It depends what you mean by “feelings.” In his landmark book, Rational Emotive Thinking, Albert Ellis (one of the founders of cognitive psychology and the creator of RET, Rational Emotive Therapy) descibes two different types of emotions. There are the emotions we feel instantly, by sheer instinct, and which fade quickly; and there are the more complex emotions which we craft in response to our experiences. While the former are useful for, say, keeping us from harm by causing us to react negatively to pain, the latter, when negative, cause us all sorts of physiological and psychological harm. Ellis correctly points out that there is absolutely no benefit to actually feeling a negative emotion of the second type, since the few benefits they seem to offer (such as getting our way with a temper tantrum) are easily obtained by faking, without the need to actually feel such emotions.
RET provides a structure for making the emotions subservient to the intellect, by breaking down emotional reactions into small, axiomatic statements which can then be consciously modified. Does this make the intellect more to be valued? Hard to say. It is beneficial to press the emotions into the service of the intellect, but the opposite is to be avoided. So on balance I would say yes, that emotions are less important than the intellect.