Believe in me.

[rm']

Why is reason better then emotion? Is logic truly the best system for analytical thought? Can you justify rational thought without resorting to logic? Or does dedication to reason require... belief?

[InvisableMan]

What are you implying by this, Mr. Vulcan?

[hgnis]

Originally posted by rm'
Why is reason better then emotion? Is logic truly the best system for analytical thought? Can you justify rational thought without resorting to logic? Or does dedication to reason require... belief?

Another assignment for class rm?....
Well you're shit out of luck today....I don't have any booze now.
So as I am not feeling too gregarious right now here's the abbreviated version....
Being the toally logical being I am...most of the time I require one or more reasons to initiate any activity - even the ones most people consider routine. However, also being part of the human race means that occasionally there is a mismatch of the electric impulses in my brain and the chemical imbalance resulting tends to initiate random events....most of which I can justify later on...

[Bop]

Logic is usually better suited for solving problems because it involves weighing differing alternatives by reasoning what is better for the situation... while emotional responses are instinctual and often based on a limited amount of information, experience, and alternatives.

Emotions are more apt to display biases and stereotypes of the individual... and usually lead to decisions based on heuristics rather than complete information.

I'm not saying that logic cannot also include these shortcomings but it is easier to reduce the effects of them.

[Some1]

Why is reason better then emotion?

I don't know if "better" is the right word to use, although I think that putting reason ahead of pure emotion is a survival trait...think about it, if a friend of yours were to fall/jump off a cliff, your immediate emotional response might be to jump off after them to somehow try to save them, but reason tells you that doing this would just end up getting both of you killed, so you don't jump off. Thus blindly following your emotions can be detrimental toy our health, as can blindly following nothing but logic/reason. From my personal standpoint, in a world where absolute morality doesn't exist, your emotions become the most valuable tool for guidance that you have...so basically you should reasonably go in the direction that your emotions point you.

Is logic truly the best system for analytical thought?

I don't know about "best," but given that emotions are reactionary and not analytical, logic is a better method of analytical thought than some sort of emotion based reasoning.

Can you justify rational thought without resorting to logic? Or does dedication to reason require... belief?

This is a lot like your "does reality exist" question, in that it can't really be answered, largely due to the definitions involved, and also the fact that for most people, justifying something is an inherently logical practice by default.

[SNYder]

i have found that logic varies from human to human And even when a common logic is achieved, it is still just human logic. And as we know, god is not human.

[InvisableMan]

Originally posted by Some1
"does reality exist"

reality is only what one perceives it to be

[Xerxes]

Emotions are the enemy of logic. The only use of appealing to emotions is to persuade large amounts of weaker minded people to action.

[apollos]

I'm sorry rm', whats that about having too much free time on ones hands...?

[patroclus22]

Originally posted by Xerxes
Emotions are the enemy of logic. The only use of appealing to emotions is to persuade large amounts of weaker minded people to action.

Amen. Sure is useful, though, isn't it?

[n_ick2000]

Personally, Logic is the best way to go. But when you can't resort to logic, faith is a second.

[RanDom_ErrOr]

i find a gun helps the control process...
but when that fails, use logic,then just kill the person if that fails... j/k

[SNYder]

Originally posted by Xerxes
Emotions are the enemy of logic. The only use of appealing to emotions is to persuade large amounts of weaker minded people to action.

[vioce=soup nazi] No love for you! [/vioce]

[rm']

Originally posted by Apollos
I'm sorry rm', whats that about having too much free time on ones hands...?

I guess proving yourself to be a dick comes easy to you, doesn't it?

I'm very interested in hearing your folks' thoughts on how logic can exist without itself. It seems to be a given for most people that reason is the preferable system of thinking... but how can you assert that without having to resort to logic? That's like saying "Faith is the best system of thought? Why? Because I have faith in faith".

[I am Jesus]

I think Emotion is a more of a wimp style of thinking while reason is more to the point.

[rm']

A) That's not answering the question satisfactorily. Emotion is wimpier then reason, but you base that assertion on a belief?
B) Who said emotion is the only alternative to logic?

[meaisl8again]

So rm', and I am asking a legit question, not trying to be sarcastic, what is an alternative to logic other than emotion in your book?

Lots of Love,
Mea

[I am Jesus]

but you base that assertion on a belief?

EDIT: Seriously I dont realy understand, it's kind of hard to answer it.(for me)

[rm']

mea, there are a couple I know of. Intuition. Caring. By example (particularly divine revealed truth, or through the example of ancestors). Sentiment. I'm sure there are numerous others, but I am an ignorant person, and am not fully sure of how the world works. Surely, there must be many methods of thinking that humanity, let alone I, has not discovered yet.

Of course, these words are just labels. They may appear to be emotions, or emotional in nature, but the English word used to refer to them hardly describe the concept behind it fully.

[meaisl8again]

the English word used to refer to them hardly describe the concept behind it fully.

I would agree with you there. I think that personally, I use logic to answer my question, but my logic resides on emotion. Follow? I choose what makes my life easier, but with regard to how others will respond emotionally to me, so I don't think the two are detachable. I could be completely missing the point here, but nevertheless, I thought I'd give my two cents.

Lots of Love,
Mea

[Avalon]

Originally posted by rm'
A) That's not answering the question satisfactorily. Emotion is wimpier then reason, but you base that assertion on a belief?
B) Who said emotion is the only alternative to logic?

Emotion is a reaction, and not a type of reason. Reason is why we do something, what caused a situation, and the emotion that we protray is only a reaction to the reason that we go about things. Emotion for humans is logical, it's the way we think, express, feel, understand and nothing is whimpier than it because it's our emotions that show who we trully are.
Although emotion isn't the only alternative to logic, as in sitting down and figuruing out what going on (for instance, is someone shot me in the arm, do I react angryly and beat up the person, or do I do the logicl thing and run away and save myself?), but they only seem to be the two choices.

[rm']

Yeah, I get what you are saying, mea. Here's real-world example of alternatives to logic:

an 11-year-old-boy, Jake, is given the Heinz dilemma. A man named Heinz considers whether to steal a drug that he cannot afford to buy because the drug is essential for saving the life of his wife. Jake is confident that Heinz should steal the drug because this is a clear-cut case of a conflict between the values of property and life. Logically, he argues, since life is irreplaceable, it must be given greater priority than property... Amy, also 11 years old, when given the Heinz dilemma, says she is not sure whether Heinz should steal the drug since it would harm the druggist. Also, Heinz might harm himself if he is caught and has to go to jail. That would also harm his wife who needs him to take care of her. Of course, she shouldn't be allowed to die either. Some other way needs to be found (borrow the money, work out installment payments), and she suggests that they all get together, talk about the problem, and find a solution acceptable to all concerned.

Which is a better solution?

[meaisl8again]

Why doesn't the above story use logic?
Forgive me. I guess I don't know enough about logic.

Lots of Love,
Mea

[Avalon]

Originally posted by rm'
Yeah, I get what you are saying, mea. Here's real-world example of alternatives to logic:

an 11-year-old-boy, Jake, is given the Heinz dilemma. A man named Heinz considers whether to steal a drug that he cannot afford to buy because the drug is essential for saving the life of his wife. Jake is condifent that Heinz should steal the drug because this is a clear-cut case of a conflict between the values of property and life. Logically, he argues, since life is irreplaceable, it must be given greater priority than property... Amy, also 11 years old, when given the Heinz dilemma, says she is not sure whether Heinz should stea, the drug since it would harm the drugist. Also, Heinz might harm himself if he is caught and has to go to jail. That would also harm his wife who needs him to take care of her. Of course, she shouldn't be allowed to die either. Some other way needs to be found (borrow the money, work out installment payments), and she suggests that they all get together, talk about the problem, and find a solution acceptable to all concerned.

But isn't that classical problem that used in the ethics classes. I mean... I can see how it relates to what we are talking about but do ethics play a role in our emotions and logic this much?

[rm']

Jake's solution does. It does a cost-benefit analysis on the value of the wife's life, and on the value of the drug. Amy's solution, however, is based on the emotional reactions that all participants will have towards the acts of theft. Her solution aims to lower the emotional harm done, whereas Jake's minimizes the material harm done.

[meaisl8again]

Let me ponder that for awhile.

Lots of Love,
Mea

[Some1]

Which is a better solution?

The first one...just steal the fucking drug...although the ideal would be for them to move to a socialist country where they can get the drug for free thanks to taxpayers.

[SNYder]

i'd go with the latter.

i have emotion commin out my ass

[apollos]

the ideal would be for them to move to a socialist country where they can get the drug for free thanks to taxpayers.

So you are saying that it is acceptable to take advantage of and leech of another country for your now needs? I can see that in extreme cases this could be the only option along the horizon but it strikes me still as a little selfish.

Moving abroad would not be a realistic option anyway if
a, Heinz's wife had a life threatening illness that come on quickly and needed to be sorted fast.
b, the illness that Heinz's wife has might be short term therefore moving abroad to get the rug for people who already wouldnt be able to afford it, might prove a little difficult.

[Some1]

So you are saying that it is acceptable to take advantage of and leech of another country for your now needs?

Yes, especially if a human life is at stake...how is it selfish for a poor person to save his wife's life by taking advantage of a program designed to help out poor people who can't afford drugs needed to keep tham alive?

Also, I question the interpretation of the second option in the Heinz thing (the girl's reply that it would hurt the shopkeeper etc. etc.)...I think she is being quite insensitive to the husband. Wouldn't the emotional pain that he would suffer having to see his wife die (as her method provides much more likelihood that this will happen) be far greater than the "pain" that the *******ist would endure from losing a small amount of drugs? Wouldn't his wife have to suffer the pain of knowing that her husband doesn't care enough about her to steal something that she needs to stay alive? It is claimed that the girl's reply shows a greater concern for avoiding emotional harm, and yet she does not consider the emotions of all parties, or even weigh out which ones will be harmed the most, or consider the case that an agreement to get the drugs may not be able to be worked out, so how can her reply even be treated as valid in the first place? In closing, she is an insensitive bitch (especially for an eleven year old), and deserves to be infected with a terminal disease and then have her parents be too poor to buy the cure and unwilling to go steal it for her...that'll shut the bitch up.

[Sandman2012]

"The pie shall be cut in half. Each man will receive...

Death. I'll eat the pie."

[apollos]

Some1, you have got to consider that fact that the girl is a child, therefore it is acceptable that her opinion is likely to be a little 'black and white' with the lack of consideration of certian points.

[Some1]

Yes, well her "lack of consideration" could get somebody killed, and that just isn't cool. Besides, the way in which her position was presented in the initial post about the Heinz thing implied that her "solution" was valid, or at least sound, which it isn't.

[apollos]

Amy, also 11 years old, when given the Heinz dilemma, says she is not sure whether Heinz should stea, the drug since it would harm the drugist...

she is merely expressing her opinions on the situation. I see no confirmation from Heinz that her opinion is a valid solution.

[binary hero]

Originally posted by Apollos
Moving abroad would not be a realistic option anyway if
a, Heinz's wife had a life threatening illness that come on quickly and needed to be sorted fast.
b, the illness that Heinz's wife has might be short term therefore moving abroad to get the rug for people who already wouldnt be able to afford it, might prove a little difficult.

...heinz's wife IS going to die if she doesn't get this drug. it is basically a choice (for him) of steal it or have his wife die.

Personally, i don't think emotion and logic can be weighed up against each other. people who rely on logic are classed as sociopaths, people who rely totally on emotion are psychopaths. The trick is to find a balance, and anything that is balanced in this way, you can't put a higher rating on something.

it's descriptivism and persccriptivsm again. descriptivism says that one accent can he ranked higheer than others, but perscriptivism says they are all equal
(i'm an english student and it's early in the morning, sorry if this doesn't make sense).

[apollos]

Yes, a balance is good.

[. - .... .- -. ....]

Originally posted by rm'
Why is reason better then emotion? Is logic truly the best system for analytical thought? Can you justify rational thought without resorting to logic? Or does dedication to reason require... belief?

As someone said earlier, I wouldn't agree that reason is necessarily better than emotion or vice-versa, when it comes to decision making, more that each method presents us with a different set of options.


Whereas everyone seems to be happy throwing back that reason is of course better, because emotions tend to bias our decisions, you need to look at the bigger picture here. The situation that we are dealing with here is a decision. So what is a decision? In my eyes a decision is a choice that we make that will affect our entire future, hopefully for the better. Better, in turn, is purely an emotional state of mind - it's something that makes us feel good about ourselves, or about our surrounding environment. Therefore, (again, in my eyes), our emotive state has to be taken into consideration in order to make the correct decision for us.

Logic, on the other hand, finds a solution by weighing the pros and cons of a given set of options, and basically taking the lesser of two evils as the solution.

Each one of us are governed by our emotions, therefore no decision made can ever be truly the logical one.

My measly 2 cents.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that all decisions should be based on logic? I ask this because a logical decision would (or should) entail taking into account your emotion(s) at the time you make your decision, as well as the emotional effect your decision will have on yourself and others after you make it? Isn't that the balance we should strive for?

Or is that too idealistic a belief?

[pukkaboy]

you have to maintain a mix of the two. otherwise, you become a vulcan.

[ujay]

Originally posted by ethan_h
... Each one of us are governed by our emotions, therefore no decision made can ever be truly the logical one.

Very true.
Logical or illogical are purely discriptions of our choices, and can only be applied to their rationality. Most actions are irrational in this sense, and more concerned with sex, emotion, instinct ...
Since this question involves life and death would it be better to look at it from the point of view of the biological imperative, were questions of logic, rationality, ethics ... play no part. The will to do whatever it takes to ensure the survival of our line is what counts.

It's only logical init ?

UJ