1

Often times when some people seem to reason things about the world that are true moreso than others, the faulty reasoning is rooted in psychology. To think of one example: emotional reasoning.

Emotional reasoning is simply using affect as information (i.e. using your emotional state as evidence that something about the external world is true). However, recognizing that emotions aren't always evidence of something happening or recognizing that fearing X doesn't imply that X is true is by definition a philosophical concept. It's a step in reasoning.

I fail to see how these fields don't often go hand in hand. Why are they considered separate? Emotions have been shown to influence our reasoning processes time and time again. If anything, they have been shown to precede reason. And of course, we cannot reason without some motivational force sparking the process in the first place, which is often influenced by emotion.

4
  • 1
    Logic isn't the study of thought processes; it's the study of logical consequences. Apr 19, 2023 at 16:12
  • There are, check out non-cognitivism and emotivism plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism. Psych also holds them separate at times, our brains sometimes need to make decisions before long chains of reasoning can be worked out, and those pathways aren’t taken. Even rationalists might just say when rationalism and empirical/emotional states don’t accord (which admittedly might be most of the time) go with the rational. But there is always some target in mind, using rationalism to understand ideas suited for rationality (understanding the one, the forms, etc)
    – J Kusin
    Apr 19, 2023 at 16:19
  • 4
    For the same reason logic is considered a "huge" part of philosophy but not of psychology, there is division of labor between normative and empirical studies. And how not "huge" is in the eye of the beholder, see SEP, Emotion.
    – Conifold
    Apr 19, 2023 at 19:40
  • 1
    Hume's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem is exactly about emotion, & 1 of the most celebrated observations in philosophy. Also consider, anguish in Existentialism. Anomie, in the sociological thought of Durkheim. On here: 'Can emotions be logical? & can logic & emotion co-exist?' philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/91990/… 'Is philosophy any different from emotional reasoning?' philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/98019/…
    – CriglCragl
    Apr 19, 2023 at 22:04

2 Answers 2

3

Emotion is a significant part of philosophy.

It is based on a philosophy of mind. Many philosophers have written on the philosophy of emotion. Many philosophers have a philosophy of happiness. Many have thoughts about what constitutes a good life and how to achieve it.

0
-1

One must discriminate between the emotional and mental parts of oneself for metaphysical reasons that are rooted in the order that exists between our minds and our bodies. This is why there is a blood-brain barrier (separated by "dura matter"), for example. They must be kept separate, physically and spiritually, otherwise they collapse each other.

That being said, there is such disorder in the soul right now that there is a dualism of both polarities of mind/body relationships, where the brain is effectively in the body, and the heart in the brain.

Feel free to ignore this trans-scientific knowledge. :)

3
  • Is it though. Please provide references to established philosophical literature, rather than just stating your own ungrounded speculations like they were facts.
    – CriglCragl
    Apr 20, 2023 at 23:09
  • The existence of the blood-brain barrier does not have the implications you imply. I am explaining why I downvoted ypur answer, because it doesn't meet our site guidelines. See philosophy.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer Answers that don't meet the site guidelines can be subject to deletion. Please understand this is not a platform for just stating opinions, we try to do better than that.
    – CriglCragl
    Apr 21, 2023 at 1:20
  • Honestly I don't even understand what you just said. Do you think emotion is all in the body? & everything inside the blood-brain barrier is pure rationality? Looking even at the most minimal level, or the tiniest bit of knowledge about say the amygdala, would 'disprove' assertions like that. Please read more, & use what you read in your answers.
    – CriglCragl
    Apr 21, 2023 at 1:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .