Logic vs emotion

[IndigoRose]

I can't argue with that, I must admit.
Fair enough. The original question asks when logic is "the correct tool to use to make a decision", implying that one is free to select various tools individually from a toolbox. That doesn't seem quite right to me, even when viewed at a level which involves something like suspension of disbelief as far as details are concerned. One of the distinguishing features of what we call emotions is that they arise involuntarily. What is the utility in even asking whether it is more correct to use emotion to make a decision if one doesn't have any choice in the matter?

While emotions may arise involutarily, that does not mean that we are forced to use them to make decisions. You have a variety of ways available to you to view a situation. Which view do you use to make decisions, and under what circumstances? Would you use "feelings" to make a decision on a life partner? Would you choose the person who looked best on paper?
IndigoRose

 

[BillHoyt]

Any dichotomy is then false, because we can always look at things from a different level of detail and find that both sides of the dichotomy are composed of the same fundamental pieces. This then becomes an exercise in postmodernistic Deconstruction. Or enantiodrama.

Postmodernism. Right. Get your hands off that table, you'll just give yourself a sliver trying to make it turn.

No, any dichotomy is not false. Didn't say that. Didn't get close to saying that. Dynamic didn't say that either. He was merely pointing out the underlying biology.

"I want that." Whoopee, I need to turn that into a decision. Perhaps that means action, perhaps not. "I want that. Therefore, I will try to grab it." Now we've made a decision. We had no choice but to use logic The quality of the logic is the only issue now. Emotions must translate to decisons to act or not to act. The translation always involves logic. There is no getting around it. If our premises were bad, we've made a bad decision. If our reasoning was bad, we've also made a bad decision. But we inevitably use logic to make the decision.

The question is not about criticality, it's about utility.

There is utility in making the distinction which the thread topic question presupposes: this utility implies potential meaningfullness. What is the utlility in deconstructing it?

Pick the slivers out and get some band-aids for those palms.

 

[Suggestologist]

I can't argue with that, I must admit.
Fair enough. The original question asks when logic is "the correct tool to use to make a decision", implying that one is free to select various tools individually from a toolbox. That doesn't seem quite right to me, even when viewed at a level which involves something like suspension of disbelief as far as details are concerned. One of the distinguishing features of what we call emotions is that they arise involuntarily.

Our culture teaches us that we cannot control emotions. Our culture is wrong; we can (learn to) control our emotions. EQ (Goleman, etc.) is one area that deals with how.

What is the utility in even asking whether it is more correct to use emotion to make a decision if one doesn't have any choice in the matter?

Well, what does it mean when someone says, "I'll sleep on it"? It generally means; they'll see how they FEEL about it tomorrow, or in the morning. It doesn't generally mean they'll do some logical thinking about it; they would say "I'll think it over" -- for THINKing.

 

[Suggestologist]

Postmodernism. Right. Get your hands off that table, you'll just give yourself a sliver trying to make it turn.

No, any dichotomy is not false. Didn't say that. Didn't get close to saying that. Dynamic didn't say that either. He was merely pointing out the underlying biology.

You do realize that at the heart of deconstruction is the dissolution of opposing pairs? Life/Death; Cold/Hot; Up/Down; good/bad; Logic/Emotion. You're engaging in a postmodernistic exercise.

"I want that." Whoopee, I need to turn that into a decision. Perhaps that means action, perhaps not. "I want that. Therefore, I will try to grab it." Now we've made a decision. We had no choice but to use logic The quality of the logic is the only issue now. Emotions must translate to decisons to act or not to act. The translation always involves logic.

Are you familiar with the term "motor set"? Are motor sets engaged by logic or are they automatisms?

There is no getting around it. If our premises were bad, we've made a bad decision. If our reasoning was bad, we've also made a bad decision. But we inevitably use logic to make the decision.

And how much of a role should allowing oneself to get in touch with one's feelings on a subject be utilized? If you want to put it in terms of "quality of reasoning"; then I have to translate the question posed by this thread to:

"What is the quantity of emotion that should be explored in order to optimize the quality of reasoning?" (and what quantity of abstract logic?)

Of course, this is liable to vary by context. Pick a few contexts and share your point of view on the question.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

...we can (learn to) control our emotions.

Sure, I guess we can do that. If we feel like it. (Or maybe it's: if it appears to be the logical thing to do.)

Seriously though, maybe it would be helpful to try for a little more clarification as to precisely what is meant by 'emotions'.

 

[Suggestologist]

Sure, I guess we can do that. If we feel like it. (Or maybe it's: if it appears to be the logical thing to do.)

Seriously though, maybe it would be helpful to try for a little more clarification as to precisely what is meant by 'emotions'.

They're body feelings which are associated with certain modes of thought processes. Emotional "Flooding": which is what happens when people are so emotionally riled up they can't THINK straight (logically), is an important aspect dealt with by Goleman. When you're depressed, you look for the dim sides of life. When you're happy, you tend look for the bright sides. And as I wrote earlier in this thread, the feeling of being logical could be classified as an emotion; though it obviously does not guarantee veridicality of logic.

 

[BillHoyt]

You do realize that at the heart of deconstruction is the dissolution of opposing pairs? Life/Death; Cold/Hot; Up/Down; good/bad; Logic/Emotion. You're engaging in a postmodernistic exercise.

Stellar logic, that. A stellar example of the affirming the consequent fallacy.

Are you familiar with the term "motor set"? Are motor sets engaged by logic or are they automatisms?

They are engaged by logic. They are also automatisms. By posing this question, however, you just displayed your hidden presumptions.

And how much of a role should allowing oneself to get in touch with one's feelings on a subject be utilized? If you want to put it in terms of "quality of reasoning"; then I have to translate the question posed by this thread to:

"What is the quantity of emotion that should be explored in order to optimize the quality of reasoning?" (and what quantity of abstract logic?)

Of course, this is liable to vary by context. Pick a few contexts and share your point of view on the question.

What do those feelings result in? Wants, desires, needs. Effecting those wants, desires and needs requires logic.

 

[Suggestologist]

Stellar logic, that. A stellar example of the affirming the consequent fallacy.

Delineate the fallacy claim; or don't make claims to have identified one.

They are engaged by logic. They are also automatisms. By posing this question, however, you just displayed your hidden presumptions.

So, you're now claiming that processes that are engaged entirely without conscious thought; are engaged by logic?

What do those feelings result in? Wants, desires, needs. Effecting those wants, desires and needs requires logic.

Once again, you avoid the question at hand. What is the optimal mix of logical and emotional exploration? Pick a context, any context.

 

[BillHoyt]

Delineate the fallacy claim; or don't make claims to have identified one.

I'll take you through it...

You do realize that at the heart of deconstruction is the dissolution of opposing pairs? Life/Death; Cold/Hot; Up/Down; good/bad; Logic/Emotion. You're engaging in a postmodernistic exercise.

This is a basic, formal logical fallacy. I will rearrange it into a syllogism to make it plain:

If Postmodernism, then deconstruction.
Your argument deconstructs.
Therefore your argument is postmoderinst.

Even more plain:
If P then Q
Q
Therefore P

An example:
If you have a dog, you have an animal
You have an animal
Therefore you have a dog.

 

[Suggestologist]

I'll take you through it...


This is a basic, formal logical fallacy. I will rearrange it into a syllogism to make it plain:

If Postmodernism, then deconstruction.
Your argument deconstructs.
Therefore your argument is postmoderinst.

Even more plain:
If P then Q
Q
Therefore P

An example:
If you have a dog, you have an animal
You have an animal
Therefore you have a dog.

I think you're confusing class with member. Deconstruction is a member of the class: things-which-are-postmodernistic.

If deconstruction, then postmodernistic (deduction rule from class membership)
Your argument deconstructs (observation)
Therefore your argument is postmodernistic; something a postmodernist might do (level of behavior); note that I'm not claiming you are a postmodernist (level of identity).

----------------------

Using your example:

Dog is a member of the class: animal.

If you have a dog, you have an animal (deduction rule from class membership)
You have a dog (observation)
Therefore you have an animal.

 

[BillHoyt]

I think you're confusing class with member. Deconstruction is a member of the class: things-which-are-postmodernistic.

If deconstruction, then postmodernistic (deduction rule from class membership)
Your argument deconstructs (observation)
Therefore your argument is postmodernistic; something a postmodernist might do (level of behavior); note that I'm not claiming you are a postmodernist (level of identity).

----------------------

Using your example:

Dog is a member of the class: animal.

If you have a dog, you have an animal (deduction rule from class membership)
You have a dog (observation)
Therefore you have an animal.

You need to look up "deconstruct" or stop equivocating or both. Deconstruct means simply to dismantle. As you put it earlier, "dissolution." Am I a postmodernist when I strike a set? Or tear down a building?

 

[Suggestologist]

You need to look up "deconstruct" or stop equivocating or both. Deconstruct means simply to dismantle. As you put it earlier, "dissolution." Am I a postmodernist when I strike a set? Or tear down a building?

I take that as an admission that your claim of fallacy is unwarranted.

Behave like a postmodernist enough; and you can be legitimately labelled as being one. Dissolution of opposing pairs is important to postmodernistic deconstruction. However, deconstruction without a purpose, is without utility.

I've rephrased the intended question posed by this thread at least twice to accomodate your dissolution. Answering it within your mindset could shed light on any latent utility there may be in looking at it that way. But at this point, I don't see any.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

[emotions are] body feelings which are associated with certain modes of thought processes

Would you say that it is the body feelings themselves which constitute emotions, or the associated thought processes?

 

[Suggestologist]

Would you say that it is the body feelings themselves which constitute emotions, or the associated thought processes?

The body feelings can drive the thought process. And the thought process can result in change in body feelings.

The way our culture understands it; body feelings drive thoughts. Emotional "Flooding" is a prime example.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

The body feelings can drive the thought process. And the thought process can result in change in body feelings

I agree, but that doesn't answer my question.

 

[BillHoyt]

I take that as an admission that your claim of fallacy is unwarranted.

Behave like a postmodernist enough; and you can be legitimately labelled as being one. Dissolution of opposing pairs is important to postmodernistic deconstruction. However, deconstruction without a purpose, is without utility.

I've rephrased the intended question posed by this thread at least twice to accomodate your dissolution. Answering it within your mindset could shed light on any latent utility there may be in looking at it that way. But at this point, I don't see any.

I was quite clear. You are now committing at least two fallacies.

1. You equivocate on "deconstruct," refusing to recognize its meaning outside postmodernist irratiionality.
2. You then commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Dogs are subsumed under animals. All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs. Not all categorizing into opposite pairs is deconstruction. Deconstruction is not subsumed under postmodernism.

Here are some of the more bizarre conclusions of your foolishness:

Electricians are postmodernists because they "deconstruct" all charges into "posiitive" and "negative"

Politicians are postmodernists because they "deconstruct" political positions into "left wing" and "right wing."

All members of the legal system are postmodernists because they "deconstruct" all legal advocacy into "defendant" and "plaintiff."

 

[Suggestologist]

I was quite clear. You are now committing at least two fallacies.

1. You equivocate on "deconstruct," refusing to recognize its meaning outside postmodernist irratiionality.

Your specific use in this case is clearly postmodernistic.

2. You then commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Dogs are subsumed under animals. All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs. Not all categorizing into opposite pairs is deconstruction. Deconstruction is not subsumed under postmodernism.

Um, categorizing into pairs of opposite is not deconstruction. Mixing the categories around such that categorizing in terms of the opposites cannot be done meaningfully is deconstructive.

Dogs are not "subsumed" under animals by nature (nor by gods). They are categorized as animals, by people. Dogs can be categorized differently; things-with-four-legs, for example. In the same way, deconstruction is categorized as postmodernistic; that doesn't preclude it being categorized under other categories as well. But to ignore it's salient inclusion in the postmodernistic category, does not allow you to claim a logical fallacy when someone else does.

 

[Suggestologist]

I agree, but that doesn't answer my question.

Oh, I see what you mean.

Would you say that it is the body feelings themselves which constitute emotions, or the associated thought processes?

It's the thought processes; which the feelings seem to lock in place.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

-----------------------------------------------------
Would you say that it is the body feelings themselves which constitute emotions, or the associated thought processes?
-----------------------------------------------------

It's the thought processes; which the feelings seem to lock in place.

You begin to feel apprehensive; your spidey sense is tingling, and you're not sure why. You are not aware of any immediate danger, but still there is this vague feeling of unease. You look and listen. You become aware that the birds in the nearby trees have suddenly fallen silent; barely audible are what could be footsteps as someone -- or something -- approaches from behind. You stand up and turn around, heart pounding. You scan the surrounding bushes, but see nothing. A number of thoughts race quickly through your mind: the scenic spot you chose to stop for your little walk is secluded, miles from the nearest town. You have left your cell phone in the car. The path back to the car leads past where you thought you heard the noise. The large branch lying near the log you were sitting on might make a good club.

Freeze it.

Keeping in mind that at this point in the story it is unknown whether what you thought you heard was actually a deer, a bear, an axe murderer, or simply another nature lover, which parts of the suggested description of your inner processes would you say are emotional, and which are logical? Are the emotional parts logically defensible? If not, why not?

 

[BillHoyt]

In the same way, deconstruction is categorized as postmodernistic; that doesn't preclude it being categorized under other categories as well. But to ignore it's salient inclusion in the postmodernistic category, does not allow you to claim a logical fallacy when someone else does.

Nonsense. The key here is the one you keep PoMo dancing around. Postmodernism might imply deconstruction, but deconstruction does not imply postmodernism. You committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

How many more fallacies are you going to treat us to?