IYou cannot use the root word of the word you are defining in the definition.?:
Yes, you can. Some things are true by definition. In the Critique of Pure reason they are called 'the analytic truths'.
All systems of reasoning are founded on axioms. Or the starting point of the argument. Thus, when you allude to the root of the term, you simply clarify or point out the essence of the term.
Cognition is a product of and affected by experience, no?:
I do not see the relevance. The inextricability of one from the other is irrelevant to their antithesis. In the case of inextricability and an antithesis both competing faculties will be present, however, one will be more pronounced than the other. That is exactly the case with cognition and experience.
Do you know that people actually think better when they are emotionally aroused/alert??:
Of course some degree of emotional arousal is necessary to think, you simply cannot do anything if you have no emotional arousal, you'd be listless. However, at a certain point the emotional arousal becomes counter productive. Only a very small degree of emotional arousal is necessary, the degree that renders thinking possible. (Which again is very low)
For me, at least, I do my best thinking when I am impassioned by some sort of stimulus or stimuli, as in, emotional excitation renders clearer and better thought.??:
Sure thing, lets invite a rock concert to all your finals!
When I am in flow, I am fully engaged in whatever it is I am doing, whether that be writing, drawing or conversing..??:
It is possible to do some very basic thinking in a state of high emotional arousal, as your cognitive faculties will never be expunged completely. Not a chance you will do your best profound thinking in a state of high arousal. I never heard of anyone going to the rock concert to write a book. And I never heard of a theoretical mathematics convention in a rowdy environment.
After all, what environments do we find deepest thinking? Obviously congregations of mathematics, philosophers and physicists. None of them ever came up with their deepest thoughts in a highly boisterous environment. And after all, all that talk about how philosophers, writers and scientists have often gone into seclusion to focu son their work must all be bunk!
Thinking and feeling are *not* antithetical to each other, no way, no how...??:
Ya, sure thing. Lets do a little experiment in psychology shall we? We are going to have a 200 lb, 6,5 man with an axe chase you (without warning, you will be convinced he is trying to kill you), and we will tell you that your mother and sister were already killed by this man (there will be blood smeared over his weapon), you will be running for your life for 20 minutes. In those 20 minutes, we will expect you produce your deepest thoughts on this one post!
But intuition itself is highly emotionally or even viscerally charged where something suddenly becomes apparent to you though you do not understand *explicitly* why or how....??:
Yes, sometimes value judgments interplay with Intuition. But this has nothing to do with Intuition as a thing in itself.
Um, what does that have ANYTHING at all to do with what I had asked you?....??:
This was the whole point! Experience and cognition are antithetical! Therefore Thinking and Intuition are antithetical with Feeling and Sensation.
What is the bottom line? You are quite correct that some degree of emotional arousal is necessary to inspire thinking. All activities require energy which we can access only in the form of emotional arousal. However, Thinking is not an emotionally demanding activity, therefore it requires a low emotional arousal. A high emotional arousal is not conducive to contemplation. (see the psychological experiment above)
No kidding...
By the way, is there anybody else on the board who would like to tell me that they do their best work when they are emotionally excited? Anybody here who would like to sit down to writing a doctoral dissertation at a rock concert?
