Reason, or Emotion?

Plato believed in the dichotomy of the mind. That reason and emotion occupy two separate portions of the mind, and are always at odds.

I find this idea frankly absurd. Reason and emotion cannot, and perhaps should not, be separated. It is true that humans are rational creatures, but if we were meant to use only reason, and not emotion, why do we have feelings? There MUST be some utility in emotion. But what?

I see it as keeping reason check. Anything taken to an extreme is usually a bad thing. Reason without emotion separates humanity from what its core, its essence. Humans are not only rational beings - they are also emotional ones. These emotions cannot and should not be separated from reason. Take, for example, the novel "We." Zamyatin paints a picture of a "perfect" society. Everyone has their place, and emotion is almost totally eliminated from humanity. But does this society truly function? No. There is clear dissent, and the reader finds it much easier to relate, as it were, to D-503, and his struggles with his emotions. It takes an extraordinary act, lobotomy, to separate emotion. The fact that a part of the brain must be removed to illustrate emotion shows that clearly, emotion must be important for humanity, if it can be hardwired into the brain as such.

Of course, rampant emotion is hardly a preferable alternative. For contrast, take "Brave New World." Huxley's "utopia" is a world of uninhibited pleasure. Reason is eschewed in favor of pleasure in the here and now, and the people live in a constant stupor of soma. John, the "Savage," the one character most like our society, shows us that this focus on emotion (or in this case, a particular emotion) is no utopia. Emotions must be felt, and need the complement of reason to understand and live a full life.

Perhaps I have become too long-winded again, and I pray my readers will forgive me, but my point stands firm. Reason and emotion are inseparable. They must complement and balance each other to create a true human.