alan wrote:Good advice, Ben. "End of faith" is a must-read.
Dan, I'm coming from a position that says quantifiable thoughts should be subject to logical analysis, then accepted or rejected on that basis alone. I'm discounting emotional reactions. I'm arguing for a more structured, provable basis for our assertions. I don't see any conflict between this and the idea that we can come to an understanding of our experiences that is liberating, but I do have reservations about broad-based claims about, for instance, the is-ness of reality.
Don't mean to be cruel and cold hearted here. But my experience is that emotion is far overvalued, while rationality is often left to sit alone in the corner. I'm trying to correct that imbalance.
Does reason in one's life choices ever function without emotion?alan wrote:In the big ballroom of life, Emotion gets all the dances. Reason sits alone in the corner, thinking about things.
The hammer analogy is not a correct representation of the situation.
It is the nature of the beast.alan wrote:No. There is certainly an emotional aspect in our decisions. I'm arguing that the scales are often imbalanced.
Well, that is what the Dhamma is for, but it takes work, obviously.alan wrote:So then let's not be beasts.
And what is the underlying emotion for all these choices?alan wrote: I've changed my "likes" to better correspond with what is best for my body, and I've done it through a process that was based on rational decisions.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], phil and 5 guests