Coffee, too, increases creativity

    Dan, best of luck in the marathon. Though if, as you say, distance running is as much a mental endeavor as a physical one, I should think you're more than qualified.

    This post follows on the heels of Bob's comments. I'm not sure I'd like to abandon so quickly the notion of a dividing line between reason and emotion (the 'false dichotomy'). Surely they sometimes mix–righteous anger at injustice is a good case–but I don't think that means they're inseparable. Not for human beings. Further, I'm not sure we shouldn't try to separate them when policy decisions are to be made. This presumes, of course, that we have some moral foundation on which to base our reason. In the case of gay marriage, for instance, I might ground my moral sentiments on the issue on the twin pillars of the Constitution and the principle of limited governance. From there, I'm free to assess objectively how changes to our current stance on gay marriage might affect us in light of the Constitution and our beloved foundational principle (attached to this process, the part most people don't like to accept, is an obligation to adapt our opinions to changing evidence. It's the hardest part.) This, I should think, is a better methodology than gut reaction.

    But it occurs to me that what I've described might be just the same as the process you, Dan, just talked about: employing reason to substantiate deeply-felt moral positions. Maybe those precambrian beliefs are all we've got after all. I hope not.

 –Morgan Hubbard