Inordinate dependance on logic

What's illogical is the perceived mutual exclusivity of logic and emotions. If the use of emotions is advisable it is also logical.



It's neither impossible nor vulcan. Again, it's a common misperception that logic = cold. Logic is what's logical and it's not always logical to be devoid of emotions.

mark

I assert that if logic and emotion could cohabitate in our decisions, we would not have such a busy Relationships forum.

I wonder are we not misinterpreting the methods we use to decide things?

We think, we feel, we sense, we guess, we apply rules, we apply analogies, we refer to historical information, and to appropriate predictions;
and then we use 'logic' to cull an answer from this amorphous melange of input.

That's only logical!

Our minds are like blenders;
and logic is the 'strainer' through which we pour the result,
into the cup of knowledge!

Craven, I've re-thought this...I guess I was implying a coldness to logic, but really it's just the process of finding truth, right? So we use logic in any decision. Which is what you're saying, I think, except in your initial question. Being illogical is being senseless, and being senseless is doing something without meaning...so if you're doing something with meaning, it's logical (just maybe sick logic or weird logic).

Is that what you're saying, Bo?

I don't think so, but then i'm really not sure; my point is that logic is the final filter, after all things have been considered, to separate 'meaning' from the myriad threads forming the 'fabric' of information.

Sorry cav,

With knowledge and logic everything is explainable. Not necessarily true though.

ie,
Jealousy= Concerns over the use of property.
Kindness= hope of fair play
Love=a mutual dependency of humans

Damn thats cold, isn't it

Mech;

the colder the ice; the clearer it is!

Logic is warm.
It produces the Franklin stove, using air flow to heat a room much better.

Love is cold.
It's so unconditional and permanent, always ruthlessly true irregardless of the facts.

The behavior that results from each
is somewhere in between, depending on what mood we're in.



----------
"I don't know why I say these things. I just do."
"Did you become inordinate again?! We better get you some coordinates."

what feelings and emotions are can be a logical theory. Like an affect is a sensation, together with an idea. For instance: It's impossible to have a feeling without an idea. Sensation (pain or pleasure) can be associated with pure body function, however, a feeling like love must contain an idea. Like I love my cat. One cannot love without an object and the perception of an object must be an idea. So this thinking process is an attempt to be logical.

What makes one person love another may seem illogical. But I've always been a firm believer in the adage, "everything is true about something, the question is what is it true about?" Behavior can be seen as logical only in relation to it's aim, as in the aim of increasing pleasure and/or avoiding pain.

I agree with Deb, Cav and Frank and whoever else said it, it's illogical to be overly dependent on logic. I would say that it's not logic that is flawed but rather the human reasoning behind an attempt to separate thinking from feeling that is flawed. But my logic may be flawed here.

'Logic' is the opposite of searching for 'happiness'.

I much prefer less explaining and more getting on with crap....

hear hear.

Bo,

You see logic as the opposite, but I think it's logical to search for happiness. Or more explicitly, it's logical to try to get what you want and need.

And thinking about how a person goes about that is a logical process as well.

The human mind is a process, even though we speak of it as if it were a thing, using a noun to describe what is really an activity. Let me say it this way, when a person is minding, they are using logic. So saying you could be too dependent on your mind is like saying we're too dependent on our hearts. We are totally dependent on the processes we call mind. So there can be no "too" about it. Can a person be too dependent on their lungs? Without them, a person is dead. So we can say that as long as a person is alive, it's not possible to be too dependent on vital functions or functions that take place involuntarily.

I think (just thinking out loud) I disagree with you that logic is the opposite of the search for happiness. Affective states are a part of the mind, part of the equation and can't be excised. Without feelings there's nothing to be logical about.

The mythical character of someone who has no feelings, only reasoning is actually an impossibility (that's why you find these sorts only in stories, they represent an impossible wish to remove feeling from thinking). A vulcan would be like a machine. He would only move if someone turned him on and pushed his buttons. And he would only be used by someone who was in search of pleasure in whatever convoluted form that search may take place. It's the good ole Decartes idea, which I believe dlowan has already mentioned.

But then again, as Dys always says, I could be wrong.

Monger, I love your avatar.

By the nature of the word, it is not logical if it is illogical. Some one can use logic (the process of thought) and have it be illogical. But if it is illogical, the user's logic was flawed.

If all the steps are absolutely correct (in which no logical opposition can be named), the end result must be correct. As in:

1. (if a then b)
2.
3.
4.
final:


if steps 1 through 4 are correct, final must be correct. If one or all of the steps 1 through for are not correct, final may not be correct.

So, if somthing was reasonEd through and is incorrect, it is not the flaw of the logic process it's self, it is the person's illogical use of logic.

Cav; (& Monger);
["I much prefer less explaining and more getting on with crap...."]

you might want to try a little more fibre in your diets!

Lola; you are completely missing my meaning;
['Logic' is the opposite of searching for 'happiness'.]

There is no logic in 'searching' for happiness!
Happiness is not 'findable' it is a state of being, a 'happenstance', a propinquitous serendipity.
'Look' and you will not 'find' it!
'Live' well, and it may find you!

And Star;

careful climbing that ladder;
watch out for the missing steps!

Bo,

I think you're missing my point, but I'm content to leave it here.

No Lola; i'm not missing your meaning; i'm trying to reinforce it.....

"The mythical character of someone who has no feelings, only reasoning is actually an impossibility (that's why you find these sorts only in stories, they represent an impossible wish to remove feeling from thinking)."

Of course, reasoning without feeling is 'illogical'! :wink:

according to my logic, it is, Bo.......anyway, I don't think I'll try it. Glad we agree.

:wink: