First of all it seems to me that you are of the opinion that logic is the only means by which a human should act, which itself is very inhuman, particularly since you seem to have your own assumed criteria of truth and likely also are an individual who makes the assumption that the world is purely physical (my personal speculation), which has absolutely no logical basis - it is an a priori assumption which all of your "logic" (utilizing your criteria of truth) is centered around. The same goes for assumptions that it is not purely physical - they are at their core "beliefs" (but we can still call them assumptions if that makes certain people feel better) and have no truly logical basis...They seem subjectively self-evident.

Second, I think nearly everyone cares about logic (otherwise they would not fear things like falling, pain, and similar acts of causality), however, they do not base their use of logic on the same criteria of truth as you, nor do they, perhaps, make the same assumptions you do about the fundamentals of the universe (some are physicalists, some idealists, and some others are panpsychists).

The basic system of logic is a universal system, but there are at least three major branches in it which form vastly different worldviews and even further differences if one happens to give say...the criterion of subjective emotional feeling a higher priority within their own use of logic than you would.

The rules of logic have no ability to distinguish truth by themselves, that is up to the individual and their personal criteria of truth. So you have to excuse me when I am given the impression that when you say "some people don't care about logic" what you are really saying is "Some people don't care about my personal use of logic and my personal conclusions (based on my theory of truth), and I am flabbergasted as to why they do not think more like me?"

If it could be agreed across all cultures to follow a chosen logical format, where theory was held to what can be logically justified/predicted and empirically shown...all progress would stop, because inspiration realized or not knows no bounds and the craziest of ideas can offer a route around a logical impasse to those who can see the beauty and simplicity.

If I could make a small suggestion, try Paul Karl Feyerabend and Karl Popper

Logic leaves so much unsaid.

I'm not sure where some of you are getting the impression that logic is against creativity, and unique perspectives...I'm certainly not making that claim...if anything, creativity is primary...but those unique and creative perspectives must also be logical, unless you don't care about making sense...

i hate when people just completly ignore facts you give them and never change their own opinion

Originally posted by TheJourney
I'm not sure where some of you are getting the impression that logic is against creativity, and unique perspectives...I'm certainly not making that claim...if anything, creativity is primary...but those unique and creative perspectives must also be logical, unless you don't care about making sense...

Thats really another way of 'defining' logical...it makes sense. If its not logical, then you can't actually think about it, because it will be contradictory and make no sense, when analyzed...I don't see how someone could be comfortable with having positions that are contradictory and make no sense when actually thought about lol.

I like using logic, I love debate. And yet...
I came to a point where I recognized that it is limited in it"s reliability.
I also found (through careful analyzation of my own inner processes) that in the space of one second, my brain is very adept at using logic to justify a view or position that was chosen purely through my emotions, subconscious associations (which group things together in a way different from linear cause -effect), intuition or instinct.
Then I would fool myself into believing the choice came after I found the logical structure.

It is not easy to be so brutally honest with yourself, and let go of such a wonderful sense of control....

What I feel/think now is that both my analytical mind and my intuition and emotions have value and can access truth. Sometimes there is a logical structure and explanation behind my intuitional information, but I can't perceieve it yet with my conscious mind, for lack of info. If I come up with a logical explanation at that point, it may be well constructed and handy for winning a debate, but ultimately false because I filled in the blanks or unknown factors, with false assumptions. I can lead myself astray that way.

If I keep this in mind, I will still rely on those abilities in debate anyway, as I see it as a game, a sport, for building the analytical "muscles".... but I am very careful to not take my self too seriously and convince myself that sh$t smells like roses!

A logical statement helps one to speak in actuality, therefore, it is something you express rather than something that you think about.