But are reason and emotion mutually exclusive? Or do they constitute two extremes of one common continuum of our experience? That is, do they form a dichotomy, or a continuum?
G. dicha, in two parts, temnein, to cut: to cut in two A dichotomy is very simply a division. In logic it is a division of a class into two opposed or mutually exclusive subclasses. For example the real as opposed to unreal. Significantly, each of the subclasses can exist in their own right, independent of their opposite.
L. com, together, -tenere, to hold: to hold together A continuum is a continuous series that stretches from one extreme to an opposing extreme, yet whose parts cannot be separated or separately discerned. An example of this would be the light spectrum, in which none of the frequencies of light — even pure white and pure black — can be totally separated from the whole.
The way I am looking at it though, is the judicial concept of REASONABLE DOUBT, we don’t seek out EMOTIONAL DOUBT.
Say you come upon a pedophile raping your toddler daughter. You can react in one of two ways:
1) Vigilante Justice: Beat him to death, or injure him sufficiently to necessitate hospitalization.
2) Normative Justice: Restrain him and call authorities so he may be sent to a mental institution.
In my mind, reaction 1) is a display of emotion, reaction 2) a display of reason.
Emotion is a manifestation of feelings, while Reason is a manifestation of intellectual elaboration.
If they are NOT mutually exclusive, how are they related?
Why do we not allow doctors related to patients to treat them? Why are criminal trials at times moved from the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred?
Is it sensical to poll the mothers of soldiers to reflect views on the justness of a campaign of war?
Are the victims of crime the best people to offer opinions on whether Justice has truly been served or not?
Please vote above, and comment below the video.
Recently another metaphor has occurred to me, that of the end of a romantic relationship.
There are two ‘endings’ if you will–the door slamming, the ring being flung in your face, the viewing of a corpse..these may be described as a a REASONABLE end–the end in documents, the end told to society. The EMOTIONAL end though never really coincides but is when one can say they are ‘over the pain’, or ‘over the feeling of being within the embrace of a relationship’; when sufficient time has passed that one may refer to themselves as single once more–when perhaps one can start dating again or contemplating a different journey of a future.
Actually this does not have to be related to romance necessarily but a loss. There is a date of death, but one’s emotional contemplation is a different journey that simple reality.
An earlier posting of mine:
This is so wrong: “One relative of a murder victim recently told the group: “If people could feel the way we feel for just one moment, the whole justice system would be changed.””*–if one thinks this way, they lack the comprehension of the POINT of a ‘justice’ system.
A justice system is not there to serve the victims of crime, but pass commentary regarding the philosophy of societal justice. They are so very different.
It is silly to even ask victims if “justice has been served” as they do in the media, after a case. Victims aren’t in the position to ‘judge’ that.
It is similar to asking a mother who’s child is serving in the army in Afghanistan whether she supports the troops or is ‘behind the mission’–what kinda answer do you expect her to have? “Ehh screw my child’s life–the whole thing is hogwash. . .”?
THIS is why they say “justice is blind”–because there ought not be any bias, nor any emotion.
It should be a sterile study of philosophical thought, not vengence.
I hope I can realize this, if I were to become a victim of crime one day.