i cant choose a hobby

because neurochemistry begs to reason that feelings stem from biological necessities of some sort, and can therefore inform more personal decisions equally or even more reliably than some frameworks of "logic". to try to completely sterilize logic of all emotion is to deny the merit of biochemistry, and in deeply personal situations in which the consequences are less material and external than they are emotional and therefore physical, this is an exercise in futility at its finest. after all, in cases of toxic relationships, perhaps "logically" it would make sense to stay with a toxic partner, because on paper they seem to bring more good than bad.

perhaps they're talented with finances, have a well paying stable job, give frequent gifts and praise, and are loyal and don't keep secrets. but, perhaps by that same token, they're uncommunicative or cold in their mannerisms, they don't seem to adequately communicate care or tenderness, they have irksome habits that make it hard to live together, and perhaps they have a temper that makes them argumentative and unsympathetic.

by some frameworks of logic, perhaps you should stick it out to see if these troublesome feelings based issues can be resolved. however, with interpersonal relationships, these things are highly subjective to how this person makes you feel on a day to day basis. if you generally feel these issues are small and fixable, then by all means, sure. a toxic relationship has the potential to improve, sure. however, if you feel fundamentally as though your communication styles are incompatible and you don't feel loved the way you know you ought to feel loved in a relationship, feel respected the way you should be, and you don't feel as though communications can improve, then despite ample reason to stay, that's plenty adequate reason to leave.

even if it seems "crazy" or "illogical" to leave such a "good" partner, if you feel it isn't working, then it isn't working. you can't force it to. that, I feel, is the well roundedly logical answer. to consider feelings as a logical variable. not of course THE logical variable to decide all others, but one in many with its merits not unlike any other.

moral questions are the same. these are much more complex, as humans are only that, and feelings inform logic and legality (ESPECIALLY LEGALITY) much more than "cold, hard facts" types are often willing to admit, but that makes it much more important to consider all sides to a moral dilemma before decisive action is taken. harm reduction (punishment) and positive impact (rehabilitation/community care) are sometimes pitted against each other as opposite consequences of moral decisions, but a well roundedly logical solution (if one Can be reasonably found and enacted) should keep both solidly at the forefront of its decisive reasoning.

compromises should be made where necessary, and as many variables should be considered as possible, as humans are complex and societies are built on relationships, systems, and inherently personal goals and agendas, even and especially in groups and teams. to imply otherwise is naivety. to simplistically imply inherent selfishness and lack of morality on all ends is laziness. humans are complex creatures, and the only sort of logic that exists to us is also something invented, something felt as much as it can be observed (for there is no truly unbiased observation; everyone can only see from their own individual perspective).

for these reasons, I feel to be a true "thinking" type, one absolutely must be wary of emotion, yes, as it is subject to subconscious, environmental, and chemical sway, but one must absolutely never disregard emotion entirely. One cannot cleanly compartmentalize all of human experience into "emotional" and "logical", because they will always, always feed into one another. there is logical merit in tenderness, in kindness, in working towards a world in which man thrives, logic and emotion intertwined in symbiotic harmony. there is logical merit in art, expression, and feeling. to imply otherwise is baselessly cruel, and cruelty, as one may observe interpersonally and historically, is a cheap and self destructive means to survival that ultimately hurts the whole and therefore hurts the individual.

there is no human damage that can be isolated in its entirety. there is no war that is waged purely by the few and felt only by the few. there is no suffering of the many that will not threaten the few. there is no society built on violence and fear that does not eventually fall. nothing is built to last forever, but terror least of all.