Calmness Is Not Rationality

Not only do many people not understand the difference between the laws of logic and rationality, the latter being the grasp of reason and not reason itself, but they also might think that the presence of emotion automatically means that a person cannot understand reason or consistently cling to reason over arbitrary whims and perceptions.  This, in turn, leads to some people being dismissed as irrational when they have thought or said nothing involving assumptions or contradictions, while other people get perceived as rational simply for exhibiting a calm outward demeanor, even if their beliefs and basis for those beliefs are false and rooted in assumptions, and even when they are inconsistent with their own delusional ideas.

Someone could be perfectly calm on the outside and yet still cling to assumptions, embrace inconsistencies even when it means betraying their already false or unprovable ideas, or be totally apathetic towards the core nature of reality.  Someone could be very expressive--though outward words and actions never even prove that a person has emotions or that they are not being deceptive or misleading about their feelings--to the point of subjectively frightening or puzzling onlookers and yet still be perfectly rational, making no assumptions, looking to reason while realizing it is distinct from psychological perceptions and the laws of nature, and consciously or effortlessly avoiding all assumptions that entrap lesser thinkers so easily.

Confusing calmness for rationality and expressiveness or more energetic words and actions as irrational is a pathetic error that only someone unintelligent would actually fall for.  Rationality is nothing but how directly and consistently a person voluntarily understands reason.  Still, there are those who relentlessly try to pressure others into believing the easily disproven notion that rationality is really an absence of emotion, conformity to random social norms, having a certain kind of emotional state, having an excellent memory, being able to express one's thoughts through language, or perhaps some other totally irrelevant factor that does not reveal or ground a person's alignment with reason.

To see someone who shows their anger, sadness, or excitement on their face or in their words and believe that they must be irrational because of their emotion is to make an assumption, and an assumption that is rooted in the objectively false idea that someone has to give up something other than irrationality to be rational.  Even the deepest, most complicated, and most personal emotions do not make a person believe in assumptions, reject truths that can be logically proven, deny the inherent truth of logical axioms, or contradict themselves on the level of belief or living out accurate beliefs.  Moreover, fierce anger directed towards irrational people is incapable of being irrational itself unless the angry individual has false, unprovable, or inconsistent reasons for feeling this way; only how someone handles it and the exact basis and motivations of their anger could be irrational.

Calmness is not rationality and anger, joy, sadness, or frustration are not irrationality.  This is not only true by necessity, as the concepts for each of these emotions and the nature of reason itself and of rationality--which, again, are not the same things--are obviously distinct, but this truth is also incredibly liberating.  No one needs to be a slave to emotionalism or to ignore their emotions to be rational.  Self-awareness is in fact a component of thorough rationality, just as emotional openness with others can be an expression of this fundamental philosophical truth.  Whether one is calm or expressive, this is never what makes one a rational person, and anyone who would make assumptions one way or another about someone based on this is in the voluntary grip of stupidity.