The Nature of Logic and Emotion Regarding Human Action

As this is a relatively particular blog, I will give a small explanation before beginning:

This was my real first blog post, the first time I sat down and wrote the sort of essay my posts tend to be for fun. Well, I should add that my 14-year-old brother, Jaco, and I wrote it together, but this is where everything that now goes into this blog got started. Jaco and I brainstormed and wrote this over Christmas break while we were stuck together in the car and in hotels and restaurants with nothing but pen and paper, and maybe some knives and spoons...

It isn't particularly well-written and our ideas were never developed very fully, so I tried to remedy the flaws with some editing. Try not to judge the quality, because I will admit it's not outstanding. I'm publishing it because it became the foundation for so many other things which followed, because simply thinking in this way impacted my worldview to such an extent that I believe the essay merits being included in the blog it inspired.

With that, I introduce the newly-edited and revised version of the paper:

__________________________________________________

The Nature of Logic and Emotion Regarding Human Action
M and J Dippenaar
2 January 2010


I. The Four Steps of the Classification of Human Action

1. Logic and Emotion

The disputed topic concerns the nature and importance of the systems of Logic and Emotion in relation to the function of the human mind. Logic is defined as the use of systematic reasoning, which stands largely independent of the individual’s personality, character, etc. Though it may not be utilized in this fashion, Logical mental processes are those which may be linearly structured, using a given number of premises to reach a deductive conclusion or conclusions. Emotion is defined as the mental reaction to that which one perceives, created by personal opinions, beliefs, biases, etc. instead of through conscious effort and linear thought processes. It contrasts antithetically with Logic in that it is not rationally deduced and therefore its entirety cannot be in a linear format, regardless of the individual’s capability (or incapability) to express and/or explain that which they feel in words.

The model proposed states that each of these two elements must be present within the human mind for any conscious, intentional human Action (See I.3) to be possible. Logic and Emotion combine in varying amounts to form the foundation for the creation of Feelings and Thoughts. In turn these Feelings and Thoughts may generate Actions; it is only in this way that man is cognitively able to produce Action.

2. Feeling and Thought

There are two types of mental activities. The first is Feeling, defined as an amoral mental process achieved when Emotion is processed/analyzed by Logic, often resulting in the use of a greater amount of Emotion than its opposite. The second is Thought, which is also an amoral mental process, but is achieved in the opposite fashion, when Logic is analyzed by Emotion. As has already been stated, both Logic and Emotion are necessary to create either, though the comparative ratio and relative quantities of each may differ. Without Logic, nothing is concrete enough to produce an idea which is coherent enough to be acted upon; however, without Emotion, there is no reason for an individual to produce or act upon said idea.

3. Creation of Action

Thought and Feeling either create or combine to create a single Action, defined as the deliberate human response to Feelings and/or Thoughts, which contains a definite morality. Any Action performed by man is the reaction that man had to Thought(s) and Feeling(s). In more complex Actions, multiple Thoughts and Feelings as well as a combination of Thought and Feeling may create and influence Action. The difference between Thought/Feeling and Action is only that the former two are never chosen: all Action is deliberate, which is what makes it moral. Since neither Thought nor Feeling is intentional, neither can be moral. Their only purpose is to generate and influence those Actions which do hold moral value. Nota Bena: Action does not necessarily indicate externality. Though the distinction seems like semantics due to the terms employed, Thought is included in the Secondary stage and thoughts, without the capitalized T, in the Tertiary stage (See II).

4. Morality and the Actual Mean and Extremes

Although Feelings and Thoughts both need Emotion and Logic to form, Actions can operate with influence from either Feeling or Thought alone. Mental processes that completely lack the influence of Feeling will be referred to as TBAs (Thought-Based Actions) and those that lack Thoughtful influence, FBAs (Feeling-Based Actions). These are often very simple Actions. An Action’s morality is not affected in any way by the balance of this influence. However, the equality of the balance between Logic and Emotion during the generation of those Feeling(s) and/or Thought(s) that create Actions does have an effect on the stability of the Action’s morality, though it does not directly determine its morality. This signifies that Action is more likely to be moral if Logic and Emotion are equally balanced in the Primary Stage of the creation of human Action. The idea also implies that an Action's morality is increasingly unlikely the further the Thoughts and Feelings which generate the said Action move from the balance between Logic and Emotion. The balance referred to is entirely theoretical and opinions on where the balance lies may differ (See V). Regardless, the point remains that there exists a balance and that it ought to be achieved in order to maintain moral stability.

Any intentionally-committed action can be hypothetically plotted on such a graph. The further away an action moves from the Actual Mean (moral stability between Logic and Emotion regarding Action) and closer to the Actual Extremes (maximum moral instability resulting from the hypothetical impossible scenario of Action comprised of only Logic or Emotion), the more likely the Action is to be morally flawed.

II. Distinction Between and the Operation of Feeling and Thought

In order to distinguish properly between Feeling and Thought, one must first distinguish between Thought and thoughts as well as between Feeling and feelings, as was briefly discussed in the section entitled 'Creation of Action.' A thought or feeling, when started with lowercase letters, are a form of Action because they are deliberately chosen and hold a definite morality. However, Thought and Feeling, which begin with capitalized letters, can be described as simple ideas: something that merely occurs to an individual but is never chosen, nor acted upon in any way, and is therefore amoral. In Matthew 5, the Christ discusses the morality of murderous and lustful thoughts/feelings, calling them sinful. This is because despite having no manifestation beyond the individual's mind, they are Action, deliberately chosen (or simply left unchecked) by the sinner. The distinction between murderous Thought and a murderous thought is that an individual chooses and welcomes the thought, which is to be classified in the Tertiary Stage of the process outlined, and this is absent in Thought, which is to be classified in the Secondary Stage. It may occur to an individual (signifying Thought) that they can rid themselves of another person that they hate (the Emotional component) by killing them (the Logical component), but as stated, this is merely a mental occurrence, a broad idea, and has not been accepted; therefore it remains amoral, in the Secondary Stage of Human Action. Since the Logical component is being applied to the Emotional component for it to become an action, this mental process can be classified as Feeling. Murderous thoughts become moral when, as stated, they become Actions: once one chooses to think murderous thoughts, or, more likely, simply chooses not to abstain from them, they become sinful. In this case, the err is most likely due to an imbalance in Emotion over Logic: the Emotion felt concerning the victim overrides the Logic that might otherwise suggest that they ought to think differently. In a different case also concerning murder, it may occur to an individual that his life might be altogether more practical without the interference of a certain other person (the Logical component) and that his desire for the practicality he has found by way of Logical reason must override the action’s moral repugnancy (the Emotional component). Here, a Thought is created because the Emotion is applied to Logic, opposite of the first scenario: the Emotion is what allows the Logic to be acted upon. The practicality of the victim’s absence is achieved because of the desire; the desire itself isn’t what is being achieved. This Thought turns into an Action when the individual decides to dwell upon and/or seriously consider the idea that had occurred to them. Although this second scenario is guilty of the same sin as the first and it is still caused because of an imbalance of Emotion over Logic (the selfish desire for practicality outweighs the overstepping of moral and/or societal boundaries), it was achieved in large part by Thought instead of Feeling. In a third case on murder, however, it can be demonstrated that sin can result from an imbalance of Logic over Emotion as well. Consider in example a murder such as the one committed by Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment, where an old pawnbroker is murdered to achieve a Utilitarian end: a sinful Action, murder, is committed when the general good and/or practicality of killing another person overrides the action’s unchanged moral repugnancy. Unlike the second case, there is nothing wrong with the Emotion driving Raskolnikov to murder the old woman: an acute desire for public well-being and justice are generally agreed upon as a positive thing within a given society. There is also no blatant err in the Logical process by which he might come to the conclusion that the pawnbroker must be murdered in order to achieve this well-being and justice that is his ideal: by the time he commits the murder, he has built up sufficient proof to thoroughly convince himself that it would be best for both himself and the community. Practically, there is no reason not to murder the pawnbroker. However, when the moral repugnancy and coldness of the action are disregarded and only the Logical benefits are heeded, an imbalance between Logic and Emotion is created. This, in turn, allows the Action to lose moral stability and flawed Action results: the sin of murder.

III. Biological Action

There are some actions which are unintentional and therefore are not addressed by the model proposed. These include blinking, involuntary muscle movement, fainting, and other reflexes of the sort. These actions are generated by instinct and do not involve any type of mental processing at all, so they are composed of neither Logic nor Emotion.

IV.Simple Actions

Although many actions are Complex (see Contention IV), many follow the Simple pattern outlined in Contention I. Simple Actions are the root of all Complex Actions. They are normally comprised of Thoughts and Feelings that stem from Biological Action or simple opinion (those normally without identifiable or necessarily complex cause, often including opinions on beauty, both physical beauty and that of things such as art or music, or sensual preferences, such as taste, touch, etc). Because the Thoughts/Feeling Simple Actions are made of are so basic, no other actions could have caused them. Hence, they are the simplest Actions possible. For example, the decision to eat is a Simple Action. Putting food in one’s mouth is a simple response to hunger, a biological fact caused by involuntary muscle movements etc. The Logic is a simple syllogistic reaction to two factual premises: I am hungry. I can satisfy my hunger by eating this. Therefore, I will eat this. However, once again, there is an Emotional component: Why do I care that I am hungry? What allows me to conclude that I must satisfy my hunger? A desire to survive would likely be the answer, which is a very basic desire, normally with no root cause. It’s simply a desire, one present in near all people. Therefore, this Action may be classified as a Simple TBA, since simple emotion is used to act upon a simple Logical process.

IV. Complex Actions

Obviously, few actions are as simple as those presented by cases such as the satisfaction of hunger/thirst; even those examples provided concerning the cases on murder have been simplified substantially. Therefore, it must be observed that each Action may be made up of not only many Feelings and Thoughts, but also a long string of Actions building on each other continually and rooted in that Simple Action outlined in the first contention. For example, on a given morning a student may make the seemingly-simple decision to get in the car. This action is created and supported by many different Thoughts and Feelings, all of which are specific to the action being discussed. First, the Action of getting in the car must be caused by the Thought that he must get in the car to drive to school. The Logical component is simply that if he gets in the car, he will be able to drive to school. The Emotion applied to this Logic, creating the Thought, is simply that he desires to be at school, or perhaps feels that he ought to be at school. (Naturally, a long string of Actions must have caused this desire, but only the desire itself directly pertains to the Action being discussed, so the long-term causes may be disregarded for the moment.) Another Thought contributing to the student’s Action of getting in the car may be that he will drive to school instead of walking. The Logic might be that it is raining and driving will keep him from getting wet. The Emotion that allows him to act on this Logic is the dislike he has for being wet. These are two of many possible Thoughts could have contributed to the student’s decision, but many Feelings may have aided his decision as well. Perhaps he is too late to walk to class on this particular morning (fact: Logic) and he decides to drive because he dislikes walking into class late (personal dislike: Emotion). This element is one of Feeling because the Emotional dislike of arriving late and acted on by the Logical conclusion that taking a faster mode of transportation would prevent him from arriving late. Eventually the student gets into the car as a reaction to these Thoughts and Feeling, among many other probable motivations in any regular case.

V. The Location of the Actual Mean

The balance between Logic and Emotion within Human Action may not be objectively determined and known by humanity, but it may be hypothetically addressed. A strong case could be made that the mean lies substantially further away from Emotion than it traditionally has (the story of Romeo and Juliet might be sited in example). If this were to be argued, the Actual Mean must lie substantially closer to the ALE than the average currently does within society as a whole. Emotion is often more easily abused than Logic because it is often easier to utilize and normally requires less energy/effort. Because so many rely as heavily as they do on Emotion, it does appear that Emotion practically has a greater application in the creation of human errs than Logic. The overwhelming majority of sins are committed due to Emotional imbalances: Pride, Lechery, Gluttony, Envy. However, it is worthy to note that the facility of the abuse of Emotion does not eliminate the fact that Logic can be and is often abused as well, and that it is equally important not to fall off of the other side of the Actual Mean.


Evidently, no Human Action can result without the use of both Logic and Emotion. It is not possible for any human being to operate without both a motivation for action and a rational process to act upon. Therefore, it is once again necessary to return to the pursuit of a balance between the two contrasting elements: a predetermined, natural balance that if achieved, would allow humanity to live as it was intended to from the beginning.

__________________________________________________