Humans logo

The science of thinking

logical thinking and emotional thinking

By alain JuniorPublished 2 years ago 6 min read
Like

Why is this important when discussing the nature of thinking? Well, because it is this very same concept that has bought about the current state of what we view as right and what we view as wrong. Our choice isn’t fully based on reason and fact but similarly on our emotional nature. And this is what gives use our understanding of what is right and what is wrong. From the facile to the laborious decisions. Our emotional views play a role just as important as our logical view when it comes to enabling policies. Now of course the main obvious truth about this concept, is that if it is true then it means that no one can ever be right.

Since we are all uniquely different and therefore all have different views of what is right and what is wrong. And this is a problem that have existed since this concept itself. The fact is that we all make decision and argument for and against what others visualize, affirmed and decide is the righteous believe or mindset to have in mind. Which creates the first question. can we truly live in a world where everyone holds separate believes? What does it even mean to be right or wrong? If we are all the same as humans, then why do we have different emotional views.

Of course, we have been looking deep into what could be the answer for these questions. And unsurprisingly, there have been multiple end results. But by far one of the most common and widely accepted is that our emotional nature effecting our logical view isn’t a problem. So long as the decision that we have made has been backed up and accepted by the majority. Which then lead to the next motive we see. Which is the choice of the majority. And that the majority is always right. or are they?

In a lot of sense this could be true mainly due to how different we all are. And it is evident that despite our differences, we could still have some common treat to which we all agree on when it comes to making basic decisions. However, this can only be true went discussing the most basic needs that we could have. Not went it comes to the most complex discussions and decision we will have to make. Yet it is through those complex decisions that the most important actions are been taken. An example of this could be when it come do decide about humanitarian needs.

Of course, we are all different and we are interested in different things and we also seek different paths. But one thing that we all have in common is that we all need resources to survive. Regardless of who you are you will need an amount of food, clothes, water, shelter etc. to survive. So, when it comes to our view of this things, we will all always have the same opinion which will be that every single one of us should have access to those resources at any given time. Because that is just a basic logical decision. But what happens when the decision switches to a more complicated view?

After all we will have the same viewpoint when it comes to the distribution of survival resources since it is just humanitarian needs. But human needs extend far beyond just the humanitarian need. There are physiological needs, security needs, self-esteem needs and need for self-actualization. The more the arguments and views on those different human need's progresses, the more each viewpoint becomes more and more personalized and the harder it becomes to find a general conclusion. This therefore becomes the point where the idea of the majority always been right does not make too much sense.

The believe that every single one of use need to have humanitarian needs fulfilled again it’s a fully logical view it does not include any type of emotional thinking. But the things like need for self-esteem and others does. And it cannot be fully decided on by just logical views. The argument of individual survival needs makes sense since it is a survival instinct. But what happen when the argument switches to individual freedom? In many ways this could be argued as a humanitarian need as well. However, this is not really the case.

One will argue that giving people the freedom to do whatever they want will be a substandard and will be something that will result in disorder and chaos. Therefore, individual should not be given the freedom do to whatever it is that they wish. The argument for this is that humans in nature are not perfect and they could have the desire to commit atrocities and act of immorality just like the could have the desire of committing the most generous, righteous and moral actions.

So, by allowing them to do whatever it is that they wish you are creating an environment where good deed will be made. But there is also the risk of the bad deed been made which is something that you will wish to avoid. Therefore, the argument will be that we should not allow individual to have their own individual freedom but instead, we should create an environment with social laws and restrictions. To make sure that only the good deed will be made, and the risk of the bad deed will be eliminated. And as a result, it will create a situation where only the good exist.

However, the other argument will be that if we do create this environment then someone will have to decide what it is that are classified as the good things to do and what are classified as the bad things to do. And since we all have a different opinion on those two, who will be the right person to decide what is good and what is bad. And thus, decide what should be allowed and what should not be allowed?

Meaning that it will be impossible for a system of social laws and restriction to be something that satisfies everyone. And that since we are all different and we all have different concept of what is good and what is bad, the normal thing to do will be to allow each single individual to make their one decision based on their own individual freedom. Meaning that it is a system of individual freedom that is needed.

The thing is that this way of thinking follows the same approach as the one about the humanitarian need. However, the issue is that the thought approach is the same while what is been thought about is different. For the idea about every human should have access to humanitarian needs, a fully general point of view is all that is required since when it comes to survival, all humans have the same need. So, a fully logical way of thinking is what is required. But when it comes to something like individual free will. Is it a completely different idea Meaning that the same general way of thinking that is fully logical will not be effective? So, what is needed is a completely different thought approach.

The way we think about concept that aren't fully rational but include feeling and emotion should be completely different from the way we think about concept that are fully rational. that is the main key point when talking about thinking. Which is that each way of thinking should be different for each concept that is been thought about.

PSYCHOLOGY

science
Like

About the Creator

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2024 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.