Jimmy_Jam
Senior Member
- Sep 29, 2012
- 1,071
- 136
- 48
I am curious to see what responses I will get. I'm not approaching this as a right or wrong, because after having done some online research, it seems a matter of context that absolutes.
My thinking is thus:
Fear cannot be rational. Fear is an emotion, one of the most primary emotions that humans have. When defined purely as an emotional response, I don't see how fear can be seen as rational in any way.
I've heard the counter argument that certain fears are rational and others not. For example, fear of cotton balls would be irrational while fear of a gun being pointed at you would be rational. I still don't agree. Fear is still a primal emotional response. A particular fear might be normal, or understandable, or natural, but it's still an emotion and this emotional response is irrational.
How one responds to a fear or situation may be rational. There may be rationality mixed in with one's fear. There may be legitimate concerns about the danger of a situation. I can see how all of these things can occur simultaneously with fear, but the fear response itself seems entirely emotional, and therefore irrational. If one is falling off a cliff, it is a natural and proper response to reach for something to grab onto. Rationality has nothing to do with it. The brain may have learned that falling off of a cliff will likely kill you, but the response is still completely emotional.
The same holds with the emotion of grief. Grief is a natural emotional response to loss. While it is normal and necessary, it is not rational.
I think the perception that fear can be a rational thing is based on the negative spin applied to emotion. Rationality is desirable, while being bound by one's emotions has a very negative connotation. Having emotion is human. Emotion is a part of our necessary wiring.
For example. Grief is a natural emotion response, and necessary because it is part of what makes us social, makes us relate to other human beings. If one experiences the loss of a familiar person and does not grieve, there is something wrong, something amiss with that person's ability to relate to other people.
Likewise, fear is a natural emotional response, and necessary because it is what gives us the response we need to escape situations that would be dangerous for us. If a person lacks this basic emotional ability, there is something amiss. The something amiss could be battle trance, the condition where a person disregards their own safety to protect or save somebody else, such as a parent protecting their child, or a soldier saving the life of a comrade. That is an emotional response as well, and also irrational, but a natural and necessary reaction to the appropriate condition. The something amiss could be a mental disorder or condition that makes a person behave dangerously or without regard for his or her personal safety.
My opinion is that fear is not a thing that is either rational or irrational to varying degrees based upon the thing feared. In that regard I think all fear is equal. It is the combination of this natural emotional response along with the level of rationality that we apply to deal with that emotion, or the state of our mental health, that differentiates the degree to which our responses are rational or irrational.
Again, I acknowledge that this is largely a matter or context, and how one defines fear. I am clearly defining it as an emotional response, and as an emotional response, I find it difficult to apply any rationality to it, and even more difficult to define it in any other way.
Regardless, I am curious to see some responses, particularly by anybody who may have some expertise in psychology.
My thinking is thus:
Fear cannot be rational. Fear is an emotion, one of the most primary emotions that humans have. When defined purely as an emotional response, I don't see how fear can be seen as rational in any way.
I've heard the counter argument that certain fears are rational and others not. For example, fear of cotton balls would be irrational while fear of a gun being pointed at you would be rational. I still don't agree. Fear is still a primal emotional response. A particular fear might be normal, or understandable, or natural, but it's still an emotion and this emotional response is irrational.
How one responds to a fear or situation may be rational. There may be rationality mixed in with one's fear. There may be legitimate concerns about the danger of a situation. I can see how all of these things can occur simultaneously with fear, but the fear response itself seems entirely emotional, and therefore irrational. If one is falling off a cliff, it is a natural and proper response to reach for something to grab onto. Rationality has nothing to do with it. The brain may have learned that falling off of a cliff will likely kill you, but the response is still completely emotional.
The same holds with the emotion of grief. Grief is a natural emotional response to loss. While it is normal and necessary, it is not rational.
I think the perception that fear can be a rational thing is based on the negative spin applied to emotion. Rationality is desirable, while being bound by one's emotions has a very negative connotation. Having emotion is human. Emotion is a part of our necessary wiring.
For example. Grief is a natural emotion response, and necessary because it is part of what makes us social, makes us relate to other human beings. If one experiences the loss of a familiar person and does not grieve, there is something wrong, something amiss with that person's ability to relate to other people.
Likewise, fear is a natural emotional response, and necessary because it is what gives us the response we need to escape situations that would be dangerous for us. If a person lacks this basic emotional ability, there is something amiss. The something amiss could be battle trance, the condition where a person disregards their own safety to protect or save somebody else, such as a parent protecting their child, or a soldier saving the life of a comrade. That is an emotional response as well, and also irrational, but a natural and necessary reaction to the appropriate condition. The something amiss could be a mental disorder or condition that makes a person behave dangerously or without regard for his or her personal safety.
My opinion is that fear is not a thing that is either rational or irrational to varying degrees based upon the thing feared. In that regard I think all fear is equal. It is the combination of this natural emotional response along with the level of rationality that we apply to deal with that emotion, or the state of our mental health, that differentiates the degree to which our responses are rational or irrational.
Again, I acknowledge that this is largely a matter or context, and how one defines fear. I am clearly defining it as an emotional response, and as an emotional response, I find it difficult to apply any rationality to it, and even more difficult to define it in any other way.
Regardless, I am curious to see some responses, particularly by anybody who may have some expertise in psychology.