I argued with some "intellectuals" on a previous thread when I made the claim that emotions are separated in logic. The "intellectuals" argued that I was trying to redefine the word because it says nothing of logic being emotionless in the dictionaries. The "intellectuals" put up a strong argument then submitted that logic does in fact separate emotions in the end. What do you think, does logic have emotions?
Kant - who sorted a lot of the rules for philosophy - says Reason is above logic. From there I think most of our modern thinking problems come from promoting logic over reason. Logic cannot solve human problems but we think it can and use it as if it can.
Because reason allows for emotion? Takes emotion into consideration, I think. It's reasonable to understand why say..... your child is illogically crying or some such. A strictly logical approach may not always be able to comprehend why.
This is true...I was thinking along the lines of pre-Kantian thought...you know, the Greeks gave us the word for logic and it was their word for reason. I think what Pani had to say about reason taking emotion into account was very relevant here, and very good.
You're right, it is logical that 2 and 2 make four, and there is nothing emotional about that fact.
Logic IS separate from emotion, that is one of its points. Humans, being equipped with reason ARE able to make that separation. We call it objectivity. Logic, when properly applied is emotionless...that's WHY most people don't like it or know how to use it, but it IS possible.
(And don't get the impression that I think logic is the end-all, be-all either...Wisdom and Understanding require both reason and emotion.)
Well higher you go less you care about lower level. More open and rational you become less you attach yourself to something and defend. Emotion comes when you try to defend something or feel expressing your opinion about. Self-biased view is full of emotion, unbiased view is not at all.
I hope so, geez... I suppose I got side-tracked with that philosophic bozo worshipper (a few posts below), that I forgot to answer the actual question. Uhhh..., yeah, like Spock said...oops, I meant Qwark. Ha-ha!
I'll be off tomorrow; ya got any forum fun that we need to address, or is it as usual - stupidity talking to ignoramuses of the same ilk? Anyway, I'm about to retire for the day, unless someone on other threads pisses me off...Ha-ha!
Obscure: lol... Naw, I'm just another of those: "... is it as usual - stupidity talking to ignoramuses of the same ilk?" Enjoy yer day off. I'll just "handle" those of my "ilk" in the same inimitable manner...lol Enjoy the weekend!
What's nothing? How can you know nothing? Is 'nothing' a something to not know or something? I've always hated that asinine statement about the nothingness of nothing. If that's the case, we might as well all be single celled moronic formations, but then again, that would be something, I suppose... Ha-ha!
I think it points more to an epistemological definition of the word "know" rather than thoughts about the "nothing" part. Ask yourself how you KNOW anything and the philosophical territory gets pretty swampy.
I know what this hogwash implies. It's basically saying nobody knows about their existence. Nobody will ever unravel the properties of infinity and/or eternity and/or the reason for their existence on this current plane of reality. Duh... All of that other philosophical verbiage of the past is just a fancy cover up for being clueless.
Sometimes. But not always. My husband tries it all the time. But in most of his decisions there IS emotion attached within them, emotion he doesn't like to admit because he considers himself able to separate the two things in much of life.
OK, let me be a bit more specific.Feelings can sometimes be a good guide to telling you whether your beliefs are true or not.But to rely solely on your feelings to determine this is insanity.This relates to the...
A theist asked me to start a separate thread for this. I refused at first, but then I thought "why not?"Let's understand first that I am not against religion per se. I believe it can help some people. I do not...
I argued with a professor today about why the example he gave of this law was insufficient. He is a religious Professor that likes to teach Western Civ as though it's Bible study at a secular institution, so I'm not a...