Logic is an evolutionary trait of all men. This is why we all seek black and white answers to impossible, intangible questions, just as this thread is attempting to.
Human emotion is a subject to infinitely (and I use the word literally) variable physiology and experience; exemplary of chaos theory. That is about the only
logical assumption I can personally think to apply to it. It is a continuum; one that just keeps expanding, with each individual setting a new and unique reference point.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with experiencing emotion as a man. It's almost impossible not to 'feel'
something; short of being clinically psychotic.
What seem to be a pertinent considerations are how men (and women) in the 21st Century have been taught to
express their emotions; and, how emotion and logic are practically applied in modern life. The study of politics is the perfect example of this.
Long story short, experience and process your emotions, but don't be a soppy emotional tw@t, least of all around females..
Here is an exert from a review of Shopenhauer, on
The Suffering of the World that I am reading recently. I can't find the original text but it is a pretty clear and dare I say logical summary.
I think it reflects some of the discussion here:
"Schopenhauer also argues that non-human animals are happier than human beings, since happiness is basically freedom from pain. The essence of this argument is that the bottom line for both human and non-human animals is pleasure and pain which has as it basis the desire for food, shelter, sex, and the like.
Humans are more sensitive to both pleasure and pain, but have much greater passion and emotion regarding their desires. This passion results from human beings ability to reflect upon the past and future, leaving them susceptible to both ecstasy and despair. Humans try to increase their happiness with various forms of luxury as well as desiring honor, other persons praise, and intellectual pleasures. But all of these pleasures are accompanied by the constant increased desire and the threat of boredom, a pain unknown to the brutes. Thought in particular creates a vast amount of passion, but in the end all of the struggling is for the same things that non-human animals attain—pleasure and pain.
But humans, unlike the animals, are haunted by the constant specter of death, a realization which ultimately tips the scale in favor of being a brute. Furthermore, non-human animals are more content with mere existence, with the present moment, than are humans who constantly anticipate future joys and sorrows."
Though he is prescient of Nietzche and Freud, where it all starts going wrong. If thought is not to devolve into contradictory banalities, then it must at least go back to Kant. The moderns were very much in his shadow.
