Perhaps it’s indicative of my lack of imagination, but I fail to see any benefits to abandoning reason. It’s amazing to me that advocates of irrationality still try to use reason to justify their position. Reason is perhaps in some ways a game, but it’s a game that produces results when you follow the rules. Irrationality is simply “might makes right” in a mental instead of physical sense.
In today’s America, irrationality is a virtue because it promises Faith, the magical elixir that will solve all problems. Or so I am told. My conservative friends follow MAGA and consider me deceived by Satan. My liberal friends tell me things like “Depak Chopra has disproven Darwin! Matter doesn’t evolve in to Spirit, Spirit involves (sic) in to Matter!” I don’t know what involution is, but nothing in biology or modern medicine makes sense without evolution
In the reason - emotion debate, I still don't fully understand the Stoic position. (I've read Margaret Graver's book).
According to this, for a non-wise person (so basically all normal people) there are only propatheia (pre-emotions) and pathe (bad emotions). Was there such a thing as the kathekonta (a suitable act even for non-wise people )?
Otherwise that would be a pretty gloomy view of the world of emotions. What about the joy of looking at something beautiful like the moon and feeling an inner gratitude for life?
A pathe? Because life and moon etc. are externals? Only joy for the own virtues when being a Sage ?
The contrast with Epicureanism is interesting but sometimes confusing.
What often confuses me at "Stoic vs Epicurean" debates is the role between virtue and emotion.:According to Seneca, the Stoics overcome Emotions and Pain and Epicurean try to avoid it:
There is this difference between ourselves and the other school: our ideal wise man feels his troubles, but overcomes them; their wise man doesn't even feel them. But we and they alike hold this idea, – that the wise man is self-sufficient. Nevertheless, he desires friends, neighbors, and associates, no matter how much he is sufficient unto himself.” (IX, 3)
Diogenes Laertius wrote the opposite view from Seneca for Epicureans: "...He will be more deeply moved by feelings, but this will not prove an obstacle to his wisdom...."
And here is a positive text from Cicero about the relationship between emotions, virtue and friendship which speaks more for the Epicurean point of view I think (even some pathe have natural and beneficial parts like the Epicurean Philodemus stated (thats because nature /evolution brings them about ):
Matthias, the question is complicated, however I'd say to ignore the issue of sagehood entirely. Yes, technically only the sage experiences positive emotions, and those are more than a bit limited. But the later Stoics, especially Epictetus, hardly talk about the figure of the sage at all.
The Stoics are clear that everyone can make progress, and that one way to do that is always to inquire with ourselves about whether what we are about to do is kathekon, that is, appropriate.
This is one of those areas where I've argued Stoicism needs an update to the 21st century, informed by current cognitive science. That said, the Stoics did get one crucial thing right, I think: their distinction btw healthy and unhealthy emotions. The healthy ones (love, joy, etc.) are in agreement with reason; the unhealthy ones (anger, hatred, etc.) are not.
As for Epicureanism, it is a very interesting philosophy, but I ultimately find it limiting (e.g., the advice to stay away from social-political engagement) and a bit self-centered (spend your life with friends eating bread and cheese). But of course that's just my opinion.
I think there were Stoics who talked about progress zu eupatheia as to making progress to virtue (Seneca or Epcitetus maybe )
Maybe there were Updates or more practical explanations in the lost works/books of Stoicism. They were so practical in many things, but in others very theoretical, idealizing but I think it depends on the Stoic Philosopher.
This is a big plus point in Stoic philosophy, that every Stoic has granted himself a certain freedom of interpretation, as Seneca also emphasizes, and this philosophy therefore has space for updates/improvements.
For Epicureanism, I agree that it seems that they have maybe a weakness when it comes to a social-political engagement or for positive social feelings (compassiong, love, charity ...)
But otherwise it would fit to promote them because they were more open to feelings than the other schools.
I think that with "Philia" it is not meant by them to have some few friends but to see it as a virtue like Aristoteles defined it. And there is a teaching that Epicureans should pursue friendship with as many people as possible, if not than just and if this is not possible to avoid them.
And the Epicurean Hermachus was inclined towards the Oikeiosis doctrine. And later Epicureans as Diogenes of Oenanda were very social/philantropic in their attitude.
The same as with the Stoics maybe there would be a more positive picture of Epicureanism if more works/books would have survived.
But in the end the reason for that is in the core (the Epicureans say) "security as a natural desire"
Maybe all the social emotions were built by evolution for survival.... But who wants to here this? : )
It is more romantic to hear social feelings come from a divine realm or order : )
I am looking forward to this book and hope it will give me clarity and perhaps a more positive assessment of this topic:
"Theory and Practice in Epicurean Political Philosophy: Security, Justice and Tranquility"
Massimo, on a topic related to rationality, have you written about the Stoic perspective of the self and how Stoicism differs from the Buddhist teaching of non self? If not, would you consider a Substack post dedicated to the topic? Thanks for the consideration and your efforts!
Jason, I've written occasionally about Stoicism and Buddhism (for instance: https://thephilosophygarden.substack.com/p/prosoche-or-not-prosoche-on-stoic) but never specifically about that issue. I might devote a full post to it, but briefly: my understanding is that no-self does *not* mean that there is no self at all, but rather that there is no permanent essence that defines the self, as for instance in Hinduism.
Rather, Buddhists belief that the self is a process, continuously changing in time. If that's the case, then it is the very same concept the Stoics accept, in their case as a consequence of their embracing of the type of process metaphysics espoused by Heraclitus.
In both philosophies, that is, Buddhism and Stoicism, the impermanence of everything is used as a starting point to practice non-attachment, which brings about enlightenment in one case and eudaimonia in the other. I think.
Thanks Massimo. An extended reflection on the topic of self could be helpful. I’ve told my Buddhist friends that I’m never more aware of the self as when I’m meditating and aware - that which is experiencing the very present moment, whatever it might be. I also agree that people misunderstand the Buddhist concept of no-self if they don’t understand the main idea of denying an eternal existence versus the idea of no self at all, as you mention. Thanks again.
I swear Gödel's theorem is in the top 5 of the most inappropriately quoted theorems. It gets thrown at me and at others as if it was a "get out of jail" card for any logical argument. Then you ask what the theorems say about the specific topic of discussion and you only hear crickets.
Davide, oh by Zeus indeed! I have lost count of how many times people have thrown Godel's theorems at me, obviously with no understanding of what they are actually about. And no, they are not about the limits of reason in the broad sense of the term!
I fully agree. I will never understand the anti-reason “arguments”. One of the few areas where I think over-reliance on reason can be detrimental is with certain mental health situations.
Sometimes it’s better to go for a walk or meditate than try to reason about whether your life is bad or not (or some other thing). But to be clear, even this is a reasoned response, and it’s based on psychological reasoning! The rumination that is detrimental to mental health is also probably a poor form of reasoning (wondering whether or not you are a “loser” is likely illogical).
Matthew, precisely. Some times the *reasonable* thing to do is to hug someone, or to go for a walk, and so on. But it is neither "beyond" reason nor, in fact, unreasonable!
Sitting at an outside table at our rental in Sister’s Oregon. Check it out. We lived here for about 4 years after my retirement in 2006. This a delightful whistle stop on life’s adventure. Simply amazing to think even here I literally can reach out and read your wonderful articles.
When one of the company said to him, "Convince me that logic is necessary," - Would you have me, he said, demonstrate it to you? "Yes." Then I must use a demonstrative form of argument. "Granted." And how will you know, then, whether I argue sophistically? On this, the man being silent, You see, says he, that even by your own confession, logic is necessary; since without it, you cannot even learn whether it be necessary or not.
My friend, your defense of reason aligns well with Stoic principles, particularly in emphasizing the integration of reason and emotion rather than their false dichotomy. Your argument that we should strive to improve our reasoning, rather than abandoning it in the face of human fallibility, echoes our commitment to cultivating wisdom and virtue through rational reflection. The closing reference to Epictetus beautifully illustrates the self-defeating nature of arguments against reason, a point that would surely resonate with our Stoic predecessors.
Well done. Thanks for being a voice of reason in a world where nonsense seems to rule.
One the question of whether other animals do or do not "reason", one might take an evolutionary approach. What makes us human (perhaps) is that we've abstracted reason from the reasons embedded in our environment. Other animals, presumably, do not do this. But even the most basic responses organisms make, say, aversive or attractive chemotaxis depend on reasons that keep these organisms alive and reproducing.
Or put another way, humans have exapted from the reasons that keep us and the rest of life alive to "reasoning".
Brian, I try not to be dogmatic when it comes to the abilities of other animals. It’s an open empirical question. Either way, it’s hard to deny that reason plays a very special role in human life.
I was trying to be non-dogmatic here. That was why such qualifiers as "presumably" though we might not want to base presumption that a property does not exist on a lack of evidence for a property.
As to G.K. Chesterton, he's rather famous for fatuous statements; "pieces of crap", that is. It's hard to rank them all, but the one picked by Sutherland is a contender, to be sure.
Whenever I see that name, I reach for my bullshit shovel. If he had stated "The Sun rises in the East" I might be tempted to look Westward the next morning, just to be sure.
This from Mario Bunge is a good take on the question "raised" by Rebecca Roache.
"Fantasy — the flight from the obvious or the wellworn — is
of the essence of original work, whether in science, technology, art, literature, management, or daily life. However, let us not be carried away by the similarities, because scientists search for truth, which is optional in other fields.
That, the centrality of fantasy in science, is why the 19th-century German university bureaucracy used to pack mathematicians and theologians into a single division. Of course, by so doing they overlooked the point that, unlike
theologians, mathematicians spend most of their time proving conjectures rather than making them up."
Good piece, Massimo. I think the attack on reason is part of an overall assault on the Enlightenment values that have helped civilization progress since the 17th Century. I'll be so bold as to add that Gautama Buddha and some other spiritual teachers would not disagree since reason can lead one to spiritual faith.
As for Haidt and "The Righteous Mind," my memory of the book's point is that reason and emotion are largely determined by evolutionary factors and that, while reason dominates emotion, one can improve one's reasoning processes to bring one's emotions more in line with sound reasoning. So, I would not consider him an anti-rationalist.
Mel, thanks for the comment. I guess I have a different take on Haidt, with whom I spoke personally about these issues. But I could certainly be wrong!
Hi Massimo. Great piece, although I feel very disheartened that this concerted attack oN reason and of science is so resilient. I think intelligent people, when arguing for the “overrated nature of reason” or how intelligent design explains diversity, are just resourcing to clickbait, trying to appeal for supporters at any cost.
First, how did the author tried to reason that reason is overrated? By praying?
Second what a fallacy to mix reason and rationality. We can reason with wrong premises, wrong data, or reason with proper premises or data and reach wrong conclusions. Good ingredients can still yield a wrongly cooked meal.
Finally, I take particular aggravation about the mention to the prefrontal cortex and reason. The prefrontal cortex, part of the frontal lobe, is diverse. Lesions are rarely “pure”. They affect multiple areas of the prefrontal cortex and are often associated with loss of initiative, decreased motivation, reduced verbal output, and behavioral slowness (abulia) Other processing issues include rule learning, task switching, planning/ problem solving, and novelty detection and exogenous attention. Yes, the dorsolateral frontal cortices revolves around "intuition," and this emotional influence is associated with abstract decisions to create more efficient or “intuitive” decisions in a short span of time. Some frontal or prefrontal lesions spare reason to the cost of elements that influence reason. Some do not. And what does this say? That a good brain is a good thing.
Ah, Jordan Peterson... Yes, a lot of objections to reason are based on a number of logical fallacies, for instance that of false dichotomy implied by your example. Then again, people who are dismissive of reasoning will likely not pay attention to logic...
Perhaps it’s indicative of my lack of imagination, but I fail to see any benefits to abandoning reason. It’s amazing to me that advocates of irrationality still try to use reason to justify their position. Reason is perhaps in some ways a game, but it’s a game that produces results when you follow the rules. Irrationality is simply “might makes right” in a mental instead of physical sense.
In today’s America, irrationality is a virtue because it promises Faith, the magical elixir that will solve all problems. Or so I am told. My conservative friends follow MAGA and consider me deceived by Satan. My liberal friends tell me things like “Depak Chopra has disproven Darwin! Matter doesn’t evolve in to Spirit, Spirit involves (sic) in to Matter!” I don’t know what involution is, but nothing in biology or modern medicine makes sense without evolution
Bob, exactly. I like the notion that irrationality is “might makes right” in a mental instead of a physical sense!
In the reason - emotion debate, I still don't fully understand the Stoic position. (I've read Margaret Graver's book).
According to this, for a non-wise person (so basically all normal people) there are only propatheia (pre-emotions) and pathe (bad emotions). Was there such a thing as the kathekonta (a suitable act even for non-wise people )?
Otherwise that would be a pretty gloomy view of the world of emotions. What about the joy of looking at something beautiful like the moon and feeling an inner gratitude for life?
A pathe? Because life and moon etc. are externals? Only joy for the own virtues when being a Sage ?
The contrast with Epicureanism is interesting but sometimes confusing.
What often confuses me at "Stoic vs Epicurean" debates is the role between virtue and emotion.:According to Seneca, the Stoics overcome Emotions and Pain and Epicurean try to avoid it:
There is this difference between ourselves and the other school: our ideal wise man feels his troubles, but overcomes them; their wise man doesn't even feel them. But we and they alike hold this idea, – that the wise man is self-sufficient. Nevertheless, he desires friends, neighbors, and associates, no matter how much he is sufficient unto himself.” (IX, 3)
Diogenes Laertius wrote the opposite view from Seneca for Epicureans: "...He will be more deeply moved by feelings, but this will not prove an obstacle to his wisdom...."
https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/biography-of-epicurus-by-diogenes-laertius/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEnU59leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWa7FDwYU fCc2p1d9qaLpGDfof4HSjn_qMNJJhifymveldhVGYOd_Y-5Rg_aem_Enbew_IwY7WeXX4UqHv7fQ
And here is a positive text from Cicero about the relationship between emotions, virtue and friendship which speaks more for the Epicurean point of view I think (even some pathe have natural and beneficial parts like the Epicurean Philodemus stated (thats because nature /evolution brings them about ):
https://antigonejournal.com/2022/01/cicero-emotion/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEnU6BleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHa9To0XJaDwUNM0bpSEo3hDKLdo_LGSu8XByMeEP4E-o54c-yP5OlbOjRA_aem_So8PgvI9kYAjb-I1uIWUSw
What is the best way to deal with this and with perfectionism in Stoicism in general? All are vicious as long no Sage.
The Stoics have a right understanding of the term Arete. But terms are abstractions. Epicurus is more realistic again with virtues I think:
Hicks Translation [132] "For the virtues have grown into one with a pleasant life, and a pleasant life is inseparable from them" https://www.epicureanfriends.com/wcf/lexicon/index.php?entry/83-epicurus-letter-to-menoeceus/
I know this would be stuff for several subjects, but that are the points why I am still hanging between Stoicism and Epicureanism :)
Matthias, the question is complicated, however I'd say to ignore the issue of sagehood entirely. Yes, technically only the sage experiences positive emotions, and those are more than a bit limited. But the later Stoics, especially Epictetus, hardly talk about the figure of the sage at all.
The Stoics are clear that everyone can make progress, and that one way to do that is always to inquire with ourselves about whether what we are about to do is kathekon, that is, appropriate.
This is one of those areas where I've argued Stoicism needs an update to the 21st century, informed by current cognitive science. That said, the Stoics did get one crucial thing right, I think: their distinction btw healthy and unhealthy emotions. The healthy ones (love, joy, etc.) are in agreement with reason; the unhealthy ones (anger, hatred, etc.) are not.
If you are interested in the sage issue, there is a good book about it: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18474784-the-stoic-sage and I've written a multi-part commentary on it: https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/tag/on-the-nature-of-the-sage/
As for Epicureanism, it is a very interesting philosophy, but I ultimately find it limiting (e.g., the advice to stay away from social-political engagement) and a bit self-centered (spend your life with friends eating bread and cheese). But of course that's just my opinion.
Massimo, thank you for your response.
I think there were Stoics who talked about progress zu eupatheia as to making progress to virtue (Seneca or Epcitetus maybe )
Maybe there were Updates or more practical explanations in the lost works/books of Stoicism. They were so practical in many things, but in others very theoretical, idealizing but I think it depends on the Stoic Philosopher.
This is a big plus point in Stoic philosophy, that every Stoic has granted himself a certain freedom of interpretation, as Seneca also emphasizes, and this philosophy therefore has space for updates/improvements.
For Epicureanism, I agree that it seems that they have maybe a weakness when it comes to a social-political engagement or for positive social feelings (compassiong, love, charity ...)
But otherwise it would fit to promote them because they were more open to feelings than the other schools.
I think that with "Philia" it is not meant by them to have some few friends but to see it as a virtue like Aristoteles defined it. And there is a teaching that Epicureans should pursue friendship with as many people as possible, if not than just and if this is not possible to avoid them.
And the Epicurean Hermachus was inclined towards the Oikeiosis doctrine. And later Epicureans as Diogenes of Oenanda were very social/philantropic in their attitude.
The same as with the Stoics maybe there would be a more positive picture of Epicureanism if more works/books would have survived.
But in the end the reason for that is in the core (the Epicureans say) "security as a natural desire"
Maybe all the social emotions were built by evolution for survival.... But who wants to here this? : )
It is more romantic to hear social feelings come from a divine realm or order : )
I am looking forward to this book and hope it will give me clarity and perhaps a more positive assessment of this topic:
"Theory and Practice in Epicurean Political Philosophy: Security, Justice and Tranquility"
Javier Aoiz
https://amzn.eu/d/7HyDM4e
I'll check out your posts on the Stoic Sage next. Thank you for these treasures : )
Massimo, on a topic related to rationality, have you written about the Stoic perspective of the self and how Stoicism differs from the Buddhist teaching of non self? If not, would you consider a Substack post dedicated to the topic? Thanks for the consideration and your efforts!
Jason, I've written occasionally about Stoicism and Buddhism (for instance: https://thephilosophygarden.substack.com/p/prosoche-or-not-prosoche-on-stoic) but never specifically about that issue. I might devote a full post to it, but briefly: my understanding is that no-self does *not* mean that there is no self at all, but rather that there is no permanent essence that defines the self, as for instance in Hinduism.
Rather, Buddhists belief that the self is a process, continuously changing in time. If that's the case, then it is the very same concept the Stoics accept, in their case as a consequence of their embracing of the type of process metaphysics espoused by Heraclitus.
In both philosophies, that is, Buddhism and Stoicism, the impermanence of everything is used as a starting point to practice non-attachment, which brings about enlightenment in one case and eudaimonia in the other. I think.
Thanks Massimo. An extended reflection on the topic of self could be helpful. I’ve told my Buddhist friends that I’m never more aware of the self as when I’m meditating and aware - that which is experiencing the very present moment, whatever it might be. I also agree that people misunderstand the Buddhist concept of no-self if they don’t understand the main idea of denying an eternal existence versus the idea of no self at all, as you mention. Thanks again.
I swear Gödel's theorem is in the top 5 of the most inappropriately quoted theorems. It gets thrown at me and at others as if it was a "get out of jail" card for any logical argument. Then you ask what the theorems say about the specific topic of discussion and you only hear crickets.
Davide, oh by Zeus indeed! I have lost count of how many times people have thrown Godel's theorems at me, obviously with no understanding of what they are actually about. And no, they are not about the limits of reason in the broad sense of the term!
I fully agree. I will never understand the anti-reason “arguments”. One of the few areas where I think over-reliance on reason can be detrimental is with certain mental health situations.
Sometimes it’s better to go for a walk or meditate than try to reason about whether your life is bad or not (or some other thing). But to be clear, even this is a reasoned response, and it’s based on psychological reasoning! The rumination that is detrimental to mental health is also probably a poor form of reasoning (wondering whether or not you are a “loser” is likely illogical).
Matthew, precisely. Some times the *reasonable* thing to do is to hug someone, or to go for a walk, and so on. But it is neither "beyond" reason nor, in fact, unreasonable!
Sitting at an outside table at our rental in Sister’s Oregon. Check it out. We lived here for about 4 years after my retirement in 2006. This a delightful whistle stop on life’s adventure. Simply amazing to think even here I literally can reach out and read your wonderful articles.
Namaste 🙏🏻
Thank you Massimo. One point: the quote from Epictetus seems a luittle unclear in the translation. Here is another one (from https://anastrophe.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/perseus/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekNov21&query=Epict.%20Disc.%202.25&getid=1 )
When one of the company said to him, "Convince me that logic is necessary," - Would you have me, he said, demonstrate it to you? "Yes." Then I must use a demonstrative form of argument. "Granted." And how will you know, then, whether I argue sophistically? On this, the man being silent, You see, says he, that even by your own confession, logic is necessary; since without it, you cannot even learn whether it be necessary or not.
My friend, your defense of reason aligns well with Stoic principles, particularly in emphasizing the integration of reason and emotion rather than their false dichotomy. Your argument that we should strive to improve our reasoning, rather than abandoning it in the face of human fallibility, echoes our commitment to cultivating wisdom and virtue through rational reflection. The closing reference to Epictetus beautifully illustrates the self-defeating nature of arguments against reason, a point that would surely resonate with our Stoic predecessors.
Well done. Thanks for being a voice of reason in a world where nonsense seems to rule.
Thank you my friend, much appreciated.
Ooops. Forgot to thank you.
One the question of whether other animals do or do not "reason", one might take an evolutionary approach. What makes us human (perhaps) is that we've abstracted reason from the reasons embedded in our environment. Other animals, presumably, do not do this. But even the most basic responses organisms make, say, aversive or attractive chemotaxis depend on reasons that keep these organisms alive and reproducing.
Or put another way, humans have exapted from the reasons that keep us and the rest of life alive to "reasoning".
Brian, I try not to be dogmatic when it comes to the abilities of other animals. It’s an open empirical question. Either way, it’s hard to deny that reason plays a very special role in human life.
I was trying to be non-dogmatic here. That was why such qualifiers as "presumably" though we might not want to base presumption that a property does not exist on a lack of evidence for a property.
I’m in complete agreement.
As to G.K. Chesterton, he's rather famous for fatuous statements; "pieces of crap", that is. It's hard to rank them all, but the one picked by Sutherland is a contender, to be sure.
Whenever I see that name, I reach for my bullshit shovel. If he had stated "The Sun rises in the East" I might be tempted to look Westward the next morning, just to be sure.
😆
This from Mario Bunge is a good take on the question "raised" by Rebecca Roache.
"Fantasy — the flight from the obvious or the wellworn — is
of the essence of original work, whether in science, technology, art, literature, management, or daily life. However, let us not be carried away by the similarities, because scientists search for truth, which is optional in other fields.
That, the centrality of fantasy in science, is why the 19th-century German university bureaucracy used to pack mathematicians and theologians into a single division. Of course, by so doing they overlooked the point that, unlike
theologians, mathematicians spend most of their time proving conjectures rather than making them up."
"Doing Science in the Light of Philosophy "(2017)
Good piece, Massimo. I think the attack on reason is part of an overall assault on the Enlightenment values that have helped civilization progress since the 17th Century. I'll be so bold as to add that Gautama Buddha and some other spiritual teachers would not disagree since reason can lead one to spiritual faith.
As for Haidt and "The Righteous Mind," my memory of the book's point is that reason and emotion are largely determined by evolutionary factors and that, while reason dominates emotion, one can improve one's reasoning processes to bring one's emotions more in line with sound reasoning. So, I would not consider him an anti-rationalist.
Mel, thanks for the comment. I guess I have a different take on Haidt, with whom I spoke personally about these issues. But I could certainly be wrong!
I have a feeling you're right.
😆
Hi Massimo. Great piece, although I feel very disheartened that this concerted attack oN reason and of science is so resilient. I think intelligent people, when arguing for the “overrated nature of reason” or how intelligent design explains diversity, are just resourcing to clickbait, trying to appeal for supporters at any cost.
First, how did the author tried to reason that reason is overrated? By praying?
Second what a fallacy to mix reason and rationality. We can reason with wrong premises, wrong data, or reason with proper premises or data and reach wrong conclusions. Good ingredients can still yield a wrongly cooked meal.
Finally, I take particular aggravation about the mention to the prefrontal cortex and reason. The prefrontal cortex, part of the frontal lobe, is diverse. Lesions are rarely “pure”. They affect multiple areas of the prefrontal cortex and are often associated with loss of initiative, decreased motivation, reduced verbal output, and behavioral slowness (abulia) Other processing issues include rule learning, task switching, planning/ problem solving, and novelty detection and exogenous attention. Yes, the dorsolateral frontal cortices revolves around "intuition," and this emotional influence is associated with abstract decisions to create more efficient or “intuitive” decisions in a short span of time. Some frontal or prefrontal lesions spare reason to the cost of elements that influence reason. Some do not. And what does this say? That a good brain is a good thing.
Bizarre.
Indeed, a good brain is a good thing! 😃
That's a great line! "Reason is overrated some people argue." 😂
😆
Ah, Jordan Peterson... Yes, a lot of objections to reason are based on a number of logical fallacies, for instance that of false dichotomy implied by your example. Then again, people who are dismissive of reasoning will likely not pay attention to logic...