GERVACIO, HANNAH JOYCE A.
AAW_VIZ
THE LOGIC VERSUS EMOTION PARADOX
(A Reaction Paper)
As a first-year graduate student, I acknowledge my minimal encounter with the dynamics
of advanced academic writing. However, upon reading the provided material and realizing my
half-knowledge as regards its paradoxes, I gained an appreciation not just of the paradoxes per
se but of the overarching concept of defining and understanding academic writing. The paradoxes
provided me with an apprehension toward recognizing the contrasting elements associated with
the writing process. As I waded through the paradoxes, the Logic versus Emotion Paradox
highlighted itself; it drew my attention as I was enlightened by the fact that it is a requisite for
academic writers to lay aside objectivity in their writing. On the other hand, I empathize with the
idea of having challenges in disregarding the emotional dimensions that can possibly contribute
to one’s written output.
Logic and emotion –most often than not– are associated with each other. Whether one is
driven by either of the foregoing, it has a valuable impact on the end result of our decision-making.
While logic employs rationality and reasoning, emotion is established on instinctive feelings.
Although generally, it is natural for a person to have an initial response based on feelings and
then think or act accordingly through logic. Therefore, I’d go along with the statement of Goleman
(1995) saying that “to any relevant stimulus in our lives, we have an emotional reaction before we
apply intellectual logic or cognition to it.” Be that as it may, I believe that both have their strengths
and weaknesses, and the same insight applies to academic writing.
As I have observed in the logic versus emotion paradox, it is as though ideal to have logic
undermine emotional dimensions that can potentially influence a written work. I agree with this
1 | Page
premise because it is one way to prevent presenting biased perspectives in one’s writing. With
logic incorporated into a written work, it is expected to be catered to the academic audience; its
nature must consider and also assume others’ perspectives, not just the writer’s. At the same
time, the said paradox concurrently shows the elegance of emotional engagement in academic
writing, which is a good add-on.
It made me realize that it takes a self-aware academic writer to suppress the sentiment of
their ideas and objectives, while effectively communicating the point they try to convey – despite
inevitably having emotionally-driven insights and standpoints playing behind the scene of the
writing process. Just because it is “academic writing”, its dynamics do not always suggest to be
full-blown logical; despite the paradox, logic and emotion are both effective if they coexist as I
also believe that it initiates a writer to create their own writing style.
2 | Page