(Untitled)

[dimpled_infamy]

I think that I'm starting to lean more and more toward cognitivist theories of emotion -- or rather, that cognitivism, in my limited encounters of it, seems to align with things that I've come to believe for awhile now. I think that the dichotomy of heart versus mind is a metaphorical construction, and that the two are simply different facets, or

Comments

[ktwilight]

"I wonder whether the belief that one should 'always follow one's heart' unnecessarily mystifies the reasons behind people's actions."

That is fascinating to me. I think it's certainly a possibility. It's problematic really though, because the belief is suggested as a positive, and generally accepted as one, but going by the binary that it itself is based on, it suggests persuing desires without logic and reason. Now, I am by no means a "head" over "heart" type, but it sometimes worries me how much trouble we get ourselves into by creating a binary that makes "following the heart" more foolhardy and dangerous, and then generally accepting it as virtuous.

I think you might be right in re-defining the binary as two different perspectives, or lenses by which to analyse our own consciousness, but if that's the case, are we filtering our thoughts/feelings internally, and is that what creates conflicting emotions and thoughts. What I mean to say is, are our internal conflicts merely ramifications of a duality we ourselves have constructed? And if so, is the unification of thoughts and feelings the solution to internal conflict?

As usual, your journal makes me think. Thanks! :')

[dimpled_infamy]

Or does my journal make you feel? :P Lousy jokes aside, you're welcome. :)

I don't believe that (conceptually) unifying thought with feeling will solve internal conflict, so much as help us to acknowledge that we are conflicted beings, and that the conflict comes not from two separate faculties at constant war, but rather from the fact that we ascribe different values to our options. I suspect that usually we choose something because we want it more, or because we want it in a way that we've chosen to prioritise over our other impulse(s).

I think that the problem with attributing one impulse to the heart and another to the head is that it can (inaccurately) obscure the element of choice involved, particularly in the former case. Saying that your heart led you to do it, in a way, denies some of your own agency, displacing it onto some overwhelming force beyond your control. Conversely, by re-defining emotion as another kind of thought, we at least acknowledge that our own mental processes can sometimes be erratic, and also leave open the possibility that our feelings can change and be influenced. The "follow your heart" sentiment, while I often appreciate it, often coincides with a kind of fatalism. And the suggestion that I might ultimately have no control over my emotional destiny is a dismaying one to me.

[ktwilight]

Yes. I think you're right. :')

[dimpled_infamy]

Thanks. All in a day's work. :P