Can emotions be logical?
Emotions may be predictable via logic. They might emerge in predictable ways. For example:
- John is usually saddened by suffering, particularly by the suffering of people he loves.
- John loves his wife.
- John's wife is suffering from post-stroke symptoms.
- John is likely sad.
However, emotions aren't logical, because logic - as far as we know - is a mental construct humans employ to make sense of the world. Emotions are mental products. They are not phenomena - again, as far as we know - capable of employing a concept such as logic.
Why is it that some emotions such as some fears are claimed to be "phobic" or "illogical"? What makes an emotion logical or illogical if emotion and logic are separate from one another?
If - as user David Gudeman suggests in the comments - you are conflating logical with something like 'rational', it might be useful to consider that emotions are responses to experience, and that they often emerge independently of, or prior to, rational thought.
For example, if a human being has grown up in a relatively healthy environment and developed something akin to what most people would consider a healthy (socially-beneficial?) degree of empathy, then that person will likely become distressed by the sight of an innocent person being shot. This emotion would likely arise without the person needing to work through a series of logical or rational processes.
If we consider cases in which a person's emotional response is determined inappropriate by another person, it is not necessarily clear that an emotion is ever inappropriate, in that it is always the product of the state of a mind, and often of pre-existing attitudes and beliefs. It may however be deemed inappropriate in the sense in that it is 'unhealthy' or based upon beliefs/assumptions which most people in a relevant community believe are unhealthy, or arising from a cognitive state which we deem as pathological or 'sick'.
To use a topical example, the overturning of Roe vs Wade recently might provoke an emotional response in one person that is completely at odds with that of another person, even if both responses are actually 'healthy' given the beliefs from which they originate. Both parties might assess the emotional response of their counterpart as irrational, inappropriate and/or naive.
In this way, we can also see how the emotional response of mirth/laughter is often deemed rational or healthy by one group and simultaneously as phobic or cruel by another. Laughter can often result from an ignorance of how cruel and/or harmful a joke is and may therefore be deemed as inappropriate and/or unacceptable even if, given the cognitive state of the laugher, no cruelty has occurred, or has occurred and was somehow justified.
Phobias are actually often rational, because they often arise in response to a combination of stimuli and belief. Take the response of the arachnophobe to the sight of a harmless spider. The arachnophobe's sensitivity to the perceived danger presented by the spider has been heightened to such an extent that their survival instincts treat all spiders, regardless of actual danger, as dangerous. Why? Because it is safer (barring the injury of emotional distress) to do so.
This phenomena is not perhaps all that dissimilar to that of the person who has grown up in a very sheltered and/or conservative environment who is shocked by the sight of a man in a beard wearing a dress and behaving in feminine ways. To such a person, an emotional reaction of laughter, surprise, confusion and/or even distress may be perfectly rational, even if a less conservative person deems those reactions as 'phobic' or harmful. (I am making no value judgements here; merely pointing out how various emotional responses may emerge from different contexts). The reactions of the conservative person are merely consistent with their life experience to date. Whether or not they are desirable reactions is a different question, as evidenced by some of the current debate surrounding transgender lifestyles.
An emotion can of course also arise in response to a deliberate logical or rational process. For example, a logical argument might be presented to a person which elicits an emotional response of empathy (for non-human sentient animals) sufficient to convince them (rightly or wrongly) to change from being a carnivore to a vegan. The emotion might simultaneously be appropriate and rational in the context of the convert's new beliefs whilst inappropriate and irrational to a person unswayed by the same argument.