It sort of seems like philosophers tend to fetishize either reason or emotion or both, and maybe underestimate some more basic aspects related to attention and caring. I think Heidegger had some critiques like this. When I go about my normal life I am typically not driven by tendencies that are clearly rational or emotional but more kind of a mundane absorption with motivational roots in past decisions and events. I am also absorbed in various structures that shape the "grammar" of my behavior, exemplified by language and society. My capacity for "reason" goes up and down depending on my mental health, my attention span, my general clarity of presence; the same is true for "emotion." And philosophical reason is quite different from everyday planning and executive function. You could argue that dopaminergic activity in the prefrontal cortex is a "passion" while it is also the substrate of the ability to be reasonable. I don't have a clear point here but something seems sort of silly and old-fashioned about this debate.
Reasonable is simply acting in line with whatever mythology your society has adopted. It's reasonable to kill people for insulting a sacred man (an act of passion) while elsewhere it's considered a right to do so (another act of passion). We "reason" using the cultural norms, and those norms are anything but actually norms, they are mythologies that makes societies function. You can not reason outside the cultural norms, like for instance you can't reason within Nazi cultural norms in modern Germany. It's impossible. Reasoning is simply a method to socialize with people with whatever cockamamie idea they currently consider a norm.
Outside of that in certain other domains we have the ability to reason like for instance in engineering or programming, and there is no way to avoid reasoning about these things as they have very specific truth conditions... that are persistent and inescapable.
