Question I believe it was Hume who made the point that reason cannot motivate us, only our feelings can. Supposing that's true, I have a far-flung conclusion that seems to follow from that: when the panelists on this site choose which questions to answer, they're motivated by some emotion, not by reason. But doesn't this corrupt the purity of the logic of the answer? Perhaps not necessarily so, but isn't it likely that of the 2,600+ questions a good number have been tainted? How is it not the case?

Accepted:
September 24, 2009

Comments

In writing this answer I am motivated by the desire to help non-professional philosophers with their philosophical questions. That desire does not influence the answer that I give, it just motivates me to give some answer or another.

Or: in writing this answer I am motivated by the desire to point out that emotions should not be thought of as ipso facto "irrational" or "unreasonable." That desire is connected with the answer I give, but may or may not have influenced it.

Or: in writing this answer I am motivated by the desire to appear on this website. Again, that desire does not influence the answer that I give.

Or: in writing this answer I am motivated by the desire to attack the philosophy of David Hume. That desire is connected with the answer I give, but may or may not have influenced it.

Hume's famous "motivation argument" does make the claim that reason -- at least on the traditional conception of this faculty, where its job is limited to making logical or causal inferences -- cannot motivate us to act. It would follow from this, as you rightly point out, that the panelists on this site must be motivated by passions when they choose which questions to answer. But it does not follow, however, that this must "corrupt the purity" of their answers. Let us distinguish between two roles that the emotions can have: (a) they can prompt us to answer a question, and (b) they can bias our answers. Hume does think that the emotions are capable of distorting our reasoning. Consider his famous claim about the development of our natural belief in gods and spirits. His argument is that our primitive ancestors would have arrived at this belief in order to satiate their fear and anxiety about their uncertain fates. This is a case of what philosophers refer to as "motivated irrationality". They came to believe in supernatural beings, not on the basis of arguments or evidence, but merely because they hoped that they could control the forces that determine their futures. But emotions need not, of course, always bias our beliefs in this way. Philosophers like to say that they are motivated by a passion for truth. But such a desire need not distort their reasoning. In any case, your post serves as a useful reminder that each of us ought to aspire to carry out our inquiries (and decide which questions to answer) during our calm, reflective moments.

A mathematician might find his feelings engaged by certain questions. Sir Andrew Wiles was passionate about Fermat's Last Theorem from the age of about ten, I believe. (Say, by contrast, that he took little interest in statistics. Perhaps statistics even disgusts him.) Does any of this "corrupt the purity of the logic" of his (rather long) answer to the question how to prove Fermat's Theorem? No, it just powered his interest in mathematics. Besides, why isn't it possible to be inspired and motivated by a thought or an ideal? The ten-year old Wiles had the thought, 'I will prove the Theorem', and this motivated him and engaged his feelings - and the grown-up Wiles did prove the Theorem. The purity of his logic was perhaps even assisted by his passion.