CAN WE MAKE DECISIONS WIHOUT OUR LOGICAL MIND? (PHILOSOPHICALLY)

in the philosophical sense, the question becomes much deeper:

Can a decision be called a decision if it is not guided by reason?

Psychology asks how decisions happen.

Philosophy asks what counts as a decision.

And philosophy does not give one unanimous answer.

1. The rationalist view: no — reason is essential

For philosophers in the rationalist tradition, such as René Descartes or Immanuel Kant, reason is what gives a choice the status of a true decision.

In this view:
impulses happen,
desires arise,
instincts push,
but a decision only exists when the rational will endorses an action. Without reason, what happens is merely reaction.

So from this perspective:

Without logic, there may be movement, but not meaningful choice.

Immanuel Kant especially argued that freedom lies in acting according to rational principles rather than being driven by impulse. That means:

acting from instinct = being determined,
acting from reason = exercising will.

Under this view, logic is what makes agency possible.

2. The sentimentalist view: yes — feeling can decide

Philosophers like David Hume challenged that. Hume famously argued:

“Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions.”

Meaning:
reason can calculate,
reason can compare,
but reason alone cannot choose.

For Hume, desire, emotion, and passion are what move us to act. Reason only tells us how to get what we want; it does not determine what we want.

So in this view:

A decision without logic is still a decision, because value comes from desire, not from rationality. Logic becomes instrumental, not foundational.

This reverses the rationalist model: not “reason decides and emotion interferes,” but “emotion decides and reason assists.”

3. The existentialist view: decision precedes logic

For existential thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre, decision is not primarily rational at all. Human beings are “condemned to be free,” meaning we are always choosing, even before justification.

From this perspective: Choice comes before explanation. We act, and then construct reasons. The decision is an act of freedom, not a deduction.

That means: Logic may clarify a decision, but it does not create the freedom to decide. This is why existential choice can feel anguishing — because there may be no rational ground sufficient to determine the choice. You choose first; reasons come later.

4. The deeper philosophical tension

The real issue is this: If reason is absent, is the choice still “ours”? If the decision comes from instinct or passion:

is that freedom?
or is that determination?

Rationalists say: “Without reason, the self is not governing.”
Sentimentalists say: “Emotion is part of the self, so it is still your decision.”

So the answer depends on what you believe the “self” is:
If the self is reason, then no.
If the self includes emotion, instinct, desire, then yes.

5. A possible synthesis

Perhaps the richest philosophical answer is: A decision without logic can still be a decision, but logic determines the kind of freedom that decision expresses.

Without logic: you may still choose, but you may not fully author the choice. Logic may not generate decisions, but it may transform impulse into agency.

So: Emotion may initiate the decision, but reason may be what makes it reflectively yours.

That means:
without logic, choice exists
without reflection, autonomy may be incomplete

So philosophically, the answer is neither simply yes nor no: Yes, decisions can occur without logic — but whether they count as fully free decisions depends on whether reason is considered essential to agency. That is the heart of the philosophical problem.

And it leads to one of the oldest questions in philosophy:

Are we free because we can choose, or only free when we can justify the choice?

That single question separates entire traditions of thought.

Gemini