Logic can not exist without Emotion, but Emotion can exist without Logic..., page 4

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:10 AM

link

reply to post by arpgme

that is illogical
emotion is weakness!

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:16 AM

link

Logic is necessary to think. Emotion is necessary to believe. One does not depend on the other but if used together, great things can be accomplished...Sometimes good, sometimes horrible, but great nonetheless.

*bonus points for citing where the "quote' was paraphrased from

arpgme

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:45 PM

link

Originally posted by TRGreer
We as a species here on planet earth should be eradicated because we are killing the planet and have been for a very long time now. The hope that we could ever live in balance with mother earth is slim to none. We are a very bad horse to bet on. That's logic devoid of emotion.

No, that is not devoid of emotion. Once you said that humans are killing the planet therefore they should be eradicated, you are thinking with emotion. You are showing concern for earth, otherwise you wouldn't care about eradicating humans to protect earth.

Your statement shows apathy for the human race but it is still showing concern (emotion) for earth...

edit on 27-6-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

arpgme

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:46 PM

link

Originally posted by databomb
reply to post by arpgme

that is illogical
emotion is weakness!

Whether or not emotion is weakness does not conclude to it being illogical. That is a non-sequitur; a logical fallacy in which the premise does not agree with the conclusion.

Jean Paul Zodeaux

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:52 PM

link

reply to post by PurpleChiten

You're still not getting it, but that's ok.... Shakespere comes to mind...... Of course you wouldn't comprehend that either.... L8R H8R

It is fascinating that in a thread about logic and emotion and how the O.P. insists that logic cannot exist without emotion, you handily refute the O.P.'s argument through demonstration. For at least three posts now you've eschewed all logic to assuage emotional reactions and have only proven your own initial assertion that when logic decreases emotion increases.

Neither rhyme nor reason can fathom the bottomless pit of emotion.

arpgme

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:57 PM

link

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Ok, let me ask a different question then...

Is it Logical to eat food? Is it Logical to drink water? Even if it will lead to death if you don't, why would that matter according to Logic?

In Logic, meaning is dependent on something else. For example, Water is important because it keeps life alive, but if you trace back far enough, what makes the original thing important to begin with? And if there isn't no importance, why survive and why use Logic to get to a goal? Unless it isn't Logic, it is emotion which was my whole point...

BIHOTZ

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:58 PM

link

In the words of a wise vulcan.

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end."

Jean Paul Zodeaux

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:35 PM

link

reply to post by arpgme

Is it Logical to eat food? Is it Logical to drink water? Even if it will lead to death if you don't, why would that matter according to Logic?

It is illogical to eat junk food. It is illogical to drink poisoned water. It is is logical to survive.

In Logic, meaning is dependent on something else. For example, Water is important because it keeps life alive, but if you trace back far enough, what makes the original thing important to begin with? And if there isn't no importance, why survive and why use Logic to get to a goal? Unless it isn't Logic, it is emotion which was my whole point...

Kant argues, in his A Critique of Pure Reason, that pure reason (logic) fails to address what comes before the beginning, and what comes after the end and can only address a beginning, middle, and an end. This is why logic is merely a tool, and that tool is only applicable for beginnings, middles, and ends. What comes before the beginning, and what comes after the end is a different matter and requires different forms of measurement.

arpgme

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:44 PM

link

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

How is survival logical? Is it because we have brains which brings us fear of death so that we can survive? If that is the case, isn't sex illogical unless it is being used to create children? Isn't eating illogical unless you are hungry? Isn't wanting to be happy illogical? If sex is designed for reproduction, why are some people gay and have different brain structure?

ErroneousDylan

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 03:09 PM

link

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

How is survival logical? Is it because we have brains which brings us fear of death so that we can survive? If that is the case, isn't sex illogical unless it is being used to create children? Isn't eating illogical unless you are hungry? Isn't wanting to be happy illogical? If sex is designed for reproduction, why are some people gay and have different brain structure?

Because we aren't computers. Our brains are. Our minds aren't. Survival isn't about fear of death. It is about flourishing the Universe with life. We do not fear being dead but the act of dying because it is associated with an incomprehensible pain. Pain is obviously not pleasant and so we avoid it at all costs. All those things you listed are somewhat correct. You just need to remember the usage of the word "logical". It would be a logical response to eat if you are hungry. It would also be a logical response to eat if you want to eat food, for whatever reason. It would not be logical to eat if you do not want to eat or are not hungry.

PurpleChiten

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 03:32 PM

link

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by PurpleChiten

You're still not getting it, but that's ok.... Shakespere comes to mind...... Of course you wouldn't comprehend that either.... L8R H8R

It is fascinating that in a thread about logic and emotion and how the O.P. insists that logic cannot exist without emotion, you handily refute the O.P.'s argument through demonstration. For at least three posts now you've eschewed all logic to assuage emotional reactions and have only proven your own initial assertion that when logic decreases emotion increases.

Neither rhyme nor reason can fathom the bottomless pit of emotion.

Nope, wrong again.
Continue if you must, but don't expect responses to your obvious cries for attention.

Jean Paul Zodeaux

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:10 PM

link

reply to post by PurpleChiten

Nope, wrong again. Continue if you must, but don't expect responses to your obvious cries for attention.

One logical fallacy after the next. Your emotional state is so overpowering your capacity to use logic that you absolutely refuse to go back on topic and insist on making the argument about me, but it is, as it remains an argument about logic and emotion, and at this point I represent logic, while you represent emotion. Interesting.

LesMisanthrope

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:24 PM

link

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by PurpleChiten

Nope, wrong again. Continue if you must, but don't expect responses to your obvious cries for attention.

One logical fallacy after the next. Your emotional state is so overpowering your capacity to use logic that you absolutely refuse to go back on topic and insist on making the argument about me, but it is, as it remains an argument about logic and emotion, and at this point I represent logic, while you represent emotion. Interesting.

This is the way it usually goes if you hold a different opinion on the philosophy board. Emotion gets the best of them and logic takes a back seat. They attack your person instead of your idea.

We are idealists after all.

edit on 27-6-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

Tadeusz

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:29 PM

link

Och, this only reinforces my view that much of philosophy is bombast and mental masturbation...

Emotion, by my definition, exists outside of logic. Emotion can't be observed. Emotion can't be measured. Emotion is nothing and serves no purpose in the natural world.

PurpleChiten

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:34 PM

link

Originally posted by Tadeusz
Och, this only reinforces my view that much of philosophy is bombast and mental masturbation...

Emotion, by my definition, exists outside of logic. Emotion can't be observed. Emotion can't be measured. Emotion is nothing and serves no purpose in the natural world.

Definitely the case.
Logic and emotion cannot be compared as they are not in the same category. It's somewhat akin to asking if you prefer yellow or Mozart.

.... on your sig line, which I like very much... in Non-Euclidean Geometry, they meet in an imaginary point i

Jean Paul Zodeaux

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link

reply to post by PurpleChiten

Logic and emotion cannot be compared as they are not in the same category. It's somewhat akin to asking if you prefer yellow or Mozart.

They can certainly be contrasted, as has been effectively demonstrated in this thread.

kosmicjack

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link

You know, sometimes it's best just to agree to disagree rather than ruin the discussion.

Jean Paul Zodeaux

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link

Originally posted by kosmicjack
You know, sometimes it's best just to agree to disagree rather than ruin the discussion.

"Agreeing to disagree" is a contradiction. Logically speaking, there are no contradictions and when confronted with a contradiction, it is prudent to check the premise. What is the premise behind "agree to disagree"? Arguably the premise is that it is better to end the discussion than to "ruin" it, but again now we have yet another contradiction.

Here we are in a thread about logic and emotion, in a site that claims it does not foster ad hominem attacks. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. In this thread it was a prudent move to allow the ad hominem attacks to stand simply because they effectively demonstrated the stark difference between emotion and logic and how logic can indeed exist without emotion, and arguably emotion can exist without logic.

However, to suggest that agreeing to a logical fallacy such as contradiction is hardly a logical argument, and likely an emotional one based upon appeasement.

Why bother to have these discussions if all anyone can do is devolve into logical fallacies and simply just drop the ball?

Cosmic911

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link

reply to post by arpgme

Vulcans Nixed: You Can’t Have Logic Without Emotion -A Galaxy Classic

Science is discovering that it is our emotions that make thought possible, not the other way around. We simply cannot understand thought without understanding emotion. This is a radical departure from the traditional perspective, which used to regard emotion as the antagonist of reason.

Cognitive psychologists have traditionally downplayed the importance of emotions to the thought process. "They regarded emotions as an artifact of subjective experience, and thus not worthy of investigation," said Joseph LeDoux, a neuroscientist at NYU.

But...

"Seeing our emotions as distinct from thinking was really quite disastrous."

I thought this was an insightful observation by the author...

...the entire “science of thinking” was approached somewhat backwards right from the start. Perhaps, this was partly due to the field being largely dominated by men who suspected (in true Vulcan fashion) that “feeling” is inferior to logic...

To sum it up...

It is pure reason- not feeling- that is the true hindrance to decision making. So take that, Mr. Spock!

Logic without Emotion??

PurpleChiten

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link

reply to post by Cosmic911

Keep in mind that your source is a blog, not a news source or science journal. It is the opinion of one person based on a study that wasn't linked to, only summarized in their opinion

This is the "about page" that goes with the site that was linked: www.dailygalaxy.com...