This was sparked by this thread:
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:
I'll give my personal views on this subject as more replies come.Originally Posted by Cenomite