Hot Rationality: Mind Losing Its Mind!Ultrell
The history of the struggle between the world of reason and the
world of emotion is not a modern history, but we can go back many centuries back to see this conflict between the two worlds exist; Who should lead the other? Like a war since ancient times between two enemies. Returning to the ancient philosophers of the Greeks, we find this dichotomy between the two worlds strongly present as a contradiction between two forces, the mind, rationality, and wisdom stand on one side, and on the opposite side stands emotion, haste, and irrationality.
Plato provides us with a vision of the nature of the human psyche during his construction of his Utopia, where the soul consists of three aspects or elements: First, the element “rational”, which distinguishes man from other beings, ie, his ability to think, and the element “spiritual or Emotional ”is the aspect associated with enthusiasm, courage and other emotional stimuli, and finally the“ lustful ”element associated with physical desires and desires. Of course, we can expect the element or aspect to which Plato would give preference and supremacy in his theory; it is only the rational element that should occupy the top of the hierarchy of these elements that make up the soul and then prevail over it.
This triple conception of the nature of the soul as formulated by Plato is an affirmation of the existence of this conflict and the contradictory duality within man between reason and emotion. In the Phaedrus dialogue, he presents a famous analogy in which he illustrates the nature of this conflict between the three elements or forces of the soul. Unruly violent which expresses the lustful element and needs the driver to control and restrain him. Thus, comes the classical perception that puts the mind as a guard and a leader at the center and subject to all emotions, emotions, and passions.
This was the traditional image that prevailed and cast a shadow over the following years, and we will find resonance with the “Descartes” in the early modern era through the division of another binary gives the mind a separate and stand-alone nature, this image confirms that all emotional or emotional is an obstacle to rationality In the words of Shakespeare, he shouted to Hamlet, “Show me a man who is not enslaved by the emotion and will be brought down in the darkness of the heart and the depths of my heart.”
Although this traditional perception has prevailed for many centuries, we will not execute some of the attempts to turn Plato’s theory on its head, just as the English philosopher David Hume did in the 18th century. rationality that has been put forward since Plato, moral behavior is the source of emotion, not logic or reason, emotion is that guide human and control the goodness or ugliness of the things; the mind, he said it should be a slave to the whims of passion and cannot lead any other role only to obey and serve . So how did this philosophical debate end in the 20th century with the rise of psychological and neurological studies?
The heart has its causes in neuroscience:
Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, in his famous book “Descartes’ Mistake: Emotion, Mind and the Human Brain,” tells us about a patient named Elliot who had gone to his clinic to seek advice after a benign tumor was removed from his brain membranes. On the frontal lobes of the brain, Elliott’s problem was not a mental problem. His mental, linguistic, computational, or memory and all aspects of thinking were not affected after his operation;
He has lost his sense of prioritizing and balancing something better with something, so he no longer distinguishes the wise decisions he should make or plan for his future. Eliot admits that what he was passionate about in the past no longer drives him.
Damasio reviews similar cases of patients who all share injuries to the front of the frontal lobe of the brain, yet their mental strength has not been affected as much as their emotional responses, which appear in their decisions, lead to many problems as in the case of Elliot. If Descartes is credited with seeing the possibility that the mind can perform its functions and functions in the absence of emotion and in isolation, here comes the “Damasio” to oppose him in his book; To man, to become a blind mind.
Elliott’s case confirms that the absence of emotion will lose man’s ability to make decisions and determine appropriate behaviors. We do not want to repeat those classical quiches such as the words of Marcus Aurelius: Emotion-free self-fortress, fortress, and resort, as well as do not want to win this time in the name of neuroscience, in favor of Emotion in its ancient struggle with the mind, this conflict originated primarily through false logic of thinking, emphasizes only one option and excludes the other; mind or emotion? In fact, we need both together, mental analysis and emotional responses in uninterested overlap and engagement.
Emotional response and decision making:
The idea of a dual division between reason and emotion prevailed over scientific research in psychology. I was interested in revealing the cognitive aspects of emotion as well as the development of technological tools such as radiography of the brain, all of which led to a different scientific picture in the twentieth century emphasizing the link between mental and cognitive processes and emotion, and thus separation is impossible.
Emotion helps us to identify events and things that are important and valuable to us. Therefore, they serve as a primary guide or guide to our needs, goals, and values. Emotion is important in making decisions when the things that appear before us are confused and unclear to build on them in a rational and logical way to make any decision. Recognizing the importance of emotion in decision-making, imagine the following experience: Assuming that you are the Minister of Health in your country and have heard of a new disease that could kill 600 people, you should choose one of the following solutions to cope with the disease: Solution A is a life-saving treatment for 200 people; The risk is either that the 600 will be saved Or if it could kill all 600 people, what would you choose? Most participants in this experiment will choose Solution A.
Now imagine once again the proposals put forward after reformulation as follows: Solution (A) is a treatment that will kill 400 people, and solution (B) is a treatment that could save the lives of 600 people, but there is a possibility that they will kill all of them, what to choose? Most people this time will choose Solution B although the two offerings are exactly the same, that is, the two offers are the same, but the only difference in word change. In the first presentation, the advantages of solution (a), ie, saving 200 patients, were presented, and in the second, he confirmed that 400 people would die in the case of the same solution (a). Hence, the solution (b) was uncertain. People always avoid uncertain solutions, especially if There was a guarantee that 200 people would be saved, but they would also prefer to avoid a definite loss, that is, killing 400 people, if there was another option, even if it was uncertain.
Despite the importance of emotion as a guide or contributing engine in decision-making, we must pay attention to those situations in which we make decisions that will affect us in the long term; Or emotional reactions that happen to us during certain decisions, whether we are frustrated or anxious, for example, and then use those responses as an indication of what is most valuable to us.
Waiting for the second marshmallow and delayed fun:
A famous experiment by
psychologist Walter Michelle and his colleagues in the early 1970s at Stanford
University, known as
the marshmallow test, helps us illustrate short-term emotional responses, as well as rational control of emotion over the long term. From children in a room free from any manifestations of amusement, each of them individually, sitting on a bench in front of them a piece of marshmallow candy, children are chosen between two things: the first choice to eat the piece of marshmallow now without waiting, and the second choice to wait 15 minutes until the supervisor returns to Room and then they are given a second piece Marshmallow reward them with first ate them, some children are able to control the same and waits for this time, others carried out as soon as the supervisor because they eat from the room.
The lives of these children involved in the experiment were tracked later and over many years, with the result that children who ate marshmallow quickly without waiting had many behavioral problems. In contrast, children who were able to exercise restraint and wait for the second marshmallow had shown success and progress in their lives. Tuition and greater effectiveness in managing their lives. This type of restraint refers to what is known as delayed gratification or delayed pleasure versus rapid instantaneous gratification; the ability of the mind to control emotions and emotions during decision-making, and although there are criticisms and revisions of this experience, this will not diminish the importance of reflection and reflection on her thesis that she presents.
Going back to Plato, what if the ancient Greek wise rewrote his virtuous city today? Given that contemporary psychological and neurological research, what would be the analogy he would use this time? Will he retain the chariot driven by two horses and driven by the mind? If a man is to recognize the point of balance or parity between mental analysis and emotional responses – through joint action and not guardianship – can we wait for the heart to reason in his hot responses? Do we expect the mind to beat in its cold decisions? In what sense will we wait for the second marshmallow? Couldn’t the first marshmallow sometimes be more valuable to some? Perhaps irreplaceable if emotion froze under the control of cold rationality?