Why Honoring Emotions Is Rational

“This article, originally written in Japanese by counselor Hideyuki Ikeuchi, has been translated using Claude AI.”

Introduction: Emotions as Sensors of the Mind

Hello. I am Hideyuki Ikeuchi, a counselor.

People live each day experiencing a wide variety of emotions (feelings).

Joy, fun, pain, happiness, loneliness, gratitude, frustration… and so on.

Emotions serve the important role of sensors that inform us of the state of our mind in response to events and circumstances.

They also indicate the direction of our actions and provide the energy to act.

At the same time, these sensors are also influenced by past experiences (including positive experiences, unpleasant experiences, and traumatic experiences), by the ways we perceive things as shaped by societal structures and culture, by unconscious biases, and by what we encounter in daily life — and so it is also true that they are not always accurate.

For this reason, it is important to cultivate the skills needed to maintain a healthy relationship with our emotions.

Are Emotions and Reason Separate? The Truth Neuroscience Reveals

Historically, emotion and reason have long been regarded as distinct and separate.

However, a growing body of research has revealed that emotion influences reason, and that emotion exerts a significant impact on thinking and decision-making depending on the situation and the type of task at hand.

In fact, most people have had the experience — at least occasionally — of prioritizing emotional desires, impulses, or intuition in daily life, making choices that differ from what their thoughts or conscious will would dictate.

Looking back afterward, there are times when such choices turn out to have been the right ones, and times when we come to regret them — that, too, is part of life.

The accumulation of research on brain function has shed light on such phenomena.

In the history of brain research, James Papez was among the earliest to propose what is known as the “Papez circuit” — a theory that the hippocampus, cingulate gyrus, hypothalamus, and related structures are interconnected in a loop that generates emotion.

Building on this foundation, Paul MacLean later proposed the “Triune Brain Model,” which conceptualized the brain as a three-layered structure: the “reptilian brain” (brainstem and basal ganglia) — governing instinct and survival; the “paleomammalian brain” (limbic system) — governing emotion and affect; and the “neomammalian brain” (neocortex) — governing logic, language, and reason. This model gained widespread acceptance.

Because the model was easy to understand, it spread into the fields of psychology, business, and self-help as well.

However, advances in neuroimaging technologies such as fMRI and PET in recent years have made it possible to examine concretely how individual brain regions — such as the amygdala, prefrontal cortex, and insular cortex — coordinate with one another.

As a result, it has been demonstrated that the brainstem, basal ganglia, and neocortex — what the Triune Brain Model categorized as the “reptilian brain” and “neomammalian brain” — do not, in fact, function as independent layers but rather as a complex network. The prevailing view today is that it is impossible to cleanly divide brain functions into a “region governing rational cognition” and a “region governing instinctual emotion.”

Consequently, emotion and reason are no longer seen as standing in a fixed hierarchical relationship; supported by the accumulating research findings discussed below, they are now understood to interact dynamically depending on the situation.

In reality, individual brain regions do not function independently; rather, each serves as a “hub” within a network, and the brain as a whole operates as a single integrated system.

For this reason, the Triune Brain Model has come to be criticized as an oversimplification as a model of brain function. Nevertheless, owing to its accessibility, it is still sometimes used as an “analogy for understanding that the human mind has three facets — instinct, emotion, and reason.”

Furthermore, the accumulation of recent research has revealed that emotion-related structures such as the amygdala are involved in relatively rapid neural responses to biologically significant stimuli — such as threats and rewards.

In addition, while top-down regulatory functions of the prefrontal cortex — such as cognitive reappraisal and inhibition — have been confirmed, bidirectional neural connectivity exists between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex. Anatomical studies have reported that there are extensive projections from the amygdala to the prefrontal cortex, and that the volume of information flowing from the amygdala to the prefrontal cortex is greater than the information flowing from the prefrontal cortex to the amygdala.

These various research findings have elucidated the structural basis by which emotion-related information tends to influence cognitive processing. It is now considered that there is a neurological basis through which information from emotion-related regions is readily reflected in attention and decision-making, and that emotions associated with biologically significant stimuli — such as threats and rewards — tend to exert influence on thinking and behavior.

In this way, it has been revealed that brain regions involved in emotion and those involved in thought and reason are bidirectionally connected neurally, mutually influencing each other in a context-dependent manner, and that cognition and affect operate in a highly integrated fashion.

Moreover, while science has traditionally held that “both reason and emotion are primarily generated by the brain,” this view has recently undergone a major shift.

Madsen et al. (2025) report that, contrary to the conventional view that the cerebral cortex — which governs cognition and reason — exerts top-down control over physiological arousal mediated by the autonomic nervous system (the bodily manifestation of emotion), the influence of physiological functions such as heartbeat and respiration (the body) on cortical activity (the brain) is significantly greater in magnitude and wider in scope than the influence of the brain on the body.

The content of this paper suggests that the state of the body provides the “foundation” upon which reason operates — that the brain (reason) does not construct logic independently of the body, but rather that thought and cognition are shaped with the “current physiological state of the body” as their foundation (context).

Thus, the prevailing view today is that our minds arise not from the brain alone, but through complex interactions involving diverse signals from the body: the five senses; interoception — the internal state of the body, such as the pounding of the heart, respiration, and visceral sensations; as well as signals from the vestibular system and proprioception.

In short, our brains are constantly “driven” by the state of our bodies.

With this in mind, it follows that relying on “thought” alone to regulate emotion is not rationally sound — and that incorporating “a bodily approach” is the more rational course of action.

Reconsidering the Primacy of Reason

That said, because human beings are not machines, even as neurophysiological mechanisms are elucidated, the actual conduct of daily life is subject to a variety of internal and external factors, and as a complex system, it is easy to imagine that the interactions involved are both individually variable and genuinely complex.

Even so, taking into account both experiential knowledge and the brain functions being clarified by neuroscience, when a powerful wave of physiological arousal is surging toward the brain, it is biologically unreasonable for reason alone to suppress it.

For example, trying to “calm down using only one’s head” when one is intensely emotionally aroused is like desperately telling oneself to “be still” in the middle of a storm.

When emotions are running high (i.e., when physiological arousal is occurring), trying to suppress emotions through thought alone runs counter to the signals from the body, and is considered likely to increase stress.

As biological organisms, it cannot be denied that merely ignoring or attempting to suppress emotions may on the contrary impair cognitive function and decision-making.

In this way, the long-held view that “mind and body are separate” has undergone a paradigm shift to “mind and body are connected.”

Taking into account this mind-body connection and the neurophysiological functions of human beings as biological organisms, it has become increasingly evident and widely supported that in order to think rationally and make decisions, it is indispensable to first become aware of the emotions one is experiencing by taking into account one’s physiological reactions and bodily state, and to recognize and understand one’s emotional experience. This insight is, for example, increasingly being applied in the field of trauma therapy in recent years.

From this accumulation of research, while the various methods and practices of cultivation and training that have been devised and attempted in the name of being rational human beings are not themselves to be negated, those that are fundamentally premised on the primacy of reason — that is, built on the assumption that emotions can be changed by suppressing them through reason (thought and cognition) — have room to be updated by incorporating new insights.

Counseling Practice and Neuroscience: The Directions They Both Point To

In counseling, the fundamental approach is for clients to become aware of their emotions, to observe them honestly without judging them as good or bad, and to concretely identify their impulses and the underlying needs.

Furthermore, consistently across approaches — from traditionally established body-oriented approaches to more recent somatic approaches — awareness of bodily sensations has been recognized as essential.

In such somatic approaches, one often hears the phrase, “Let us listen to the voice of the body.”

From awareness of emotions and bodily sensations, clients are helped to become aware of what they value and what they need. Building on this, they are supported in acquiring clear and respectful communication skills that allow them to express themselves while also respecting others, in thinking realistically about situations, and in considering what they can do in their daily lives and putting it into practice.

From a counselor’s perspective, neuroscientific knowledge concerning the interaction between emotion and cognition in the brain, and the interaction between the brain and the body, serves as confirmation that my own counseling practice is consistent with the functioning of human beings as biological organisms.

The History of Society’s Suppression of Emotional Expression

It is worth reaffirming that in many societies and cultures, expressing emotions openly has not been welcomed. This tendency remains strong today.

While positive emotions — such as joy and happiness — may be deemed acceptable, there is a history of negative emotions — such as loneliness, sadness, and especially anger — being regarded as things to be endured and not displayed.

There are various reasons behind this.

The tendency to label people who express negative emotions as “weak,” “immature,” or “emotional” reflects the operation of social, cultural, and psychological dynamics.

When the negative emotions of others are denied on the basis of philosophical, ideological, or spiritual frameworks — including in recent times, self-help and spiritual thought — and when that denial is used as grounds to evaluate and problematize someone’s character and humanity, a structure emerges in which one’s own superiority is maintained as a result.

Within such a structure, denying another’s emotions and looking down on them functions — whether intentionally or not — as a means of maintaining one’s own dominant position, and leads to a variety of interpersonal problems.

Modern society has also seen the spread of the idea that “it is right to always be positive,” and the well-meaning values aligned with this perspective function as a force that unilaterally suppresses and controls negative experiences and emotions, treating them as something undesirable. This is the problem known as toxic positivity.

Furthermore, such labeling and the control or denial of emotions have a history of being used as tools of social management and the exercise of power over others.

When labeling and the suppression or control of emotions are carried out unilaterally within relationships characterized by differences in social position or economic disparity, a one-sided power advantage emerges within that relationship, making the abuse of power more likely.

Whether in the context of power harassment, domestic violence, bullying, or relationships between managers and subordinates, parents and children, teachers and students, or sponsors and those receiving funding — having one’s emotions denied or controlled, or having one’s humanity called into question through the abuse of position or power, is rooted in a social and cultural misconception that negative emotions are inherently wrong. This misconception tends to go unrecognized by those exercising the abuse in particular. This is a theme that recurs repeatedly in counseling settings.

The Effects of Labeling and Emotional Suppression, and the Experience of Living With Difficulty

This social and cultural history of emotional suppression and control also exerts a deep influence on the inner world of individuals.

Because there has historically been a perception that expressing certain emotions to others is wrong, the label that speaking to others about negative emotions is proof of weakness has long been deeply rooted in society.

When one is squarely subjected to the impact of such labels — in relationships with the person doing the labeling, or within environments and interpersonal relationships in which one is labeled — one tends to become unable to express one’s emotions even when one feels them, or to begin suppressing them by denying them to oneself.

And when one lives in an environment in which labeling recurs and emotions are repeatedly denied, one may come to internalize those labels as evaluations of oneself, in adaptation to that environment.

A sense of self-negation — “I am no good because I feel negative emotions,” “I must not show my weakness to others” — seeps in imperceptibly.

What one notices in counseling is that when this sense exists somewhere within a person, a difficulty in living as a human being tends to follow, no matter how well life and daily circumstances are going, no matter how much social success one has achieved.

In reality, however, feeling emotions and expressing them is something entirely natural for human beings, and it is not justifiable to use this as grounds to deny someone’s experiences, rights, or wellbeing.

The label “weak” is nothing more than a convenient pretext to protect the superiority of the one applying it.

Power exercised on the basis of labeling is illegitimate, and the very fact that someone is unjustly hurt or disadvantaged by it is itself the problem.

Distinguishing “Healthy Anger” from “Unhealthy Anger”

With regard to anger in particular, it is important for those in positions of power — or those in dominant positions by virtue of having been granted strong authority over others or over situations — to learn how to manage their own anger rationally, as a means of guarding against controlling or dominating others through anger and of pursuing healthier, more respectful ways of engaging with and structuring relationships.

On the other hand, the anger felt by someone who has been unilaterally pushed into an unreasonable situation, or whose safety and rights are being unilaterally violated, as they seek to protect themselves and assert their rights, has a different source from the anger felt by someone in a position of power or in a dominant position with strong authority, who feels frustrated because things are not going their way.

These are therefore different in nature, even though both are anger.

The anger of the person protecting themselves is defensive anger — a protective response arising when one senses crisis within a one-sided relationship or interaction.

Such anger arises from a survival-related biological response, and using it to protect oneself is a legitimate use of one’s inherent human capacity; for the purposes of this discussion, it can be understood as “healthy anger.”

The anger that arises in a person in a dominant position of power or authority — from frustration that the other person will not comply with one’s wishes, without respect for the other — is not the survival-related, self-protective biological response, but rather anger rooted in position and power.

When that anger is used unilaterally as a tool to dominate the other person and is justified in that use, it constitutes an abuse of position and power; for the purposes of this discussion, it can be understood as “unhealthy anger.”

I believe that “reason,” as it has long been handed down as something precious to human beings, refers to a philosophical orientation toward life — toward how one controls and regulates unhealthy anger, and how one lives as a person who contributes to others and to society. For this reason, I believe this distinction between types of anger is important.

There Is No “Good” or “Bad” in Emotions

As an experience of biological organisms, emotions themselves are neither good nor bad.

Good and bad are categories based on some form of evaluation or value judgment.

When the criteria for that evaluation or value judgment are applied unilaterally without respecting the other’s rights, some form of interpersonal problem or an unreasonable and unfair real-world situation arises.

Whatever emotions you hold, that is all right. That is what it is to be human.

What matters is not judging the worth of emotions, but noticing what those emotions are telling us, expressing them assertively, and working to influence situations, circumstances, and relationships accordingly.

The Meaning and Value of Honoring Emotions

Emotions are sensors that inform us of what we value and what needs we wish to meet.

In order to be rational, it is first necessary to honor and pay attention to our emotions.

It becomes indispensable to identify what our emotions are trying to tell us — “what I value, what I wish to value going forward, and what needs I wish to meet” — and equally to identify “what the other person values, what they wish to value going forward, and what needs they wish to meet.”

Sharing this with one another, and on the basis of mutual respect, neither dismissing nor distancing ourselves from emotional experience — but engaging in realistic dialogue and cooperation while honoring all of “reality” and “emotional experience.” Being able to engage in this way is, I believe, what it means to be rational.

And what I mean by “engaging in realistic dialogue” here is not simply relying on one’s personal views and values.

It means entering into dialogue with an awareness that the foundation is: the relationship between the parties; the legally recognized rights and obligations in society; and above all, “human rights that are to be respected” and “not depriving others of the opportunity to realize those rights — and cooperating and working together to make adjustments.”

• Cooperation: “lending one’s strength for a purpose”;
• Collaboration: “thinking together and moving together toward a shared purpose”

The emotions felt in the course of such dialogue and cooperation are also important to honor.

Being rational requires — somewhat paradoxically, by taking a slower and more attentive approach — the effort to be patient, to draw close to one’s own emotions, and to listen to the voice of those emotions.

This is also the effort to confirm one’s “feelings” separately from one’s “thoughts,” and to put them into words honestly to share with the other person.

To do this, it is necessary to make the effort not only to hear the other person’s thoughts, but to listen to their feelings and demonstrate understanding.

This effort is not one-sided; the other person must equally make the effort to listen to your feelings and demonstrate understanding. Depending on the relationship, asking that of the other person is also your legitimate right.

If one wishes to have this kind of relationship in daily life, it is important to continue making the effort to honor and value not only one’s own emotions, but the other person’s emotions equally.

This accumulation of effort is, I believe, the very process of maturing as a human being.

What It Means to Be a Rational Person

Taking into account insights from neuroscience, a rational person is one who makes a daily effort to honor the emotions of both themselves and others.

Emotions and reason are not in opposition to each other; they are intimately connected.

They function together as two indispensable wheels that support mental health and human relationships.

By nurturing relationships grounded in mutual respect for each other’s emotions and needs, we mature as rational human beings.

Written by Counselor Hideyuki Ikeuchi

References

Hochschild, A. R. (2006). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling (5th ed.). Translated by Jun Ishikawa and Aki Murofushi. Sekaishisosha. (Original work published 1983)

Damasio, A. R. (2010). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Translated by Mitsuhiko Tanaka. Chikuma Shobo. (Original work published 1994)

Kawamura Mitsuki, “Amygdala,” Neuroscience Dictionary.
https://bsd.neuroinf.jp/wiki/扁桃体

LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion Circuits in the Brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 155–184.
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.155

Phelps, E. A. & LeDoux, J. E. (2005). Contributions of the Amygdala to Emotion Processing. Neuron, 48(2), 175–187.
https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0896-6273(05)00823-8

Ochsner, K. N. & Gross, J. J. (2005). The Cognitive Control of Emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242–249.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7872358_The_Cognitive_Control_of_Emotion

Banks, S. J. et al. (2007). Amygdala–frontal connectivity during emotion regulation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(4), 303–312.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2566753/

Pessoa, L. (2008). On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(2), 148–158.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5641447_Pessoa_L_On_the_relationship_between_emotion_and_cognition_Nat_Rev_Neurosci_9_148-158

Mobbs, D., et al. (2015). The ecology of human fear: survival optimization and the nervous system. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 55.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4364301/

Morawetz, C. et al. (2017). Effective amygdala-prefrontal connectivity predicts individual differences in successful emotion regulation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(4), 569–585.
https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/12/4/569/2739707

Cesario, J., Johnson, D. J., & Eisthen, H. L. (2020). Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338154360_Your_Brain_Is_Not_an_Onion_with_a_Tiny_Reptile_Inside

Sun, S. et al. (2023). Functional connectivity between the amygdala and prefrontal cortex underlies processing of emotion ambiguity. Translational Psychiatry, 13, 334.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-023-02625-w

Jens Madsen, Aimar Silvan, Behtash Babadi, Lucas C. Parra (2025). Brain-body dynamics is asymmetric and stable across cognitive states. bioRxiv.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2025.12.22.696055v2

Original Japanese article

なぜ感情を大切にすることが理性的なのかはじめに：感情は心のセンサーこんにちは。カウンセラーの池内秀行です。人は、日々、さまざまな感情（気持ち）……

• Facebook
• Twitter
• はてブ
• LINE
• Pocket
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn