Where are all Androids
The selection from David Hume’s work, entitled “Reason and the Emotions”. Classically, reason has been held to be prior to emotions and to be the determining factor in the sort of decision-making that characterizes a truly ethical life. David Hume is not denying the value of reason; he uses it well enough himself! But he is claiming that reason is, ultimately, the servant and representative of emotions. For example, we can only argue ‘for’ things in which we hold an actual interest. If we dispute a certain public policy, it isn’t because we ‘love’ reason, but because we see the policy as limited or harmful (and thus we have an emotional reaction), so that we are motivated to argue against it — to ‘use’ reason in the service of more fundamental ends grounded in interest or desire.
If we were all androids (think of Data in the old Star Trek ‘Next Generation’ series, if you have seen that!), then could we actually be rational? In other words, *A) to what extent MUST we be emotional creatures in order to be able to argue about a topic of interest, to be motivated to find reasons for it, to go to the trouble of attempting to overcome the opposition? *B) To what extent is argument a sort of battle, after all, even the most logically-grounded arguments? *C) If even logical argumentation is ’emotionally’ motivated, does that mean that there are only emotional points of view and nothing else? Or, to put it another way, *D) How can we achieve a calm perspective which enables us to see both sides of an argument, and to arrive at a judicious perspective, one which is beneficial to the situation or topic of interest (for example, in matters of ethics, public policy, religion, etc.)?
Follow the above outline without repeating the four headings — simply write a good long paragraph (or two) discussing the role of emotions in reason, how they are necessary, but also how they can be ‘transcended’ somehow! That is the idea….