I've noticed frequently in my life how quickly an emotional person is dismissed in rational discourse. If someone gets outwardly worked up about something, whether that passion is anger, joy, or what have you (all passions displayed by the Incarnate Son of God), their ability to think clearly and fairly is called into question. But while I realize that there is such a thing as a fallacious "appeal to emotion" in which one manipulates the emotions of another to win an argument rather than use logic, having an emotional or personal connection to a subject matter does not necessarily mean one carries baggage or bias. An emotional connection to a certain issue can be a source of bias, but so can a lack of emotional engagement.
Consider the testimony of a Holocaust victim. Undoubtedly, many Holocaust victims would not be able to talk about and evaluate their experiences without emotion, whether that emotion is sadness or anger. Are we to invalidate their viewpoint because of this, insisting that they cannot have a well-reasoned view of this event because their personal engagement necessarily constitutes "baggage" or bias? Obviously not. One can display immense passion in an issue and still be perfectly rational and objective in their assessment of it. Indeed, as I said before, a personal acquaintance with certain phenomena, along with an engaged emotional response, may be a pre-condition for properly and fairly understanding something. While we can be lead astray by our emotions and personal feelings, we can also be led astray by indifference or a lack of experience.
I suppose in our Postmodern age, our inclination in the face of someone who displays a personal connection with an issue they are discussing is to assume some past experience clouds their current judgment. Someone who responds emotionally cannot possibly be rational or objective, right? Well I disagree, and I think objectivity sometimes requires an emotional or personal connection. To know something first hand, so long as this is accompanied by a consideration of the wider wisdom of others as well as much personal reflection, is often an invaluable source of insight otherwise unobtainable. The bottom line is that someone can get worked up about something and still be as objective and rational as Mr. Stoic or the person who does not wear his/her emotions/passions on the sleeve.
New Testament Intersections 4: Community Rule
23 hours ago
6 comments:
Hey man,
I just thought I might add something.
Some psychological research indicates that some kins of emotions hinder our ability to think critically, while others might enhance it. For example, anger, while a potential marker of a powerful experience, tends to interfere with one's ability to think through something with care. On the other hand, other emotions (e.g. sadness) can sometimes aid our ability to seriously ponder an issue.
In a number of ways, this is a very good thing. I mean, if you take fear, for example, you don't want fear to ellicit a lot of pondering (is that really a bear?), you want it to make you move! But sadness may help a person think over an issue to try and remedy whatever is causing the sadness.
Just thought I would add this point.
Hey David,
I would guess that any emotion that is "out of control" or "controlling you" in an overt and radical way will hinder your ability to think clearly. Sadness seems to be a more ponderous and relaxed emotion, whereas anger tends to be more volatile (and I'm not sure I'd call "fear" an emotion - is it? I feel like prima facie there should be some categories separating the various things we "feel," emotion being one. But I haven't given this much thought).
But I would submit that any emotion/feeling can be controlled by the Holy Spirit, and any emotion/feeling can be rightly ordered such that it does not break out and cause you to make stupid judgments. If we recognize that our emotions bubble up easily, we can ask ourselves why we are feeling what we are feeling, and we can use it as an indicator to deliver us potential truth about a situation.
Jesus exhibited the full gamut of human emotions, and Christians certainly wouldn't want to argue that He had poor judgment when He took out a whip and drove people out of the temple. If I have thought through something extensively, and still when I I bring it up or speak on it I find myself worked up, angry, sad, whatever, I think that this is a good and healthy human reaction, one prescribed by the Bible.
Now I will concede that in times of crisis, it is VERY difficult to think clearly, for our adrenaline and/or our emotions are running high. But even here, there are people who, while they feel emotion keenly and show it vividly, remain levelheaded and make good judgments. This tells me that human emotions/passions/feelings can be rightly ordered and controlled, and this does not necessarily entail that they be subdued or eradicated.
And I would even say, as I said in the post, that personal insight in the form of an emotional connection may be a prerequisite for some kinds of knowledge. So far from hindering it, I think emotion and personal acquaintance can actually enable a critical and objective analysis at times.
"I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit - I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart." (Romans 9:1-2)
Good that Christians take the apostle Paul seriously and don't accuse him of poor judgment!
Like fire, emotions have the potential for good and ill built into them. Anything uncontrolled is dangerous and potentially destructive.
In terms of being passionate about certain things (like theological and/or doctrinal positions), such passions can be likewise destructive if not controlled and kept within their proper boundaries.
Lastly, since human beings ARE emotional beings, there is no getting around the fact that emotions are a significant factor in our personal moral and theological deliberations.
Post a Comment