Rationalism vs. Emotionalism

Author: Tim Platnich

Date: February 12, 2026

Oh, oh. This sounds like a philosophical debate. What does it have to do with modern controversies?

First, let's roughly define some terms. I say roughly, because these terms are loaded and have a long historical pedigree. Truly detailed definitions would involve us in deep philosophical debate.

Roughly, rationalism promotes the use of logic and reason to identify truth. The scientific method is an off-shoot of rationalism. Conversely, emotionalism promotes feelings and sentimentality as the source of all knowledge and good. In addressing an issue, a rationalist will appeal to reason; an emotionalist will appeal to emotion.

Protests and demonstrations are constantly in the news. For example, there are daily protests that are pro-Palestinian and others that are anti-immigration. Protests, I submit, are an example of emotionalism. Protesters seek to elicit, or even provoke, emotional support for their cause. They don't attempt to use reason to persuade. Indeed, reason is seen as denialism.

Anti-abortion demonstrators commonly display pictures of aborted fetuses and the like to elicit repulsion. This is emotionalism.

Full disclosure: I am in the rationalism camp. For rationalists, attempts to convince them of the 'justice' or 'correctness' of a cause by appealing to their emotions is off-putting. For emotionalists, attempts at persuasion through logic is off-putting.

Which is better - rationalism or emotionalism?

Of course, the answer is 'it depends'? It depends on the subject matter. There must be a demarcation between areas where one approach is better than the other. Empirical truth is not discovered through feelings. The chemical composition of the moon is a matter of fact. Whether one feels the moon is made of cheese is irrelevant. On the other hand, a rational debate about one's music tastes is unlikely to be fruitful.

The trick, then, it appears, is to always consider context. Matters of objective, empirical truth need to be reserved for rationalism. Matters of the heart, so to speak, are rightly reserved for positive emotions such as love and compassion. I say 'positive' emotions lest we forget that many emotions are negative and even harmful. Proponents of emotionalism rarely promote emotions like hate.

Circling back to philosophy for a moment, the ancient Greeks, largely but not exclusively, argued that though people rightly have appetites and emotions they also have reason and it is reason that must govern over all.

Regarding modern controversies, perhaps ask yourself this: am I being emotionally manipulated and am I Ok with that?