“If you want something really important to be done you must not merely satisfy the reason, you must move the heart also.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1.) A Crude Side by Side Comparison
2.) Pseudo-Logic: Rationalisation & Sophistry
3.) Women, Logic, Emotion & Intelligence
4.) In Closing
5.) Relevant Reading
1.) A Crude Side by Side Comparison:
Logic as an extrinsic abstract system is objective, whilst emotion as an intrinsic hard-wired system is subjective. Logic is a universal constant that becomes tainted by subjectivity when we utilise it, as in doing so entwines it with the ferocity of our instinctual emotional bias. Neurologically, the neocortex, believed to be responsible for objective logic-based decision-making, cannot reason without being made subject to the influence of the amygdala, which is believed to be responsible for subjective emotional input.
To complicate things further, the amygdala is given priority in the brain to put its point across. Essentially, one feels (and thus has a preconceived opinion) about something both consciously and subconsciously long before they get a chance to think about it rationally. As one tries to process information, their capacity to reason is undermined by the potent subjectivity of their lower brain functions, their feelings. Alas, in all decision-making, no matter how big or small, there is an inner conflict between what makes one feel good (emotion,) what one deems morally correct (a mixture of emotion and logic,) and what is physically verifiable, or otherwise functional (logical).
Emotion, as wonderful and disastrous as it can be, abruptly contaminates the integrity of our capacity to reason. Emotion undermines our very capacity to reason when present in enough spiritual quantity. Emotion has, in relativity to logic, cognitive command presence, for it embodies a most compelling visceral ferocity. The totality of the mind harbours a kind of innate respect for the visceral, which is why when a sufficient quantity of emotion is present within the mind, the mind prioritises it, permitting it to impact the psyche long before logic is allowed to state its case. Even when one manages to quell their inner emotional storm, the emotion is still there beneath the surface, unruly, trying to permeate one’s powers of reason.
One fights to subdue tyrannical emotion with nothing but force of will, as logic alone remains ineffectual in combating emotion. In this respect, meditation is a most excellent tool for ridding the mind of excessive, overwhelming emotion. To meditate is to harness one’s mind into a fine blade, concentrate its consciousness devoid of either logic or emotion, and eviscerate the chaos that contaminates the mind. To meditate is to exercise “will” in order to be free of thought and its associated emotions within a given moment. Through meditation, one thing is learned: to ignore a thought is to attack it, to continuously ignore a persisting thought until it no longer resurfaces is to kill it. We can, with self-awareness, focus, and discipline redirect emotional energy, but we cannot fully wield and possess emotion. Logic does not possess emotion, to believe so is fallacious, for it is emotion that possesses logic. Logic cannot control emotion, but emotion can co-opt logic. Logic is only able to take control when minimal emotion is present.
Emotion is more potent than logic because it is fundamentally chaotic, it is chaotic because we cannot consciously and consensually wield it in quite the same way that we can logic. Emotion is like a screaming child, and as with anything chaotic; it is loud, obnoxious, and blindingly impossible to ignore in absence of stoic meditation. If emotion and logic are to speak conflictingly in unison, emotion will almost always drown out one’s reasoning faculty. When one acts reasonably in the face of deleterious emotion, it is because one’s will of mind has interjected, not because logic has won the psychological tug-of-war. Effectively, a greater quantity and quality of logic is necessary to influence the psyche to the same extent that a lesser quantity of emotion can. It is in this capacity that emotion dominates, it is simply the more potent of the two oft opposing mental faculties.
Reason takes concentration and effort because it is a higher brain function, emotion is effortless and automatic because it is instinctual, a lower brain function. It is only with successful circumstantial emotional alleviation (eg: meditation) that one may, should they choose, allow their logic to speak loudly enough to put its point across to the psyche uninterrupted by the cacophony of emotion; to make calculated rather than reactively brash decisions. In a sense, one could assert emotion is the logic of ego, whilst human logic is proto-scientific, an interpretation of the universe based on powers of observation which yearn devoutly for objective understanding.
Despite emotional contamination vitiating the credibility of one’s logical capacity, logic, unlike emotion, is abstractly objective, and therefore, more reliable. It is the reliability, consistency and systematic nature inherent to logic that compensates for its lack of visceral potency, allowing for predictions that emotion alone would fail to anticipate. Logic may not be as powerful as emotion in matters of compulsion, but it’s reliability allows for a more sophisticated understanding of the world and how to manipulate said world. Where emotional intelligence is better suited to manipulating people, a sophisticated sense of logic is necessary for manipulating objects and devising orderly systems.
2.) Pseudo-Logic: Rationalisation & Sophistry:
Unlike emotion, logic as a system endeavours to hold itself accountable to a set of universal rules and principles. Logic embodies a set of standards and verifiable processes; it values explanations that are plausible and which can be reproduced and demonstrated via consistency, repetition, deduction, evidence etc. Emotion cares for none of these things, for its prime directive as an impulse is merely to exist, as well as breed other emotions. In essence, emotion simply “is.”
At its most manipulative, emotion disguises itself as logic by using the language of logic to justify itself. Within the red pill community, this phenomenon is known as the rationalisation hamster, a juvenile term that I use out of necessitation to be understood rather than a firm choice of expression. As I do not as of yet have any writings pertaining to this phenomenon, I will explain this phenomenon briefly. “The rationalisation hamster” alludes to the idea of faulty rationalisation(s) being accepted as a plausible narrative for questionable, rationally uncertain, or otherwise morally disputed behavioural choices. Of course typically when scrutinised, such logic is found to be pertinently faulty, exposing the sheer credulous idiocy of the individual bastardising it.
Logic is bastardised when it is emancipated from “truth” and “sense” but used as a thematic carcass of itself to make compelling arguments devoid of any factual substance. Effectively, bastardised logic is not logic in the truest sense of the word, but a superficial simulacrum of it, a pretentious emulation.
Rationalisation is quintessentially a narrative styled in the theme of logic that is devoid of any of logic’s inherent substance. It is often used to explain events and ideas in a way which makes the person rationalising seem reasonable, but really serves no function other than to act as a disingenuous albeit palatable explanation. Objectively, rationalisation is not typically an honest attempt to explain the intricacies of a situation via limited powers of observation and introspection, but more so a manifestation of sophistry to protect one’s reputation or ego. Sophistry is commonly employed by the narcissist for such purposes, but used by the great majority from time to time with lesser flagrance and frequency.
Sophistry is something that sounds logical to the ear, passing as plausible or reasonable at a glance, but when subjected to greater powers of scrutiny is found to be irredeemably incorrect due to fallaciousness or farcicality. You will observe the manifestation of rationalisation occur in a few ways. One example is the spontaneous improvisation of reasons for behaviour that the rationaliser thinks the listener will find morally agreeable, but isn’t actually the underlying reason for the original behaviour. Another is when someone arbitrarily exempts something from counting towards a criteria of which they will be judged upon (known as a tactical omission,) in order to nourish faulty perceptions that are thought to be of benefit. An example of this would be an individual not disclosing their criminal record to a potential employer because “that’s in the past now.”
3.) Women, Logic, Emotion & Intelligence:
Most humans lack a basic self-awareness and sense of disciplined mastery over their emotions regardless of whether their personal preference is for logic or emotion. One could argue that man does effectively wield anger to simultaneously bolster his logical convictions, although this is of course only possible when anger remains anger, a suitable amount of reasoning faculty is present, and anger has not turned to rage.
We often view women, in spite of their education, as less intelligent than men because of their preference for emotion. One could be a genius, but if dominated by emotion, would have their sense of reason so inhibited by the dictates of emotion that such genius would be frivolously wasted, imprisoned even. Such is the observation we see with incredibly intelligent women, how can somebody so smart seem so stupid? Well indeed, a woman is still a woman, and no matter how objectively intelligent IQ tests may claim her to be in matters of logic or numerics, she still shares the emotional preferences and lizard brain of women of lesser intelligence. Indeed, her intelligence does, to an extent, make her less womanly, but it does not stop her from being a woman. One could say intelligence spoils women, for too much intelligence can detract from the very essence of what man considers feminine, whilst simultaneously making her a poor imitation of man.
So regardless of objective IQ (a flawed metric that does not measure the totality of intelligence, no less) we perceive “being logical” as synonymous with “being reasonable,” whilst correlating unreasonableness with “being emotional.” Of course, it is a universal truth where such truth is not dogmatically denied that women have a strong preference for emotion, whilst man, for reason. This is not to say that neither are capable of exhibiting either, but rather simply that, given a choice, women prefer to satiate their feelings whilst men prefer to make conscious, cost-benefit driven decisions. Of course, preferences do not equate to outcomes, but they heavily influence them.
If a high IQ woman is to be consistently unreasonable, this creates the perception of stupidity and indeed undermines not just her own credibility, but the metric of IQ itself. If an average IQ man is to be consistently reasonable, this instinctually conveys a sense of intelligence to our perception. Must one be good at numerics to be logical in the complete sense of the word? I suspect not.
We are a species at odds with its own instincts. Many among humanity are happy to continue living on the animalistic instincts that come so easily to us, devoid of any real clarity of thought, and blissfully unaware as such. This is the easy life, the life of existing simply to exist, and to seek no greater purpose, which is primarily, the discovery of knowledge. The pursuit of such beings is not “to understand that which is currently deemed unfathomable,” but simply to attain happiness by fulfilling one’s instinctual needs. Any degree of understanding such a person develops is therefore purely to maximise their own happiness, it is not for the sake of attaining a degree or depth of wisdom. To state this more simply: such a person’s appreciation of happiness is greater than their appreciation of wisdom’s wonders.
The intellectually self-aware amongst humanity, unlike the great majority, prioritise discovery and clarity of thought above happiness as the prime directive driving their behaviour. In essence, intellectuals try to evolve past what they are in the search of understanding, favouring logic to attain this and despising any conflicting instincts that may inhibit this. Futile this may sound, but earnest it is all the same. The rest of humanity favours the maximisation of happiness, and utilises logic alongside the acquisition of skills as a means of acquiring resources to pursue a state of happiness.
The dim prioritise happiness, whereas the intelligent will sacrifice it if it is to lead to a greater depth of understanding. In a sense, one could say the dim are more emotionally selfish and ego driven whilst the intelligent, more sacrificial and curiosity driven. The dim avoid pain and truth in preservation of happiness, denying truth when it is abjectly apparent, inculcating themselves with lies of their own design. Meanwhile, the intelligent endure the pains of truth to the detriment of the psyche simply so they may acquire and intimately comprehend a depth of knowledge that would otherwise be out of reach. Each of us makes a choice in this life between two self-determining edicts: the pursuit of happiness, or the pursuit of knowledge. Of course one can be happy and knowledgeable, but not without first experiencing great pain.
The dim will pay any price for happiness, whilst the intelligent, any price for clarity of knowledge – particularly that which is verboten or mind-expanding. To be intelligent is to exhibit a curiosity of the world around you; to prioritise cultivating your understanding of reality at the expense of your gratification within it.
4.) In Closing:
I have written far more on this topic than what is seen here, but did mention in a previous announcement that I would keep the length of posts down in order to enable a greater frequency of posting. The remaining content, when polished, will be released in a forthcoming sequel article to this one. If you have any recommendations or have spotted any mistakes in the prose, do not hesitate to get in touch.
5.) Relevant Reading:
How Women Argue
Machiavellian Thinking vs. Conventional Logic