Passions > Reason
1
you guys are comparing too different things.
you can not "do" things because of logic alone.
and if you act solely on "feeling" then there is no thought process.
your very base assumptions on the concept of logic are wrong.
logic is but a way to get from your base concepts into and answer to a question.
the question could be "should I steal that apple" and it could be "is it o.k to murder" logic will provide you with the tools to reach the answer.
for example,
say your question is "should I steal that apple"
and your base beliefs are
a) I am hungry and would like to change that.
b) I don't want to go to prison
c) no one is looking right now so I don't think anyone will know its me.
d) I don't have the money to waste on buying this apple
then the logical conclusion will be "yes I should steal the apple because it is unlikely that I will be caught and even if I do get caught I will not go to prison because stealing an apple is a patty crime."
now, I gave some pretty big base beliefs,
but most of them are achieved through logic as well,
for example the "I don't want to go to prison" belief came from the
"do I want to go to prison?" being answered with
a) I don't want other people to tell me what to do
b) in prison you have no free will
c) other people may hurt you in prison
d) people I know will think bad things of me if they hear I'm going to prison
e) I care about what people think of me
and so you come up with the answer that you don't want to go to prison.
now all of this was pretty definitive.
but in real life logic is not always "yes" or "no", in most cases it a specific type of logic
in math this was defined as "fuzzy logic" the answer moves on an axis between 0, which is an absolute "no, and 1 which is an absolute "yes".
so the answer to the "should I steal that apple" question could be 0.89 cause there is the
10% you could get beat up and you wouldn't like that.
in most cases "wrong" logic is simply the result of misconceptions which bring wrong
beliefs.
for example most people will take the "I don't want to go to prison" as a granted fact
they won't go over all the questions and assumptions that create it.
thus this discussion is basically void, that idea of for example vulcans living pointless lives because of logic
is wrong, because what makes them pointless is not the logic, but their base assumptions.
if their most important base assumption was "I would like to have as much fun as possible"
then their lives could stay completely logical yet extremely fulfilling.
you can not "do" things because of logic alone.
and if you act solely on "feeling" then there is no thought process.
your very base assumptions on the concept of logic are wrong.
logic is but a way to get from your base concepts into and answer to a question.
the question could be "should I steal that apple" and it could be "is it o.k to murder" logic will provide you with the tools to reach the answer.
for example,
say your question is "should I steal that apple"
and your base beliefs are
a) I am hungry and would like to change that.
b) I don't want to go to prison
c) no one is looking right now so I don't think anyone will know its me.
d) I don't have the money to waste on buying this apple
then the logical conclusion will be "yes I should steal the apple because it is unlikely that I will be caught and even if I do get caught I will not go to prison because stealing an apple is a patty crime."
now, I gave some pretty big base beliefs,
but most of them are achieved through logic as well,
for example the "I don't want to go to prison" belief came from the
"do I want to go to prison?" being answered with
a) I don't want other people to tell me what to do
b) in prison you have no free will
c) other people may hurt you in prison
d) people I know will think bad things of me if they hear I'm going to prison
e) I care about what people think of me
and so you come up with the answer that you don't want to go to prison.
now all of this was pretty definitive.
but in real life logic is not always "yes" or "no", in most cases it a specific type of logic
in math this was defined as "fuzzy logic" the answer moves on an axis between 0, which is an absolute "no, and 1 which is an absolute "yes".
so the answer to the "should I steal that apple" question could be 0.89 cause there is the
10% you could get beat up and you wouldn't like that.
in most cases "wrong" logic is simply the result of misconceptions which bring wrong
beliefs.
for example most people will take the "I don't want to go to prison" as a granted fact
they won't go over all the questions and assumptions that create it.
thus this discussion is basically void, that idea of for example vulcans living pointless lives because of logic
is wrong, because what makes them pointless is not the logic, but their base assumptions.
if their most important base assumption was "I would like to have as much fun as possible"
then their lives could stay completely logical yet extremely fulfilling.
0
Fuki has mentioned many major points in his argument. ShaggyJebus, I think somewhere in your argument your reasonings were flawed to begin with, and reading your last post, I didn't agree with it at all. It's as if you're saying that logic is just something that humans came up with to justify their actions (based on feelings = passions), which renders this entire argument moot, which Fuki pointed out as well in a more structured and understandable format.
0
g-money wrote...
Fuki has mentioned many major points in his argument. ShaggyJebus, I think somewhere in your argument your reasonings were flawed to begin with, and reading your last post, I didn't agree with it at all. It's as if you're saying that logic is just something that humans came up with to justify their actions (based on feelings = passions), which renders this entire argument moot, which Fuki pointed out as well in a more structured and understandable format.I don't really mind that my argument was flawed. I was just trying to get people talking (and hopefully thinking). But yeah, it definitely could have been better. Maybe if I had actually bothered to look back at some of my philosophy books and notes, I would have been able to word things better and make more sense, but eh, I'm lazy.
Still, isn't logic something humans use only to justify how they feel? Don't all racists use some sort of logic (though it's often incredibly flawed) to justify their hatred of a group of people? Don't the poor use logic to explain why wealth should be shared? Don't the rich use logic to explain why the wealth should not be shared?
Let's say a guy sees his little sister messing with their dad's gun, and the girl accidentally shots herself and dies. That guy starts protesting against guns and for stricter gun control. He tells people that oh-so-many gun accidents happen in the home and that guns aren't safe, but isn't he only using the statistic, and any other arguments he uses, to justify his desire to get rid of guns, because if people couldn't have guns in their houses, his sister wouldn't have been killed?
0
sure people do that in some cases, but in many other cases they use logic normally.
in general when people try to enforce some idea of theirs on others they will use any tool they can get, including rationalizing.
some will use stuff like the will of god,
and some will try to get other people to sympathize with them.
it takes quit a leap to jump from the idea that people use logic to rationalize -some- of their beliefs to assume that all logic is used for is rationalize impulses.
the vary idea has more holes then a strainer, the very link between "I don't want to go to prison" and "I will not steal this bread when other people can watch me" is logic.
what you are suggesting is that someone first thinks "I will not steal this bread when other people can watch me" and then for it to make sense to him he rationalizes it by telling himself "well the reason I will not do that is because I don't want to go to prison".
it should be pretty clear that it is not the way things work.
in general when people try to enforce some idea of theirs on others they will use any tool they can get, including rationalizing.
some will use stuff like the will of god,
and some will try to get other people to sympathize with them.
it takes quit a leap to jump from the idea that people use logic to rationalize -some- of their beliefs to assume that all logic is used for is rationalize impulses.
the vary idea has more holes then a strainer, the very link between "I don't want to go to prison" and "I will not steal this bread when other people can watch me" is logic.
what you are suggesting is that someone first thinks "I will not steal this bread when other people can watch me" and then for it to make sense to him he rationalizes it by telling himself "well the reason I will not do that is because I don't want to go to prison".
it should be pretty clear that it is not the way things work.
0
@ShaggyJebus: the way I view logic is as such. Passion is defined by spur of the moment action accompanied by following needs/wants without much thought process. Logic is a chain of rationalizing thought processes that creates an intuitive jump from one idea to another to justify an action according to the circumstances. For example:
Passion: I want to steal bread, so I steal it - you steal the bread because you are hungry or you felt like it. No real thought process, and complete disregard of the consequences.
Logic: I want to steal bread, because I am hungry and I have no money. If I steal it and get caught, then I will be put into jail - it doesn't matter if the person ends up stealing it, what matters is the chain of thought that accompanied the person's actions.
Comparing the two, passion makes a person steal a bread and completely disregarding everything else because he needs/wants to, whereas logic makes a person think about what he/she will do if he/she decides to steal bread. The slight difference between the two (besides the time spent to calculate the decision to steal bread) is the fact that one impulsively acts while the other thinks before one acts. To me, this is what separates passion from logic.
Passion: I want to steal bread, so I steal it - you steal the bread because you are hungry or you felt like it. No real thought process, and complete disregard of the consequences.
Logic: I want to steal bread, because I am hungry and I have no money. If I steal it and get caught, then I will be put into jail - it doesn't matter if the person ends up stealing it, what matters is the chain of thought that accompanied the person's actions.
Comparing the two, passion makes a person steal a bread and completely disregarding everything else because he needs/wants to, whereas logic makes a person think about what he/she will do if he/she decides to steal bread. The slight difference between the two (besides the time spent to calculate the decision to steal bread) is the fact that one impulsively acts while the other thinks before one acts. To me, this is what separates passion from logic.
0
In order to understand how logic and passion works in our decisions, we must study how the brain works which make these decisions. The right side of the brain handles the emotional aspects while the left side of the brain can only handle logical aspects. Knowing this, we can assume that without the past memories and experience, which is stored in the left side of the brain, one cannot make clear judgment. According to researchers, the left and right brain also deals with the perception of time. The left holds the past and it also makes assumptions about the future while the right can only deal with the present. Knowing this allows us to realize that without the left brain (again which is the "logical" part of your brain) you won't be able to think ahead and say "I'm not going to do this because I will go to prison." or what other consequences lie in wait for the individual. Another way to think about this is to say that no one will be able to do anything with just one part of the brain.
0
mibuchiha
Fakku Elder
g-money wrote...
Logic: I want to steal bread, because I am hungry and I have no money. If I steal it and get caught, then I will be put into jail.
This is the example of what I consider the misuse of the word logic in my post earlier. I mean, all there is in the chain of thought is fear of getting caught, and being put in a jail. How is there any logic in that? Yeah, the chain of thought involves logic in reaching the conclusion but it totally forgets about the assumptions of "law dictates that stealing is to be punished, because most people hate them", "the treatment you get in jail sucks, and your image becomes bad too", "i'm scared not to be in the right side" and many other assumptions, that are purely based on emotions/passions and no logic to justify them. That's why I never take these things as logic, because all logic does in this case is help you to reach the conclusion. Everything else is just passion.
0
mibuchiha wrote...
Yeah, the chain of thought involves logic in reaching the conclusion but it totally forgets about the assumptions of "law dictates that stealing is to be punished, because most people hate them", "the treatment you get in jail sucks, and your image becomes bad too", "i'm scared not to be in the right side" and many other assumptions, that are purely based on emotions/passions and no logic to justify them. That's why I never take these things as logic, because all logic does in this case is help you to reach the conclusion. Everything else is just passion.I think everything revolves on our feelings, but as I was saying, logic is just a chain of rationalizing thought processes that creates an intuitive jump from one idea to another to justify an action according to the circumstances. I never said that it was the basis of our actions, did I?
But I must point out that to me, humans don't live on "passion", as in by the book definition. Feelings are not the same as "passion" and the two should not be mixed, and I believed I separated the two in my last post after reconsidering the fact that passion is not quite the same as feelings. "I'm hungry" - is that really passion, something I extremely like, or is it a feeling or need to meet the bottom line? If I acted upon that without thinking due to extreme interest, I'm using passion. If I do think about it and then make a decision, I'm using logic. It's possible to term the two words according to usage in dictating our actions, which are based on feelings.
0
Jericho Antares
FAKKU Writer
This can never be settled because each person uses these mental tools in different ways to achieve different ends. Each scenario can be attacked from an innumerable amount of angles to fit both sides of this argument. Passion is for those who wish to enjoy life and worry about consequences later. They live for the moment (hence the term 'in the heat of passion' usually relating to spontaneous things), while more logical people take a more standoff-ish approach to things and analyze them beforehand. Very few people are of one extreme or the other, though. Most people find a comfortable balance betwixt the two and live their life in that manner. The laws that were born from humans trying to balance logic and emotion can be claimed to be straight from either, when it has to be taken into account that no one person created these laws, which were born from collectives. The people within these collectives have all different balances of these two tools, so no matter how you look at it, the passion behind a law and the logic behind it came up somewhere during its induction. Though some laws were passed out of a strong emotion (fear, in most cases) these laws were nearly always repealed.
And as to which leads to which, it was passion that led to reason in all cases, because even the most base animals have passion. It is reason, however, that allowed us to build such a structured society. The amalgamation of the two has helped our society thrive.
No matter how you try to approach it, some twisted or fuzzy logic will always come into play. In actuality, I believe that the inability to use at least some sort of logic before acting is a mental disability. I don't think that any sane human in the past three hundred years has done anything without considering something beforehand. This consideration, no matter how small, is logic. This logic is happening before the action, and is then over-powered by a strong passion. So I actually believe its quite the opposite of what you've suggested. At time, passion overcomes logic, which then regains control. Perhaps not realizing that logic was intertwined from the beginning led you to think that it was always following passion.
And as to which leads to which, it was passion that led to reason in all cases, because even the most base animals have passion. It is reason, however, that allowed us to build such a structured society. The amalgamation of the two has helped our society thrive.
No matter how you try to approach it, some twisted or fuzzy logic will always come into play. In actuality, I believe that the inability to use at least some sort of logic before acting is a mental disability. I don't think that any sane human in the past three hundred years has done anything without considering something beforehand. This consideration, no matter how small, is logic. This logic is happening before the action, and is then over-powered by a strong passion. So I actually believe its quite the opposite of what you've suggested. At time, passion overcomes logic, which then regains control. Perhaps not realizing that logic was intertwined from the beginning led you to think that it was always following passion.
