nah i didn't think so either

Yes, several philosophers have explored this territory! Here are some key thinkers:
Jonathan Haidt - His "social intuitionist model" argues that moral and practical judgments are primarily driven by immediate emotional intuitions, with reasoning serving as post-hoc rationalization. People make decisions first, then construct logical-sounding justifications afterward. His elephant-and-rider metaphor captures this: the elephant (intuition) goes where it wants, while the rider (reason) just explains the path.
Daniel Kahneman (philosopher/psychologist) - Distinguished between System 1 (fast, intuitive, emotional) and System 2 (slow, deliberate, logical) thinking. Most decisions are made by System 1, with System 2 only providing the illusion of rational control. We're much less logical than we think.
David Hume - Famously argued that "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." He believed reason cannot motivate action on its own—our desires and emotions drive decisions, while reason merely figures out how to achieve them.
Dan Ariely - Focuses on "predictably irrational" behavior, showing how people consistently make poor decisions in ways that follow patterns but defy rational logic. We're not randomly irrational; we're systematically so.
Robert Kurzban - Argues the mind isn't designed for consistency or truth, but for strategic social navigation. Contradictory beliefs can coexist because different "modules" serve different purposes.
The running theme: expecting coherent reasoning behind decisions misunderstands how human cognition actually works. We're rationalizing creatures, not rational ones.

>>24822617
rationalism is a dead end