The Relationship between Reason and Passion - Article Example

The Relationship between Reason and Passion Name: Course: Tutor: Date: The Relationship between Reason and Passion Aristotle and Hume are two prominent philosophers who have given insight about reason and passion in relation to how the two affect practical reasoning. The two however have conflicting ideals about both reason and passion. This essay is going to look at their approaches – that is how each affects our understanding of passion and reason. In the end, this essay, will give a verdict about whom between Aristotle and Hume can be believed more in his approach to these two subjects. Hume (1739) suggests that reason by itself is not adequate to formulate ideas or knowledge. Rather, knowledge is because of experience, whose source is the sensory perceptions. More so, he says that passion is original and contains a non-representative quality, which makes it a copy of an existing or modified identity. Hume (1739) further indicates that reason is the realization of truth or lies. To this effect, he claims that things that do not represent some truth or falsehood can never be the subjects of our reasoning. To this effect, it is clear that that Hume was totally convinced that reasoning is derived from custom only and not the result of the cognitive nature (Rasmussen, 2005). Aristotle on the other hand believed that critical thinking, which falls under reason, is critical to the development of a person and the society at large (Brand, 2009). To this effect, Aristotle reckoned that human beings use logic, interpretation, analysis, criticism and evaluation in their every day life. Aristotle however agrees that curiosity, which he defines as an innate condition necessary for learning is something that comes naturally. This is unlike reason, which Aristotle notes that is acquired last, but usually practised first (Brand, 2009). Hume (1759) notes that curiosity is the same thing as passion. To him, curiosity is such a unique feeling that cannot be classified. He connotes that in the absence of curiosity, human beings would be unable to pass and share information. Hume discusses curiosity in the context of passion, which has intimate connections with desire, volition and aversion. These three feelings motivate people to act and think. Hume’s analysis of curiosity and passion provides us with a glimpse of the basic human drive, which prompts people to think and open up in readiness to receive knowledge. According to Tiles (1990), Hume sees reason and passion as two very distinct and diverse subjects. Accordingly, he argues that the human mind identifies passion or finds a passion. As such, Hume was of the opinion that the human mind can have multiple passions, which then pulls the person to act in different directions. Reason on the other hand alerts mixed feelings about actions. For example, one may be passionate about ice-cream and chocolate eating. Reason on the other hand is accountable for the person thinking about the taste, the satisfaction and the consequence of eating ice-cream and chocolate. Based on one’s reason, he or she then reaches out to take a bite, or holds back in restraint. From this illustration, Hume’s (1759) argument that passion and reason do not conflict seem right. He states that only passions conflict, but rarely do reason and passion conflict. This means that the passion to remain healthy could conflict with the person’s passion of eating the chocolate or ice cream hence resulting in him refraining from eating the two items. Passion is mainly concerned with emotions, and is therefore involuntary, while passion is voluntary and mainly involves following a chosen line of action. As such, reason is responsible for planning, and personal control (Lazarus & Lazarus, 1996). However, seeing that we live in a society that has stereotypes and inherited notions, both reason and passion are most likely affected by these environmental influences. According to Lazarus and Lazarus (1996), environmental influences belittle and subjugate passion, thus affecting the way man reacts to emotions. In addition, because reason thrives in the day-to-day development of the human mind, it keeps the primitive passions (such as the ones that lead animals to act the way they do) in check. Passion is presented in two sequential processes: arousal and control (Lazarus & Lazarus 1996). In the first stage, an arousal of the emotion occurs. This is however followed by a series of reasoning actions, whereby an appraisal of the emotion is done and the person determines whether the emotion is threatening, beneficial or harmful. Reasoning at this stage may be far from accurate because the person still has strong emotional links to the subject. The second stage involves deciding the best action to take. Here, a person decides about the action that is most beneficial to him or her. In addition, he or she considers the implications that the actions will have on others. Depending on this, one tries to control their passions in order to fit within the immediate environment. According to Lazarus and Lazarus (1996), very strong passions make a person single-minded, thus giving reason little chance, if any, to prevail. This however can lead to snappy foolish decisions, which the person may regret later once reasoning is allowed to take over. A good example is crime of passion. Overall, striking a balance between passion and reason seems like the best idea because people who are unable to regulate their passions have a hard time fitting into the society, while those who depend on reason too much lead over controlled lives. According to Millgram (1996), practical reasoning is directed towards satisfying antecedent desires. However, in Hume’s own admission in the book Treatise of human nature, says that reason cannot help but be the slave of passion. And as such, reason can never pretend to any other role besides serving and obeying passion (Millgram, 1995). Modern philosophers take this to mean that reason is ‘allocated’ the responsibility of finding the means to satisfy passion. Some philosophers argue that the practical reasoning generates supplementary motivations, which include either intentions or desires, to satisfy the initial desires that people have. To this effect, practical reasoning enables a person to engage in coercive and critical functions. When this happens, the one is able to visualize the result in his mind and hence pursue it with the available means. In such a case, the means always justifies the end. In the process of trying to achieve the first passion, Millgram (1995) reckons that often times, reason returns more passions, which must fit in with the initial passion. Aristotle believed that in addition to practical reasoning, humans were also capable of theoretical reasoning (Audi, 2006). According to him, theoretical reasoning is important to human beings because they use the same to know things. Practical reasoning on the other hand is geared to figuring out how to meet specific needs. Aristotle believed that it is practical reasoning that people use to decide whether, when and why to portray emotions such as anger or happiness. To him, a viable practical argument has a premise that is not only true but also supported by logic and hence its end is worth pursuing (Velleman, 2000). To him any end that directs how a person is feeling to eudemonia should be pursued. To this end, Aristotle held the opinion that achieving eudemonia requires and individual to make good choices as guided by rational principles and reason. To Aristotle, reason guides people’s emotions, desires, feelings and actions. To this end, he believed that reason guides into choosing the right action fit for a particular scenario, and guides us on what to care about. If we were to hold Aristotle’s claim as true, then we can conclusively say that reason is responsible for all our rude and courteous acts. Concerning development, reasoning would therefore be responsible for our need to develop as a society, or the narrow mindsets where everyone concentrates on their narrow interests. When compared to Hume’s approach to reason as discussed in the upper section of this paper, it is apparent that Aristotle has a very distinct outlook to passion and reason. While Hume maintains that reason can combat passion, Aristotle argues that reason does not always conquer passion. In strong-willed people, Aristotle concurs with Hume that reason would always win over passion. Nevertheless, this is not at all times the case in weak-willed people. To Aristotle, reasoning is the calculative part of a person that reasons out the consequences of an action or inaction. Passion on the other hand, regards the emotional-desiderative part of a person, which handles his feelings, desires and emotions. The comparison’s between Hume and Aristotle is evidence that while the latter believes in rationality, the former does not. To Hume, reason is incapable of informing human beings of the values of specific things (Wayner, 1988). His argument is that value is not intrinsic to any given item and as such can only be imposed by people on the specific items. Accordingly, it is evident that Hume believes that people attribute all ideas and concepts to an item. This however depends on each person’s sense of experience. To Aristotle, reason is representative of all the virtues that help a person lead a good fruitful life. Reason enables a person to act in the right way, be at the right place at the right time and uphold virtues such as temperance, courage justice and wisdom (Aristotle, 1985). Aristotle has so much confidence in the abilities of reason such that he argues that reason is good by itself and therefore needs no justification, since it is self-evident. Hume does not share Aristotle’s notion on reason and its connection to virtues. To him, human beings are guided by basic principles, which are highly affected by a specific way that human beings respond to emotion (Broadie, 1993). To Hume, there is a moral sentiment that human beings uphold which approves happiness and disapproves suffering (Hume, 1983). These moral sentiments are what Hume divides into two categories namely; virtues and vices. According to him, vices advance human suffering, while virtues advance human happiness (Hume, 1983). To Aristotle, the level of societal development depends entirely on the level of individual inspiration to development. Aristotle argues that every individual is motivated by a deep-seated self-interest. As such, before considering the greater good that an action will earn, a human being will always consider the impact that the same will have on him or her. However, Aristotle believes that this self-interest usually leads to a better society because when different individuals are concerned about their individual welfares, there is a tendency that the collective need to live well will flow over to the larger society (Aristotle, 1985). Hume however believes that the self-interest doctrine is not only convoluted but also complex (Hume, 1759). Hume is of the opinion that the self-interests as argued by Aristotle cannot work without individuals inventing secret motives to back them up. By the word ‘secret’ Hume states that the motives should be unknown to any one else except the person. To this effect, Hume argues that the person should go to an extent of denying the motives should any one else suspect them (Hume, 1983). Because such would not work for the benefit of the larger community, Hume states that Aristotle’s argument is not conclusive (Shaw, 1998). To counter this, he states that human beings possess an emotional mechanism that helps them respond favourably to the prospect of human happiness as opposed to human suffering. Aristotle believes that in order for human beings to have a good life, they must be guided by reason (Aristotle, 1985). To him, all decisions made by people can be defended using logical arguments. In addition, human beings are guided by true and invaluable beliefs. Judging by this, it is precise to say that Aristotle believed that people who have little capacity to reason did not live their lives fully. This is for the reason that such people lack the capacity to deliberate and hence their well-being is not assured. Aristotle divides the reasoning life into two distinct categories; the contemplative life, which engages in theoretical reasoning for purposes of discovering the truth, and the political life, which is concerned and devoted to ensuring that society is functioning at its best (Richardson, 1997). On his part, Hume assumes an egalitarian stance, whereby he argues that the well-being of every one in the society counts. As such, he states that a virtuous life can only be described as a life that promotes the overall good for every one. Conclusion Practical reason is the capacity by human beings to reflect upon situations or circumstances in order to come up with an ideal response towards the same. The practical nature of this kind of reasoning is presented in the subject at hand and the consequences. Both Aristotle’s and Hume’s approaches towards the two subjects have some weak links that have attracted criticism from philosophers in the past. However, judging on the basis of whom between the two has a stronger and more convincing argument, this paper would choose to go with Aristotle. Although he does not support his arguments concerning practical reasoning, Aristotle presents a systematic description of how a rational person goes about answering a question or taking a decision. Most people resonate with Aristotle’s argument. On his part, Hume argues that reasoning is just part of the means-end reasoning process. He thus claims that reason cannot arouse passion, but morals do. This leads to the question as to whether reasoning is part of formulating morals. References Aristotle. (1985). Nicomachean Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Audi, R. (1996). Practical Reasoning. New York: Routledge Publishers Audi, R. (2006). Practical Reasoning and Ethical Decisions. New York: Routledge Brand, W. (2009). Hume’s account of Curiosity. The Journal of Value Inquiry. 43: 83-96 Broadie, S. (1993). Ethics with Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hume, D. (1983). An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Hume, D. (2003). The Treatise of Human Nature. New York: Courier Dover Publications. Lazarus, R. & Lazarus, B. (1996). Passion and Reason: Making Sense of Our Emotions Oxford: Oxford University Press. Millgram, E. (1995). Was Hume a Humean? Hume studies. XXI (1): 75-93. Rasmussen, L. (2005). Ethics Expertise: History, contemporary Perspectives and Applications. New York: Springer. Richardson, H. (1997). Practical Reasoning about Final Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Shaw, D. (1998). Reason and Feeling in Hume’s Action Theory and Moral philosophy: Hume’s Reasonable Passion. Studies in the History of Philosophy. Vol. 49 Tiles, J. (1990). Dewey: The Arguments of the Philosophers. Ed. Reprint. New York: Routledge. Velleman, J. (2000). The Possibility of Practical Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wayner, G. (1988). Toward a Phenomenology of Conscientious Action and a Theory of the Practicality of Reason: Studies in the History of the Problem. Vol.1. Read More