For him, the truth is accessible by two ways the heart and mind. and immediate, closely connected to the body, includes everything we understand by instinct.
You find yourself in a tug of war between what your mind wants you to do and how your heart wants you to feel. And then you don’t know what to do. Should you be guided by the emotions that spring up inside you, or should you slowly rationalize the situation?
The truth is, you would do anything to feel happy and free. You would get carried away without restraint if you really knew that it was what you needed. But you don’t know. You doubt whether your heart will protect you from suffering, and so your mind tries to act against it. Who should you listen to?
Well, it’s beneficial for your future well-being for you to listen to your mind and your heart. Yes, both of them. Both of them have things to tell you. Each one has their own unique, special characteristics that they use to understand and act upon the world.
When there’s a conflict between the mind and heart, many people try to take a side. On one hand, there are people who think that reason is superior to feelings because getting carried away by feelings makes us vulnerable. On the other hand, some people think emotions are essential for us to be able to love others, and love moves people.
In reality, everyone is partly right. Humans have both reason and heart, and both are parts of a whole that cannot be divided. Separate, they’re dangerous. The mind uses logic but ignores how you feel, and the heart can guide you but it can make mistakes if it’s not kept in check.
“I like thinking/feeling people who don’t separate reason from heart. Who feel and think at the same time. Who don’t divorce the head from the heart, or emotion from reason.”
If you don’t know what to do, start by listening to your head. First of all, that’s the one responsible for thinking, arguing, and reasoning with your most intimate self. Secondly, your mind can give you the bit of sanity that you might be missing.
However, if you can’t find any other remedy that tips the scale one way or the other, don’t let your heart be a slave of your thoughts. Remember that logic isn’t always right, and that acting out of line with your feelings will lead you astray. It’s good to listen to what your heart has to say.
People might say the heart is blind, but it’s actually the wisest part of the body. Have you ever heard the saying “reason ignores what the heart already knows”? The heart knows adrenaline, intuition, misery, love, and strength better than anything else. It gives meaning to what you do, even when you think it has no meaning.
“Maybe it’s true: hearts make the world turn.”
Emotions are decisive in the process of reasoning. In fact, they say that feelings mark the path, but the brain chooses the best way to situate ourselves on it.
Calm, listening, and caution must be your compass. Everything you need to focus and feel better is already within you. There will be a point where you’ll be okay with whatever is confusing you. Above all, realize that you can’t predict what will happen to you, but don’t let your decision hurt you before you even make it.
“I like people who understand that humans’ biggest mistake is trying to get something out of your head that won’t leave your heart.”
You’ll find harmony amidst the confusion if you listen, set priorities, and use your values to take you where you want to go. It’s pointless to turn your back on your mind, because you’d be speeding through the situation with no breaks. But neither should you ignore your heart, because then you’d never understand why you went in that direction in the first place.
How Feelings Influence Decision-Making
You say (or think) “Well, God knows my heart in the matter. He knows about those horrid and despicable things that come across your mind at times. Yep, He .
"The heart has its reasons which reason does not understand." Blaise Pascal
"I told this heart of mine our love could never be
But then I hear your voice and something stirs inside of me
Somehow I can't resist the memory of your kiss
Guess my heart has a mind of its own." Connie Francis
"You know what, there is a place you can touch a woman that will drive her crazy ... her heart." Melanie Griffith
Emotional reasoning, which prevails in matters of the heart, is different from intellectual reasoning. Are these two types of reasoning condemned to fight each other, or can they be integrated? Should we follow our heart entirely in romantic matters, and are we able to resist it even if we want to?
Intellectual reasoning is broader than emotional reasoning: it refers to a broader scope of circumstances and has more freedom in the perspectives that it can adopt in its analysis. The principles underlying emotional and intellectual reasonings are principles of information processing that determine the meaning of events around us. Two examples of the emotional system's principles are:
1. Changes are more significant than stability;
2. A personal event is more significant than a non-personal event.
Correlated principles of the intellectual system are:
1. Changes are not more significant than stability; on the contrary, we should assume that there are stable regularities in the world;
2. A personal event is not necessarily more meaningful than a non-personal event.
What is the relationship between the systems?
Commenting on La Rochefoucauld's maxim that "The head is always fooled by the heart," Jon Elster asks why the heart should bother to fool the head. Why can't the heart just get on with whatever it wants to do? The answer he suggests is that it is an important part of our self-image that we believe ourselves to be swayed by reason rather than by passion. Elster terms this tendency "addiction to reason" and rightly claims that it makes those who are so addicted irrational rather than rational. A rational person knows that under certain conditions it is better to follow emotional tendencies than to use more elaborate intellectual processes.
Sometimes the opposite tendency is evident as well: People present their calculated actions as if they were contrary to intellectual reasoning and in accordance with the moral commands of their hearts, because they wish to seem passionate. Politicians, who often behave in a calculated and immoral manner, typically use this tactic.
The evaluative systems underlying emotional and intellectual reasoning can be discerned by their mechanisms and contents. Whereas the emotional system typically uses a spontaneous mechanism and its content is narrow (and partial), the intellectual system is typically deliberative and has a broader perspective. The psychological model that might explain intuitive emotional knowledge is that which refers to expert knowledge. Like emotional knowledge, expert knowledge is intuitive in the sense that it is not based on a careful intellectual analysis of the given data, but rather on activating certain (acquired and innate) cognitive structures. The famous American architect Frank Lloyd Wright argued that "an expert is one who does not have to think; he knows." Like expert knowledge, emotional knowledge that comes from the heart is a kind of sensitivity to certain types of higher-level stimuli.
In a similar manner, Daniel Kahneman has suggested differentiating between two systems of processing, calling them intuition and reasoning respectively. Intuition (system 1), is based upon emotional reasoning; reasoning (system 2) is based upon intellectual reasoning. The two types of logic are not entirely contradictory and have certain common principles.
Integrating the two reasoning systems is difficult to achieve, but it is valuable. This integration, which is termed by psychologists "Emotional Intelligence," is described by the famous "scholar" from Chicago, Al Capone, who said, "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."
In terms of the loving heart, can and should we integrate our intellectual considerations when making romantic decisions, or should we merely follow our heart?
The issue is complex as although love is perceived to be irrational, the idea of finding the "right" person implies a rational choice. The dictate "to follow your heart and not your head" is in fact opposed to the rationality required in choosing the beloved, which must be based on the objective values we observe in the beloved. The conflict between the two is articulated in myriad ways in our daily life. Thus, the following claim by a woman in love is typical of lovers' expressions: "Crazy love... That's what it is... Nothing rational about it... Just crazy love." And in the TV series Ally McBeal, Renee tells Ally: "Emotionally, you're an idiot." Lovers typically prefer their heart over their intellectual mind and consider acting in accordance with their heart as the greatest expression of freedom and honesty. Thus, married people who have a forbidden romantic relationship might say that love is more significant than outdated conventions, and letting their heart have the freedom to choose is more genuine than being loyal to such conventions. In other cases, such a forbidden relationship enables people to escape a bad marriage and in the name of love to create a safe oasis outside the home so as to make home life more tolerable.
For many people, preventing yourself from following your heart is no less of a sin than preventing your official partner from knowing about all your actions. A woman who had an online affair notes: "I fell in love with this man online. I felt like I was cheating on my fiancé, but I thought that my online lover actually loved me more than the man I had in my arms." Eva, a married woman who is involved in a loving relationship with a married man, said, "When I am with him, I feel as light as a feather, and whatever we do together feels so natural and right." Eva's use of the expression "natural and right" might seem odd, as her behavior appears to violate what other people may consider as natural and right-being faithful to your formal partner. But Eva is referring not to superficial circumstances but to the profound attitudes and values that underlie her intense love. Similarly, Bernard, who has been married for 15 years, says he considers the time his married lover spends with her husband as an exile from her genuine home where her heart really wants to be. In fact, she constantly asks him to help her survive "in the desert."
Most people cherish the presence of passionate love in their relationship and are "romantic" in the sense that they say that they would not marry a person who possessed every quality they admire, but with whom they are not in love. The situation is more complex when people are required to divorce in order to follow their hearts. Here, the loss is evident and the gain is yet to be seen. The increase in the percentage of divorces indicates that more and more people are giving now greater weight to their heart in such decisions.
Following our heart, however, may not always involve acting according to our character or moral norms. Our heart might express a more limited aspect of our character and morality. Moreover, how can we identify what the genuine expressions of our heart are? Surely, not all emotional states are genuine expressions of our deep loving attitudes-some of them are tentative expressions of superficial circumstances that we would not want to endure in the long term. As Yehuda Ben-Ze'ev put it, "When is the yearning heart's cry real? And when will we be greeted by the true, and honest, echo of love's call? When does the response resonate falsely, and when does our call fall on deaf stone cliffs?" Our inability to distinguish between the two can jeopardize those romantic decisions that rely solely on our heart.
To sum up: Our heart indeed has a mind of its own; we should listen to it, as it often expresses our profound attitudes, but we should not always follow it without regard for rational considerations, because the intellectual mind is equally important. If we can learn to integrate the two systems, we will have the best of both worlds.
The above considerations can be encapsulated in the following statement that a lover might express: "Darling, I know that following your heart is difficult for you, as you cannot dismiss intellectual considerations. But remember that we only live once, and ignoring love can permanently damage your heart. Sometimes, even time cannot heal a wounded heart."
I've used babelfish and some guesses to translate the following:
Anyone who actually knows French is welcome to look over these and fix up translation issues. ~ MosheZadka(Talk) 05:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Looking through my copy of Pensées in French, I can not find the quote « Il n'est pas certain que tout soit certain. » The closest that I can find is part of a larger sentence, the il at the beginning being preceded by qu'; moreover, the quotation as written there is « Il n'est pas certain que tout soit incertain » -- that is, "It is not certain that everything is uncertain." If someone could provide a reference to the quote currently on the page, it would be helpful-- it is quite possible that I have missed it. However, if none is given soon, I will change it, and the accompanying English translation, to what I've found. --Doulos
All right, I found the Pensée whence the aforementioned quotation most likely comes. I just changed the word from « certain » to « incertain » -- I felt it unnecessary to add in the rest of the quote, as it keeps the same meaning. For anyone who is interested, though, this is the pensée in its entirety: « Il se peut faire qu'il y ait de vraies démonstrations ; mais cela n'est pas certain. Ainsi, cela ne montre autre chose, sinon qu'il n'est pas certain que tout soit incertain, à la gloire du pyrrhonisme. » --Doulos
I don't have access to Pensée No. 420, but found this quote in a book called Angels, Apes & Men by Stanley Jaki, can someone please check it is correct. Thanks Pluke 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Pluke: that is indeed one of Pascal's quotations. In my edition, it is Pensée #326, but there are many differences between the many editions of Pensées. The original French of this quote is: « S'il se vante, je l'abaisse, S'il s'abaisse, je le vante ; Et le contredis toujours, Jusqu'à ce qu'il comprenne Qu'il est un monstre incompréhensible. » The English translation seems rather solid; a few things are changed slightly to make it more comfortable in English, but none of these take away the meaning. Perhaps it would be wise to insert "Man" in square brackets [ ] the first time the word "he" appears, since it is implied, referring to a previous Thought in which Pascal discussed the duplicity of man. Just a thought. It's also noteworthy that Pascal did write this divided into five lines. So, it would read something like this (with each number being the beginning of a new line): 1. "If [Man] exalt himself, I humble him, 2. If he humble himself, I exalt him; 3. And [I] always contradict him, 4. Until he understands 5. That he is an incomprehensible monster." Doulos
I was looking for my favorite Blaise Pascal quote on here, and I only found half of it.
I personally prefer the latter half of the quote, which is why I was surprised not to see it here. But anyways, the half of the quote already here is translated from French, whereas I don't have the full French version of the quote. (I got the English translation straight from my old 'History of Psychology' textbook.) Some other editors might have the full French version. Cougroyalty 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Le cœur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point. On le sent en mille choses. C'est le cœur qui sent Dieu, et non la raison. Voilà ce que c'est que la foi parfaite, Dieu sensible au cœur.
The Project Gutenberg translation is as follows:
"The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things. It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason."
Based on this, I will edit the Pascal page accordingly. - InvisibleSun 20:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the Rational Wiki on "Pascal's Wager" the "If God does not exist" quote can be sourced to Pensee 233. Although the way that page presents the quote is slightly different. See
Ileanadu 15:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article of Pensées was actually just a massive collection of quotes. I have removed it from there (as it defies [WP:ISNOT]), and am placing it here for further reference (as mentioned on talk page there). I do not have the time to go through the quotes and cross-reference them with the article at the moment, so here they all are (some, if not all, will probably be redundant with this page):
(Note: All formatting is retained - eg. references are hidden in script for some entries)
"Let man contemplate Nature entire in her full and lofty majesty; let him put far from his sight the lowly objects that surround him; let him regard that blazing light, placed like an eternal lamp to illuminate the world; let the earth appear to him but a point within the vast circuit which that star describes; and let him marvel that this immense circumference is itself but a speck from the viewpoint of the stars that move in the firmament. And if our vision is stopped there, let imagination pass beyond... All this visible world is but an imperceptible element in the great bosom of nature. No thought can go so far... It is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere. This is the most perceivable feature of the almightiness of God, so that our imagination loses itself in this thought."
"The eternal silence of these infinite spaces frightens me."
"He who sees himself thus will be frightened by himself, and, perceiving himself sustained... between these two abysses of infinity and nothing, will tremble... and will be more disposed to contemplate these marvels in silence than to explore them with presumption. For in the end, what is man in nature? A nothing in respect to the infinite, everything in respect to the nothing, a halfway between nothing and all. Infinitely far from comprehending the extremes, both the end and the beginning or principle of things are invincibly hidden in an impenetrable secret; he is equally incapable of seeing the nothing whence he has been drawn, and the infinite in which he is engulfed."*
"The wisest reason takes as her own principles those which the imagination of man has everywhere rashly introduced."
"Nothing is so conformable to reason as to disavow reason."
"To make light of philosophy is to be a true philosopher."
"The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing."
"It is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if any one maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself."
"What a Chimera is man! What a novelty, a monster, a chaos, a contradiction, a prodigy! Judge of all things, an imbecile worm; depository of truth, and sewer of error and doubt; the glory and refuse of the universe. Who shall unravel this confusion?"
Quelle chimère est-ce donc que l'homme? quelle nouveauté, quel monstre, quel chaos, quel sujet de contradictions, quel prodige? Juge de toutes choses, imbécile ver de terre, dépositaire du vrai, cloaque d'incertitude et d'erreur, gloire et rebut de l'univers. Qui démêlera cet embrouillement?
"Man is only a disguise, a liar, a hypocrite, both to himself and to others."
"How hollow is the heart of man, and how full of excrement!"
"We would never travel on the sea if we had no hope of telling about it later... We lose our lives with joy provided people talk about it... Even philosophers wish for admirers."
"The grandeur of man is great in that he knows himself to be miserable."
"Man is but a reed, the most feeble (thing) in nature; but he is a thinking reed.* The entire universe need not arm itself in order to crush him; a vapor, a drop of water, suffices to kill him. But when (even if) the universe would (were to) crush him, man would (still) yet be more noble than that which kills him, because he knows that he is dying (that he dies) and the advantage (which) the universe has over him; the universe knows nothing of it (of this)."
(Original text quoted from "Cours Supérieur" AMSCO School Publications, 1970.)
"You must wager; it is not optional... Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God exists... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists."
"Bless yourself with holy water, have Masses said, and so on; by a simple and natural process this will make you believe, and will dull you*—will quiet your proudly critical intellect."
"Go to confession and communion; you will find it a relief and a strengthening."
"Picture a number of men in chains, and all condemned to death; each day some are strangled in the sight of the rest; those who remain see their own condition in that of their fellows, looking at one another with sorrow and without hope, each awaiting his turn. This is the picture of the condition of man."
"It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that He should not exist; that the soul should be joined to the body, and that we should have no soul; that the world should be created, and that it should not be created, etc.; that original sin should be, and that it should not be."
"We understand nothing of the works of God unless we take it as a principle that He wishes to blind some and to enlighten others."
"This is what I see, and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and everywhere I see nothing but obscurity. Nature offers me nothing that is not a matter of doubt and disquiet. If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny [Him], and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a God sustains nature it would reveal Him without ambiguity."
In Pensees' Section X "Typography", Pascal presents an unusual proof for a "double meaning" interpretation of The Bible.
Pascal subsequently identifies the major problem of a "double meaning" reconciliation.
In the fields of mathematics, computer science and information theory Pascal is widely regarded to be the "father of modern probability theory", the branch of science that underpins cryptography. Pascal's strangely disembodied conclusion to his closing argument for the "double meaning" divinity of the Bible, and his choice of the word "cipher", which was the technical word for "cryptogram" in its day, has been cited frequently in the context of "Bible codes", referring to information that is purported to be encrypted in the Torah of the Old Testament.
"Atheism shows strength of mind, but only to a certain degree."
(References which were present are still contained in scripting above)
According to Władyslaw Tatarkiewicz's "Historia filozofii" ("History of philosophy") the quote is from: Pensées, no 42 et 65, ed. Chevalier, 1954.
Any original sources? If the only or earliest known source is from 2004, then I don't think it belongs in Sourced. --Chriswaterguy 02:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The original quote in French is: "Il y a assez de lumière pour ceux qui ne désirent que de voir, et assez d'obscurité pour ceux qui ont une disposition contraire." - missing is: "in faith," - the rest is there. It is from the Pascal's book: "Pensées sur la religion et sur quelques autres sujets" --B M Moritz (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
(two versions in French via Wikisource)
I believe this means ‘from man’s inability to meditate’ not literally to ‘sit in a quiet room alone.’
This appears in Pascal's Pensées 139.
Studies show that the heart and nervous system respond to a stimulus two to five seconds What the conscious mind cannot understand, the heart knows.
Thank you for sharing!
“The soul has been given its own ears to hear things that the mind does not understand.”—Rumi
Have you ever experienced a sense of oneness? A feeling of connectedness with life and the universe? What did it feel like on an emotional level? These types of occurrences are difficult to explain through logic and reason because the soul experiences what the mind cannot explain. For example, how do you describe the attraction towards another person via logic? You might describe how the other person makes you feel, but it is difficult to define the exact quality of the attraction. This is because emotions are the language of the soul and can only be experienced through the heart. Soulful living is an invitation to merge with our heart and mind through these faculties. Is this something you’re willing to explore in your life?
I’ll admit, it can be difficult to navigate our way through life at the soul level because the communication is hard to distinguish. In contrast, the language of thought is direct because we are familiar with it. This doesn’t mean thoughts are the only way to make sense of the world. In fact, many of our problems stem from an overactive mind that leads to stress since we buy into the narrative our thoughts promote. Have you noticed this with the mindless chatter that takes place in your head which can cause chaos and confusion? The language of the heart speaks in silence and relays messages through subtle signs and symbols.
Your soul knows the best path for you in life, yet it may not appear that way sometimes because of the challenges you face. Regardless, these are vital lessons to expand your soul’s evolution. I’ve experienced many of these lessons throughout my life and now realise my soul was communicating to me through these experiences. Whilst they were difficult, a new path emerged following the event that lead me in a new direction. Have you experienced something like this before? Whether it be the breakup of a relationship, losing a job or the unexpected loss of a loved one? Whilst these events can be distressing, they leave a ripple effect in our consciousness and we can never go back to the same way of living.
“You cannot find your soul with your mind, you must use your heart. You must know what you are feeling. If you don’t know what you are feeling, you will create unconsciously.”—Gary Zukav
I’ve written about my life-and-death encounter in earlier articles where I describe a gradual awakening that foreshadowed a new way of living. I began to read books on consciousness, personal growth and leadership and realised my experience was a gateway to expanded living. Regrettably, I lost many friends during this time whom I no longer identified with. It seemed we were speaking different languages that neither of us could understand and our life’s journey was taking us in different directions. Naturally, I wanted to hold on to these relationships because I had known these people since childhood. As painful as it was, I allowed life to take the lead, and surrendered to the process. I stopped resisting the changes because they were happening, regardless of my struggle. My resistance only fuelled more suffering, and it was easier to go with the flow hoping it would lead to somewhere special. I’m glad I did because that special place is the one I am living now and the person writing these words on your screen.
Sometimes, what seems like the wrong turn, is the only turn we need to take for life to guide us where we need to be. The soul has a plan for us and knows the people that will enter our life at the right time. It knows what lessons we need for our soul’s evolution. It makes it easier when we let go of resistance and learn to accept what is unfolding. Remember, acceptance does not mean resignation, nor does it mean we like what is happening. It means letting go of the mental drama of why things shouldn’t be happening as they are. All our problems will melt away when we accept what life is trying to bring us. Sometimes the pieces may be still coming together and the situation may look fragmented. This is an opportunity to practice infinite patience and wait for the storm to pass, before taking the next step.
With this in mind, I’d like you to think about a difficult situation in your life right now. Ask yourself: What does my soul want me to learn from this experience? How does my soul want me to learn and grow from it? Journal your answers in a diary. I assure you there will be responses that come forth which may not make sense at first. Keep exploring them and follow the trail. Sometimes, it will be easy and at other times you will be frustrated because you cannot make sense of what is unfolding. This is natural because you might try to dance quicker than the song being played. The uni-verse (one song) has an inherent rhythm we must abide by and when we learn to synchronise with it, life flows easily and effortlessly. Your soul not only knows what the mind cannot understand, it knows the best way to get there.
Your Beliefs Control Your Destiny, Whether You Like It Or Not Next Post:
What If Everything You’re Experiencing Is Preparing You For What You Asked For?
My new book, Awaken Your Authentic Self is now available via: Amazon, Thought Catalog Books and iBooks. Discover your talents, gifts and highest potential when you connect with your authentic self. Join my email list and download an entire FREE chapter of the book.
Studies show that the heart and nervous system respond to a stimulus two to five seconds What the conscious mind cannot understand, the heart knows.