Is it better to live with reason or passion?

Question

Ayn Rand once stated that early in her philosophical career, she admired the existential ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche. But she soon began to diverge from his ideas when she postulated the importance of reason over Nietzsche's reckless adherence to passion. While she did recognize ambitions and innate emotions as intuitive indicators of one's values, she regarded our conscious reasoning skills and logic as being more reliable.

So my question is, in your humble opinion, is it better to live life with the blind existential passion proclaimed by Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus and others, much like a Byronic hero? Or is it better live, while still ambitiously, with calculating reason and with reverence for values that are not necessarily and wholly subjective, as in Rand's Objectivism?

Wow, thanks for the replies.

I guess my personal belief is that by committing to either paradigm to much, there is a price to pay.

One who lives by reason and logic alone runs the risk of becoming apathetic towards everything. Almost a borderline nihilist. You might as well be an staggeringly indifferent inanimate object like the rest of the Universe.

Yet, on the other hand, if you sway too far to the ambitious side, you'll run a lot of risks and will likely live a short life. You might as be playing the lottery. The upside is, if by chance you win this metaphorical, you'll accomplish more than you'll ever dream.

So it's a matter of balance, as the majority of answerers have said. Knowing when to rely on reason and when to rely on passion.

By the way, you could compare this to Appolonian VS Dionysian paradigms, much like one of the answerers has said.

Answer 1

I don't know if I agree with your or Rand's late characterization of Nietzsche or Sartre, but I believe in the detached passion of reason which goes back to the Stoics and has travelled into the future through Plato and Aristotle to Kant to Hegel and to Reid and Adler and alot of other philosophers who avoid the post moderns who, like the Skeptics and Sophists of Old, have abandoned the use of reason for the right (ethical ) reasons. I need the fire-in-the- belly spirit of Dyonisius to power me like it did Nietzsche. Neither Sarte or Nietzche were blind advocates of the reckless passions or other kinds of irrationalism.

Dyonisius and Apollo are the twin engines of our power and to pick one over the other is to deny our human nature which needs and has both.

I think you need to back up your interpretation, or Rand's if you base it n her, with actual quotes from her and from the philosophers you have mentioned and , in my opinion, have badly mischaracterized.

Answer 2

I must disagree in your interpretation of Sartre and Nietzsche - they were not passionates, they both wrote about the illusions of reason and a life led by reason, but their point was that there are no rules and life is meaningless, not that life should be lived with passion but that life should be led with disregard for reason. I also think that some of these answers mistake "reason" as a philosophical term with reasons in general. If you life by reason you believe that there is a logic explanation to everything - most scientists will be rationalists, but does that necessarily mean that they live without passion? - sorry, I know I don't answer your question, it's more of a comment, but my humble opinion is that you can have both - need both passion and reason, and I think that a life lived with only one will be a live in chaos - lived either by a robot or an insane.

Answer 3

Being somewhat of an Objectivist myself I have to side with Reason.

Two cases in point:

#1: My former boss, two jobs ago. He let emotion rule whatever he did (or chose not to do.) While he possessed some Machiavellian tendancies (he was an opportunist...that's about it.) He never bothered to cultivate professional relationships that would have benefited the company in the long run. Since it was a non-profit organization that had a do-nothing executive board, he was free to run the place into the ground so as long as he could make payroll every two weeks. He did nothing to grow the organization. In fact, it got smaller during his term. When something went wrong, he passed the buck rather than let his ego be harmed. He was quick to lash out at employees when they made a mistake and he would stay pissed off at them and give them no support, rather than try to address what they did wrong. He would rather fire people and waste more money hiring and training new people, than spend time to develop the employees he already had.

#2. The managing owners of the facility I now work at. They run the place totally on emotion. The place is "their baby" and treat it like a little child. I swear they try to apply Dr.Spock to running a business. They spend lavish amounts of cash on the facade of the place. They care more about appearances than function. They too see no point in trying to salvage employees. They would rather just hire new ones. They too cannot take the blame for something. Instead, they pass the buck. They love to blame former members of the management staff for anything that has gone wrong in the past. The General Manager quit a few weeks ago...now everything was his fault. They cry in public in an attempt to gain our sympathy and support. What a crock.

Answer 4

Reason and logic are tricky things...too little and you are no better than a sheep, following the flock. Too much and you lose sight of what makes humans....human. You become much like an android.

But Passion is also tricky. If one were to live purely by passion, said person would soon find out the repercussions of doing so.

My opinion: Nothing to Excess. It goes for everything. But then that also gets complicated. When it is too much? I would guess that an appropiate balance between the two is the best choice. Like many have said already. But it is up to each individual person to find their own specific balance, according to them.

Answer 5

It depends what you mean by live. Would you be alive solely on mechanical and logical reasoning? Or, is this a life not fully lived?

Suppose, I approached my wife about making love to me. We could speak about the mechanics of it. I could explain to her that I want to rhythically glide with her back and forth. Insertion and extraction. We would do this repeatedly until fluids were exchanged. Nothing but seriousness. Nothing at all. Or, we could excite each other about the forthcoming experience. Look into each others eyes, join together in infatuation, ecstacy, and sweat... passionate. You decide which is better for you.

I enjoy living a life of reason and experiential learning. However, I will never neglect the passion that is caused by living in the moment.

Answer 6

Reason evolved to serve passion.

The heart desires, the mind acquires.

The most brilliant analytical scientist is doing research because he enjoys the hell out of discovery.

To what end the intellectual brilliance of Shakespeare's poetry but the passionate winning of a woman's heart?

If I could have but one, then I suppose passion, but is would be a bitter choice. For the gift of humanity is not that we are passionate, all of life is passionate, our gift is that our passion drives our intellect to spectacles worthy of the divine.

May the fire of passion ever drive man into the battle of life,
but who I ask, should willingly join that fray
without the gleaming edge of intellect on their blade?

Answer 7

Was it you who asked this identical question a week or so ago?

Again, why are you giving only two options, both involving one thing being better than the other, and the two things categorically differ? Like, which is better, a BMW car or Lutheranism? That's a false dilemma, over categorically different options. You cannot learn very useful axioms for living by asking such questions.

Answer 8

When you live by your passion those around you take a back seat. When you live by reason, sometimes you deny yourself. I lived most my life so far by reason, after the reasons were all gone, I've looked for the passion and think if I have to look and not just do it, is it real passion? Probably not. Reason is easy......Passion defies.......the choice is simply who you are and therein lies the answer.

Answer 9

Life is pain.

You are born into pain taken from the comfort of your mothers womb and brought into a cold world.

You live in pain as every lesson in life is painful to your or others you affect.

You die in pain not wanting to let go off everything your life has brought.

Its what you do with that pain that makes you who you are. Who are you?

Passion or reason you still die in the end. Its what you do in between that makes you who you are. Why limit yourself to one or the other. Sample all of life's "food". Some are bitter some are sweet but you are better for having tried it all.

Answer 10

Passion is it's own "raison d'etre", and it could be said
the brilliance of consciousness. It is pure, non manipulative
and uncorrupt. Inevitably, it will lead us on the path of our
true nature, opening a so called "spontaneous" door to
real happiness. It is questionable whether or not man
has any idea in H. of how to define modern values as
being beneficial to himself...not doing such a good job
as I see it.