Definitions are provided to lessen the chance of ambiguity.

Logic, n.
1. reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity

Rational, n.
1. based on or in accordance with reason or logic
2. (of a person) able to think clearly, sensibly, and logically
3. endowed with the capacity to reason

Feel - v.
1. to have a specified reaction or attitude, especially an emotional one, toward something

Feeling - n.
1. an emotional state or reaction
2. a belief, especially a vague or irrational one
3. (feeling for) a sensitivity to or intuitive understanding of

-----

Feeling (def. 1 and 3) are not necessarily logical. Feeling (def. 3) seems to be used by people as a method of knowing. Haven't people seen what happens when people use feeling (def. 1, 2, 3) without thinking rationally? Best friends have become worst enemies, careers have been destroyed in an instant, peaceful groups have turned into violent mobs. Sure, feeling (def. 1) is used to persuade, but when you look back on an event, anger does not justify a person's (or group's) actions after they brutally murder an innocent citizen.

People should act rationally (def. 1, 2) more often, rather than let emotions take control of their minds. Why can't people control themselves? Why do people choose feeling (def. 1, 2, 3) over logic and rationality (def. 1, 2, 3)?

Not being an expert on the brain, I'll simply hazard a guess; feelings are, due to evolution, largely a way for the being to quickly respond to various situations when it might not be practical, time-wise, to fully analyze a situation and act rationally. It's like a programming shortcut or a chemical approximation, generally a good decision, not always so.

I don't even think this question is worthy of lite discussion. Rather, quickly its going to degrade into a HERP DERP PEOPLE R DUM LOL.

I mean, that's the most of it, right? People who can't control themselves don't because they are stupid. I know I act stupidly when I'm hurt. It makes sense. But what I'm saying is what really do you want to discuss here? There's nothing else to say.

Emotion is too often seen as a culprit. It is completely irrational, but this is not always negative. Humor or happiness positively benefit us. Often, emotion can enrich our understanding of something or provide us with "drive". It should not necessarily be pitted against logic, because while rationality is a virtue, it is not an end all to being human.

Why then, must these be pitted against each other? You hear it most often in "faith" vs. logic in respect to religion. It is said you must put your trust in your feelings in opposition to logic. I feel like this is a misinterpretation of both concepts. Faith, by definition, is merely confidence, and may be rational or irrational. I have good rational faith that the stairs at my library will support my weight, but when I look down from several floors above I feel nevertheless uneasy. Feelings and emotions are pushed into the wrong light by this. They have no business in thought except in the application of intuition, which then must be tested to ensure validity.

Talk to me about fun, enjoyment, fulfillment... Now those are things logic cannot grant.

People probably go with feeling over logic/rationality because it is the norm.

When I was younger, I used to let my emotions get the best of me in stressful or hostile situations, but that didn't get me very far with an Autistic older brother. Now I evaluate nearly everything and act accordingly. As someone who abides to logic and rationality in almost every situation, I can tell you that people just see it as heartless or apathetic.

Of course, there are certain psychological phenomena that dissuade anyone from rationality, but I like to pretend it doesn't affect me.

To continue off of this (<3)

Here's what I'll say. I'm going to be honest, my understand of the theory behind logic is largely based off of the bits and pieces I talk to my boyfriend about. (Which is probably why when I see someone yelling STRAWMAN I think no u)

Logic exists in our current frame of references. It is easier to be logical with less parameters, right? "I couldn't print off my paper because my printer wasn't working." Perfectly logical. But if you start saying, "I couldn't print off my paper because my printer wasn't working last night, and when I went to FedEx Office they were closed, and the Library wasn't open" and the paper is due at 1:00 PM all of a sudden holes start popping up in the argument; FedEx Office around here is open 24/7 (God blessit), and the Library opens at 7, and the several campus labs open at about the same time. All of a sudden, the argument is illogical. (Not to mention in all reality you could've finished the paper a few nights ago to make sure this doesn't happen, and granted, somehow people still get away with this baww).

But the point I'm making is that when you're in high pressure situations where you can't define all parameters or prove anything, you might act very rationally. You are alone in a jungle when someone comes running at you with a knife, so you decide, okay, he's trying to kill me. I could fight or run. And so you decide to take your chances and tackle him, only to realize he was for some reason going for the venomous snake hovering above you. I think you'd find more reason to believe that he was going to hurt you rather than help you, because its instinct.

As I said, instinct/feelings would make for a good approximation for rationality, so an instinctual reaction will often in hindsight seem to be perfectly rational; and, yes, like making a rational decision, they depend on external stimuli. It's difficult to pull the two apart.