It is not natural for butterflies to swoop into your stomach and lay rest weeks, days, hours, minutes before something big that is pending. The imminent rush of danger and unknowing sandwiches you with trepidation on one end and surrealism on the other with a dash of irony on the side. You already know you'll hate it without being there yet I daresay you would forgo anything else just to be there. I'd like to ask under such perturbing circumstances, can we therefore accuse the aforementioned mix of emotions as being utterly irrational and uncalled for? After all, we arousing fear within ourselves for something that we desire on a much deeper level. And who then governs the jurisdiction and holds the purview to decide what shall and what shouldn't be deemed irrational.

The point of contention is really that the use of the word "irrational" here is in reference to the direct opposite of what we would reference to as "rational". To be rational is to do things in accordance to logic and reason and when said logic or reason is tainted or masked by an interplay of other factors, say emotions, personal convictions, etc, then we choose to understand the different (note how I did not use the word "reversed" or "opposite") outcome as "irrational". Is it really?

Because the underlying premise (or preconception as I would see it) is that such emotions or individual beliefs can be characterized as counter-logic and counter-reason. But that cannot always be the case, can it? After all, emotions and thoughts stem forth from the very control centre that generates logic and reason in itself. The pink mass cannot be blamed but it can be attributed for its wealth of knowledge and reasoning. Henceforth, it is safe to say that the so-called interfering elements of rationality do contain a tinge (if not more than a tinge) of logic and comprehensive philosophy. In which case, we cannot downplay the rationality behind acts that are a corollary of their "interference" simply because it is not necessarily true that they compromise on something being rationale. In less convoluted terms and an ostensibly less contrived argument, just because we don't comply to logic/reasoning 100% doesn't make something immediately irrational.

We use the word "irrational" to mean that the rationality of this matter is birthed not completely of pure, untainted logic and reasoning. Instead, it contains a unique touch of emotions and our own ideals that contort and reshape the way we understand things around us. In this manner, something that is said to be "irrational" is not only still rational by way of deduction and logic, it is quaintly so even more humanized, because we have injected our personal touch into the matter.

We claim things to be "irrational" when we cannot choose to understand how others perceive matters in a way different from us. But that's to say there's an underlying presumption that we understand matters the correct way, by logic and by reasoning. But the very same logic and reasoning that governs "rationality" are too formulated by ourselves.

To put it simply (or just slightly less complicated), "rationality" is something we define to describe what we accept and understand of the world around us while "irrationality" is basically everything else that doesn't fit into the picture. And therefore something that strikes all of us as irrational may not necessarily be so. And the very thing you imagine to be rational, could very well be the striking resemblance of irrationality to everyone else.

So don't think so much.

Just do.