(Not-so?) New Hypothesis:

Reason is subordinate to emotion. Emotion determines the capacity of reason to apprehend the world. Emotion manifest either as a static state or a fluid state; typically what we associate with Emotion is the fluid state; we notice that when emotion is not fluid that reason as a neutral and uninhibited Avenue towards true things can function As indeed it sees itself : with no irony intended: Reason indeed sees, it views, it’s self as and unaffected identity, it axiomatically and reflexively sees its view as an un-inhibited clear vision.

My hypothesis is that the static state of emotion represents aspects of the world that are offensive to ones being; The shape or condition where the fluidity of emotion rests to thus attain relative stasis gives reason the platform to function, gives reason its field of data as well as its capacity to mean. This is to say that reason only is able to process the view that is allowed by the manifestation or state of emotion that exists for the individual.

The clarity it sees is but the clarity that is allowed by the emotional terrain, The emotional geography, if you will.


This is completely opposite of our traditional model of reason. But it could explain why the world manifests in the way It does, particularly in light of how we might be able to view scientific facts.





7 responses to “(Not-so?) New Hypothesis:”

  1. signature103 Avatar

    Is stasis truly stasis? And is reason neutral in stasis or coloured by emotion in a seemingly constant way?


    1. landzek Avatar

      Right. Perhaps there is only constant opening. Or constant rejection. Of emotional being. By reason.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Jon Awbrey Avatar

    Also Aristotle … maybe not subordinate but derivative.

    I referred to the relevant paragraph just recently:



    1. landzek Avatar

      Like a colored lens. Maybe is a good analogy: but there is no ‘relaxed’ state necessarily, only awareness and denial.
      There is no state absent of emotion. There is no ‘pure reason’.

      So. Is humes reference ?

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Hesiod Avatar

    David Hume beat you to this conclusion. 😛

    Liked by 1 person

    1. landzek Avatar

      Thx wow. Only read a little of Hume. But that makes sense, considering Kant.

      Could you point me to where Hume specifically talks about this?

      I mean the causality thing in the… I forget. get the name of that essay.

      But that would be helpful. Because I think , as I am beginning my masters program in counseling, That philosophy taken only by itself, as if reason is able to come to these large and substantial truths through its own resources, so to speak, by eliminating other factors actually creates its own condition of end, which would then probably account for this modern “death drive“ thing that we find everywhere.

      It’s like say the migration of Caribou. Emotions act as the geography through which reason is able to ascertain what the world is and what we should do in the world. Anthropocene stuff right there!

      Just a hypotheses but thank you if you could point me to where Hume talks about this that would be fabulous.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Hesiod Avatar

        On Reason, Hume directly states reason being subservient to the passions, and, if I remember correctly, it’s in Book 2. Emanating from this is Hume’s view that our understanding of the world is an extension of our sentimentality.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: