Logic vs. Feeling

[Jeremy Haug]

Which is best to follow? How do you know there even is a best one?

[Tanya Voytus]

This is one of the most classic philosophical problems. Usually,
logic seems like the correct answer - but we're fully aware that
sometimes our emotions take over and we feel like they really do mean
something. Again, it's something that we can really explain, but we
feel like we know exists.

But you're right - we can't really know what the best one is. If we
always followed our heads, we would lose a sense of human connection
and compassion, but if we always followed our hearts, our
infrastructure would probably fall apart at some point.

What do you think?

[Mr. Fletcher]

While I see the merits of both, and generally believe that there
should be a balanced approach to a person's decision process, I will
choose a side. I cast my vote for logic. Situations for immediate
action typically call for emotion, while logic is relegated to slower
or more distant problems. However, a trained mind can react logically
with nearly the speed required for major decisions without needing to
think the decision through. This puts necessity for problem solving
away.

Now, on to the idea of humanity. People would argue that emotions add
the "human element", or at the very least keep us connected to each
other. I would not argue against that, only add to it the fact that
reason and logic are as fundamentally human as emotions. They may not
be enough to "connect" people, but they should at least be placed on
an equal level of human necessities and characteristics as emotions.
Because of this, I believe that the "human element" is either a much
closer race or a true tie.

Finally I would take a look at driving forces. What I mean to say is
what happens when emotion drives logic or logic drives emotion.
Emotional reactions turned into reasonable or calculated unreasonable
actions I would estimate account for the greatest social changes. In
recent history we saw outrage driving the early civil rights movement
and it was met with strong resistance. That resistance was only broken
when a logical order was brought to the anger and the anger was
focused into tool. Move further back to the American Revolution, which
was, by all accounts, very calculated and thought out. Risks were
measured and taken in an orderly and logical manner. Not saying the
spark was unemotional, but the action was logical (if perhaps very
dangerous and could have been fatal). Now, look in Libya at their
revolution. It was rage fueled, but nothing productive happened until
people took that anger and set it to organizing a movement. Then, look
at how the revolution almost ended in defeat as the revolutionaries
held the rage and lacked direction.

In a contest between which is a better processing function I would say
logic wins. However, I am not saying and will not say that emotion
does not have it's place. Emotion is an amazing catalyst and should be
lauded as such, along with it's ability to connect us and keep us
grounded. Logic should be given credit for societal advancement. In
the grand scheme I would say societal advancement is the better/more
difficult endeavor.