Dawin's Regret

[dizzydoll]

oops I was editing my post when you slipped in again.lol

You started out saying 'intellectual' and now you're saying 'logical'. Which do you mean?

Both I suppose. And you never answered my questions. Is it not true that emotional people feel things and logical people think things? Can you provide an example of a logical person who was emotionally inclined? or vise versa?

...

I agree Istvan, and thats why I brought this topic here. To discover others views. This is just a simple girls opinion now but that quote you provide started out poetic and then it switched to analytical. As he said, he would have enjoyed poetry if he had taken the time.

[billl]

I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would be an example of someone who could be described as logical/rational, as well as a person with emotional depth. I think there are a lot of such people (I mean, logical and 'emotional') in the world, and everyone probably knows quite a few. More obvious examples would be people working in an organizing capacity for certain non-profits/charities. But even a compassionate or empathetic task-master/boss would serve well enough as an example, in my opinion. Probably a majority of good coaches and managers would have the capacity to work in both realms (logical and emotional). A good physician would, as well.

I think there might be some confusion here because the phrase 'an emotional person' often might be used to indicate someone who would be irrational, or unstable--it is a sort of stereotype. But, of course, this discussion would hopefully be addressing something more than such an extreme. Similarly, I think a rational person would generally be capable of having a rich emotional life--they wouldn't necessarily devalue emotions (theirs or others).

Is an "emotionally-inclined" person necessarily a person who is unable to control their emotions, or vulnerable to breakdowns or emotional manipulation, etc? If so, then there's a huge gap between them, and the self-conception we see in Darwin's lament.

[dizzydoll]

I see your point Bill and of course you make perfect sense. But still, I feel people lean more in one area than others. I dont believe anyone is able to be "all logic" or "all emotion" all of the time. And naturally I dont refer to any extreme either side of this coin. Most people either feel things or think things first and foremost but it doesnt mean that capacity is restricted to either feeling or thought.

I think a rational person would generally be capable of having a rich emotional life--they wouldn't necessarily devalue emotions

true but as a rational person he thinks things out rather than relying on his feeling. Its got nothing to do with not having emotions.

Our friend Mr Darwin was more logical than emotional IMO, but again that doesnt mean he didnt have emotions

[Babbalanja]

I agree Istvan, and thats why I brought this topic here. To discover others views. This is just a simple girls opinion now but that quote you provide started out poetic and then it switched to analytical. As he said, he would have enjoyed poetry if he had taken the time.

I'm glad I could contribute to what little you know about Darwin.

Regards,

Istvan

[dizzydoll]

Thank you Istvan and please feel free to add other creative ideas that Darwin brings to the table.

If I had not been reading a spiritual website I would have not come across his comment. I too am pleased that I did but no doubt for different reasons.

[OrphanPip]

Seems to me that Darwin was lamenting being a workaholic not being overly rational.

It is an absurd caricature of scientist to suggest that they all behave and believe like Vulcans out of Star Trek. Scientist have lives outside of science with their friends, family, and lovers. An inclination for reading poetry is no test of the "emotional" capacity of an individual.

[JuniperWoolf]

Seems to me that Darwin was lamenting being a workaholic not being overly rational.

Exactly. This quote displays an imbalance between work and fun, not science and religion (or rationality and spirituality).

[dizzydoll]

An inclination for reading poetry is no test of the "emotional" capacity of an individual.

I disagree as any poet will know, one has to dig deep emotionally to touch the hearts and souls of others. As Darwin noted this as his Regrets, who are we to doubt him?

[kiki1982]

I agree with OprhanPip and Juniperwoolf.

But on the same note, I just want to add an observation of mine.

A lot of professors, a lot of professional people who are not busy with art, but rather with science, logical things, have hobbies that tend to the emotional side. Prime ministers paint, other politicians play the piano. The other day one of the two most well-known weather forcasters in Begium admitted to being an avid piano-player. One of the eldest politicians in the country (his career is over now) has started career as Jazz pianist.

My father is a civil engineer (very theoretical) and he designs the electronic make-up of brail-printers, yet he is the most avid lover of art you can imagine.

Leonardo Da Vinci is a good example too: he was very much busy with science, but made the most beautiful paintings. Yet, he was an inventor.

So, no, scientists are not unable to have an emotional side.

[dizzydoll]

There are a few Kiki but dont you think the vast majority pigeon-hole themselves into one extreme or the other?

[dizzydoll]

It is an absurd caricature of scientist to suggest that they all behave and believe like Vulcans out of Star Trek.

I am not a movie boff. Lets just say I dont know the depth of the dimension you live in and nor do you know mine. There are those who rely more on rational [also know as common sense] and then there are those [who go against advice given] who rely more on their intuition, which usually pays off with surprising results. The former relies on thought processes, the latter on feeling.

This thread keeps heading towards "emotions", which its too broad a word. How he felt is a much better way of looking at Darwin's regret.

[MarkBastable]

There are a few Kiki but dont you think the vast majority pigeon-hole themselves into one extreme or the other?

No. I have noticed, though, that people who regard themselves as heavily-biased one way or the another tend to think that everyone else is too.

[dizzydoll]

Oh I didnt think I was being baised, only offering my views.. but then if I am biased, as you say, then I'm probably incapable of seeing it.

[MarkBastable]

Incidentally, here's a pretty amazing marriage of the creative and the mathematical, which I think demonstrates emotional and logical talents being simultaneously applied.

In fact, I think that many people hugely underestimate the role of the intellectual and logical in the creative process. In my experience many readers, for instance, are almost offended to discover the extent to which a novel is the result of analytical and structural processes.

[Niamh]

Seems to me that Darwin was lamenting being a workaholic not being overly rational.

It is an absurd caricature of scientist to suggest that they all behave and believe like Vulcans out of Star Trek. Scientist have lives outside of science with their friends, family, and lovers. An inclination for reading poetry is no test of the "emotional" capacity of an individual.

Exactly. This quote displays an imbalance between work and fun, not science and religion (or rationality and spirituality).

I couldnt agree with you both more! Darwin spent so much time working that he's regreting not getting to enjoy the other things in life like reading. He's saying if he had the chance to go back he'd make sure he added a healthy dose of enjoyment and pleasure to his week.

Faraday is a good example of having a life outside of science. He was devoted to his religion and his family and spent much time socialising with friends. He always seemed to devote time to it especially after his meltdown.