than an attempt at chicanery or manipulation.
If you find my idea a little obscure, then let me point out to you the difference between the two summarizations and the drastic alteration in meaning when the word 'for' is used instead of 'due to'.
The first statement, which for the sake of casual reference and analysis I shall name True statement 'A', conveys a meaning which deems everything's existence as a result of something else. 'Everything' here, must not be restricted to material objects but also emotions, actions,etc. It merely highlights the logical conclusion that for an action, there necessarily must exist an originating cause. Hence, the name 'Causality'. Perhaps my using the word 'merely' is understating the importance of this ideology. Causality has far-reaching effects in the realm of human belief and intellectual thinking. Indeed, the principle of Causality, when clearly understood, provides an alternative route for rational thought processes. It also provides a completely different outlook on life. Thus, True Statement 'A', in all its simplicity possesses phenomenal meaning. It eliminates the need for the word 'coincidence'. It replaces that word with 'consequence'.
Now consider the second statement which I shall (again for the sake of analysis) name Altered Statement 'B'. Although it differs (literally) only to the extent of a single word, its meaning and thus, its implications drastically differ from those conveyed by True Statement 'A'. Where True Statement 'A' highlights the action as a result of a specific cause, Altered Statement 'B' aims to present the action AS a probable cause itself. It modifies the core value of Causality by presenting a view that an action was MEANT to happen as a part of some 'grand scheme of things'. This 'grand scheme' forms the core value of the 'Destiny' hypothesis. It provides for the possibility that whatever has taken place, could not have happened any other way. This then sheds light on the act of choice. It presents the act of choice as an illusion only meant to serve the immediate conscious senses. Thus, Altered Statement 'B' negates the existence of choice itself!
A world without choice sounds rather difficult to perceive don't you think? Well it most certainly is. In order to envision such a world, one would have to believe that everything from when a nation goes to war, to why you rest your head on your right hand instead of your left at your desk has already been decided. You would have to believe that everything in the world is in accordance with some divine script written by some unseen hand. Even if one were to try and deliberately defy one's 'Destiny' and continually change one's decision on a subject, even then the missionary of Destiny would argue that your final decision has already been made and irrespective of one's choice, that decision was in fact preconceived. Personally, I find that rather amusing.
Causality and its far reaching effects are manifested in our lives everyday. It is in the nature of the way we go about things. In short, Causality is the one force one cannot avoid. It underscores the importance of reason and the importance of the faculty of thought. Everything must have a reason. Even if that reason is not apparent at the moment, it does not provide any 'divine' implications. The reason always exists. After all, reason presupposes existence and existence to us, is sacrosanct.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Priorities, Priorities...
It certainly has been a while since I last posted so that probably explains why the momentum of traffic on this blog is dying down. Due to the rather hectic nature of the course I'm currently doing, I might not find too much time to come on the net, let alone post new ppieces of writing on my blog. Hopefully an arrangement of some sort could be carried out and I might be able to put up new posts directly or indirectly through people I know. Thanks for visiting,
Nikhil
Nikhil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)