Posted: Jun 30, 2018 1:50 am
by jamest
Thommo wrote:
One (additional) fundamental problem is conceptualising the human mind as divided into complementary categories of emotional and reasoning in the first place. When it comes to explaining a phenomenon like loss aversion the very categorisation fails altogether. The emotional/reasonable divide is a useful model within its limitations, but fundamentally flawed.

I think that I addressed this in my previous post. We're born seemingly as experts in knowing when to cry/smile (be emotional)(it's fairly universal/absolute in fact). Whereas it takes us considerable time to assess our surroundings/life.

To me, this implies that we have the capacity to reason from the onset, but what we eventually reason is anyone's guess. Parental/cultural influences, etc.. (subjective/diverse reasoning as opposed to universal/absolute emotions. How ironic.).

And my inner Star Trek nerd feels compelled to say that Spock was only as logical as the script demanded in that moment, which was often about as much as how egalitarian the script demanded the women's mini skirts be.

I have no wish to discuss Spock except as a metaphor for pure reason. Reasoning devoid of emotional baggage. Is that notion even possible I wonder?