Emotions as a valid argument

[Cenomite]

This was sparked by this thread:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/bonfire/20060-you-being-emotional.html

Many people would criticize others who argue based off of their emotions, as opposed to forming a logical argument. People may also be criticized for combining emotions and logic in an argument. This attitude seems to be especially prevalent on this forum.

My question is: To what extent are emotions a valid source of argument? Should they be weighed equally with logic in terms of validity? Why or why not?

Forming emotions and forming logical thoughts are both automatic responses that we experience in response to any given event. Sometimes logic is appropriate, and sometimes we need to apply emotions to fully understand a situation. Why is logic often recognized as "legitimate", while emotions are shunned and considered something that should be withheld or controlled?

Here is an example of a situation which I believe would require emotions more than logic to understand and correctly respond to. I'm copy-pasting it from my post in the thread that I linked to up-top:

For example: If someone were to go to me and complain for 8 hours about their day, odds are they aren't looking for some logical help or statement. They want you to sympathize with them and see why they're so pissed, and share in their pissed-offery. I'm guessing that replying with deadpan logic in this situation (ie, "being too logical") would be equally as annoying as someone outbursting and screaming due to their personal views in a philosophical discussion (ie, "being emotional").

I'll give my personal views on this subject as more replies come.

Thoughts?

 

[Amargith]

From the pov of an F:

I think they should not so much be weighed into the argument, as much as they should be acknowledged, instead of shunned. Acknowledgement goes a long way to getting them out of the way of the conversation.

Furthermore, I'd say that both logic and emotions have their time and place.

In your example, the way to go about it, imo, is listen to them, ask questions as to what exactly makes them feel that way, and how, acknowledge their emotions, and let them rant. Once they're past the ranting face, check if they need help with the logical part, aka working out the solution, coz often they will at that point be open to suggestions, if they haven't figured it out yet.

The other way around, where logic is the language used to debate something, and emotions get stirred, F can be used to smoothen the ruffled feathers and get back on track. Again, acknowledgement, claryfication of what you meant and calm demeanor can do wonders. After that, you can go on with your conversation. In this example, F isn't so much what you use for the conversation, but more the auxiliary power, the enabler of the conversation. In essence, it paves the way for logic to keep going and keeping the lines of communications open.

Then there's the dreaded mix. Where the topic being discussed has both moral issues and logical possibilities for debate. And those two get mixed up. Either you agree to keep it on one of those two, which..tends to be hard to do. Still, it gives the people who are interested in the other part of the topic the chance to bail and/or go debate their points of interest elsewhere.

Or, you agree to debate both simultaneously, without ignoring one in favor of the other. Both approaches are bound to be interesting to debate and valuable, and in the end you can come to the inevitable comparison of what's more important in this case, and why. Most likely, if you put F vs T, you'll agree to disagree. But in the process, you will gain a lot of insights you normally wouldn't have gained if the debate turned into a mudslinging contest early on because of the fight about what's more important to take into consideration early on before both approaches have been thoroughly discussed.


Just my 2 cents.

 

[EcK]

I already had this talk with amarg.

She agrees with me.

 

[Virtual ghost]

To what extent are emotions a valid source of argument?

That totally depends upon what an argument is about.

 

[Jaguar]

^ There's a fair statement.

 

[King sns]

If the argument is about relationship and friendship matters, then emotions should always come first.
If someone says to you,
"when you said/did/ whatever, it made me feel uncomfortable." Then that in itself is a valid argument in itself. No logic will change the way that someone feels. And using those as arguments does indeed move the discussion forward, because then you need to use some logic to find ways of solving the problem. Or if you are miserable about your job, then that is probably a valid enough argument to leave your job. I always think that people should think about the reasons that they are feeling a certain way before making harsh decisions.

Like, "I'm miserable about my job because-"
I don't get enough pay, my boss hates me, etc. And when those things are unchangeable then you should make your mostly feeling-based decision.
Most of the time I find that logic is necessary to MOST arguments, though. Even if you use feelings as part of it, you need REASONS to back it up.

Often times, arguments can be had using logic alone.
I rarely find an argument that could be argued using feeling alone.

 

[Cenomite]

(Edited this a lot to clarify the original post in-general)

That totally depends upon what an argument is about.

Could you give examples of argument topics where the answer to that question would differ, as well as reasons why emotions should be more or less valid in those situations? (Seems like a fair statement, as Jaguar said, but I'm curious as to what your exact views are)

I know that in some situations, such as discussing Math, emotions aren't of any relevance. I'm more talking about arguments that mix "gut feelings" or morality with logic. I probably should have clarified that in the original post.

Here is an example situation in which my original post would apply: I have two friends who were arguing about whether or not a device that would max out human potential should be implanted in everyone's head if it was invented. One was arguing no, since it takes away individuality and would cause emotional distress to people. My other friend claimed that this didn't matter, and the correct decision should be to move forward and keep progressing the human race.

So, in that situation for example, to what extent was the first guy valid in making that point? My friend feels that it should not be allowed, but his argument doesn't necessarily apply mainly logic, but a more interpersonal way of looking at things. Why or why not was the first guy valid in saying no to the device based off of his feelings and interpersonal means of forming his opinion?

 

[jenocyde]

I would have left out the emotional distress part since taking away something important to another person, e.g. individual liberty, indicates and presumes unpleasantness.

 

[sculpting]

if the argument involves pure fact then logic alone will provide an answer.

If the argument involves pure emo, then Fe or Fi are likely the better solution.

If it is in the middle-say troubleshooting people induced problems on a technical piece of instrumentation, then some combination should be applied. Logic alone will fail.

 

[Cenomite]

If the argument involves pure emo, then Fe or Fi are likely the better solution.

As long as the argument is centered on an emotional issue, then couldn't you treat others emotional responses like a logical pattern, and find the best solution using that pattern? Are using actual emotions really needed?

If it is in the middle-say troubleshooting people induced problems on a technical piece of instrumentation, then some combination should be applied. Logic alone will fail.

Why? Do we really require emotions to provide a good answer? Why/why not?

EDIT: I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with you, I'm just trying to pull more information out of people.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The simple answer is that it depends on what you mean.

Are emotions a source of knowledge? That is, is this an acceptable argument. Premise: I feel that X is true. Conclusion: X is true.

No, it is not, as emotion in itself has nothing to do with the truthfulness of any proposition. However, emotion may be a source of knowledge in a more implicit sense. Primarily so when it comes to making decisions about ethics, or what we should do with our lives. Emotion is an indication of our mental health state. We obviously want to be well, hence we desire a certain emotion. Only through an observation of emotion can we know what we truly want in life. Hence, our passions are something that needs to be analyzed from a dispassionate, objective standpoint. Although, they do not entail knowledge directly.

 

[Cenomite]

Hence, our passions are something that needs to be analyzed from a dispassionate, objective standpoint.

I'm a bit confused by this line.

From what I read, it seems to me that you're saying that we utilize emotions to tell us what to strive for and what to avoid, based off of what makes us feel good or bad. If we succeed in this, we are "well", or rather we experience a sequence of positive emotions. If we fail, then we are "not well", and experience negative emotions.

If this is true, then why do our passions need to be objectively measured? If you objectively measure your passions, it seems to me that it would involve asking yourself "logically, which thing(s) should I believe in that will make me the most well? Which combination of events, based off of previous experiences, will most likely result in me feeling good emotions?"

These seem like good questions to ask yourself to me, but why are they needed? Couldn't I just as easily follow my instincts on what to do, based off of what I know makes me feel good? Why do I need to detach from myself to analyze what i like best, when my subjective views are meant for "me me me!" type tunnel vision?

Also, are your passions really self-determined? I know that I never really chose to be interested in computers and programming, it just sort of happened, and I willingly followed it mindlessly to college.

Also, that was a very good post, I enjoyed reading it. I just want to make sure I completely understand what you mean.

EDIT: Getting back to the original topic though: It is true that your example "argument" is not valid, but would this argument be?

"I have strong "gut" emotional feelings about X, and a logical argument at my side that happens to support these feelings. My emotional feelings combined with my logic make my whole argument more valid than if I had only the logical portion of the argument alone."
(This is again in regards to a situation in which logic and morality could be mixed)

 

[Virtual ghost]

Could you give examples of argument topics where the answer to that question would differ, as well as reasons why emotions should be more or less valid in those situations? (Seems like a fair statement, as Jaguar said, but I'm curious as to what your exact views are)

Emotions are valid in situations when you are discusing emotions with people you are close to. Especially if it is something romantic.

But if we are talking about politics , science , plans for invasion or construction of infrastructure then emotions should be reduced to pure desire for effeciency.

 

[Cenomite]

Emotions are valid in situations when you are discusing emotions with people you are close to. Especially if it is something romantic.

But if we are talking about politics , science , plans for invasion or construction of infrastructure then emotions should be reduced to pure desire for effeciency.

Ok thanks.

So what if we were having a discussion about something like the example I posted in my last post where I quoted you (about the device that maxes out human potential being placed into everybody). Would emotions be valid in that argument? It doesn't fall clearly under any of those categories (possibly science, but it's more of the concept rather than the invention itself I guess). Also if you could explain your decision, it would be much appreciated

 

[INTP]

Nothing pisses me off more than when someone makes argument purely based on emotions. If you cant reason those emotions that you base your argument on, i will totally ignore the argument and start to argue how invalid your argument is.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I'm a bit confused by this line.

From what I read, it seems to me that you're saying that we utilize emotions to tell us what to strive for and what to avoid, based off of what makes us feel good or bad. If we succeed in this, we are "well", or rather we experience a sequence of positive emotions. If we fail, then we are "not well", and experience negative emotions.

If this is true, then why do our passions need to be objectively measured? If you objectively measure your passions, it seems to me that it would involve asking yourself "logically, which thing(s) should I believe in that will make me the most well? Which combination of events, based off of previous experiences, will most likely result in me feeling good emotions?"

These seem like good questions to ask yourself to me, but why are they needed? Couldn't I just as easily follow my instincts on what to do, based off of what I know makes me feel good? Why do I need to detach from myself to analyze what i like best, when my subjective views are meant for "me me me!" type tunnel vision?

Also, are your passions really self-determined? I know that I never really chose to be interested in computers and programming, it just sort of happened, and I willingly followed it mindlessly to college.

Also, that was a very good post, I enjoyed reading it. I just want to make sure I completely understand what you mean.

EDIT: Getting back to the original topic though: It is true that your example "argument" is not valid, but would this argument be?

"I have strong "gut" emotional feelings about X, and a logical argument at my side that happens to support these feelings. My emotional feelings combined with my logic make my whole argument more valid than if I had only the logical portion of the argument alone."
(This is again in regards to a situation in which logic and morality could be mixed)

What emotions are: Simply having impulses. That is what emotions are. They are unprocessed unconscious cognitions. Sometimes they invade your conscious thought, for example when you get hit, you cannot help but feel pain.

Role of emotions in rational thinking: Emotions alone tell you nothing. They are impulses. However, analysis of emotions informs you of your well being. For example, if you are hit, emotion alone will not give you an idea of what is going on with you. However, if you think about how you feel, you may realize that you are in pain.

Why do we not make decisions based only on emotions?

You cannot tell what directions your emotions will steer you in. They are merely instinctual responses to circumstances. The course of action that your passions may advise you of are frequently far from congenial. In short, emotions alone are simply blind. Acting without knowing what you are doing almost never leads to any good.

 

[laughingebony]

That is, is this an acceptable argument. Premise: I feel that X is true. Conclusion: X is true.

No, it is not, as emotion in itself has nothing to do with the truthfulness of any proposition.

You cannot tell what directions your emotions will steer you in. They are merely instinctual responses to circumstances. The course of action that your passions may advise you of are frequently far from congenial. In short, emotions alone are simply blind. Acting without knowing what you are doing almost never leads to any good.

Is logic any more trustworthy?

 

[Amargith]

Also beckons the question...if indeed you can tell that the other is basing his argument on emotions, is it invalid? As SW stated, they are still information, you just have to process them in order to use them. But that doesn't mean that once that has been done, the information isn't useful. Even in rational discourse.

If someone then shows those emotions AND you notice their logical reasoning and sentence building going down during the debate, you could assume that what you're getting to see is a draft, because they haven't taken the time or haven't gotten the time to process a bigger emotion properly. At that point you can either I feel, give them that time, or withdraw. All this however does NOT mean that the argument in it self doesn't have merit. It just comes out garbled and needs further work. So maybe judgement and nitpicking should be reserved untill you see the complete version? Alternatively you can help the other person analyze the information he's trying to convey into a logical argument.

 

[ajblaise]

Someone arguing based off of emotion can produce a coherent argument, but it's often the case that emotion-fueled arguments won't be clear or rational. Argument, by definition, is a set a reasons for or against a point, and if the reasons make no sense, the argument isn't valid.

But emotion as an expression is still valid, so if someone is in despair and is making totally incoherent arguments, the fact that they are in despair should be taken into account.

 

[Not_Me]

My question is: To what extent are emotions a valid source of argument? Should they be weighed equally with logic in terms of validity? Why or why not?

Emotional factors matter more than logic only when dealing with emotional matters.