Prompt: Is it better to care deeply about something or to remain emotionally detached?
Many people believe it’s better to care deeply about something. This is understandable, as impassionately investing oneself in something fulfills one’s emotional needs. This belief is fallacious, however. It’s better to remain emotionally detached because excessive emotions cloud judgments and lead to improvident actions. Several examples of this are found in literature and history.
The imprudence of superfluous emotion is exemplified in Wilder’s Our Town, a presentational play about a small town called Grover’s Corners. In Act III of the play, the focus shifts to a discussion of death. Emily Gibbs has recently passed on, and through her eyes the superiority of emotional detachment is shown. The preexisting dead have no interest in the living, compared to Emily, who still feels. Her bitterness and intense suffering due to her longing for life after “reliving” a day make her wish she’d always been dead so she could be as apathetic as the dead. Clearly, if Emily had been emotionally detached, she wouldn’t have suffered and abortively tried to relive a day of her life.
Another example is shown in the death of samurai Itsuhide during the Azuchi-Momoyama period in Japan. He was an impassioned man and a skilled soldier, earning praise form Mitsyaki—a concurrent daimyo. However, his excessive emotions proved to be his end. His wife Mayura was killed during a raid on his home village and, upon hearing the news he rashly rushed into battle, made [should be “mad”] with grief. In this conflict, the Battle of Torumuda, 1561, he was brutally slaughtered and he was found with tears smeared across his face. Thus, Itsuhide died, leaving his 2 year old son an orphan, because his excessive emotions clouded his judgment.
No conclusion… 
still need to work on time management.
Much obliged!