Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #12  
Old 11-27-2007, 04:29 PM
VarlosZ VarlosZ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 1,694
Default Re: Society, Intuition and Logic

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you call intuition is what I call poorly formulated logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not necessarily accurate. Maybe what you call intuition is in fact poorly formulated logic, but most people use it to refer to something different (though there is some overlap, of course).

Logic is tremendously valuable, but the OP isn't complete nonsense. People do sometimes try to use logic when it's not relevant, and "illogical" shouldn't be the universal pejorative that it is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like a post written by someone who doesnt understand exactly what logic is. Can you give me an example to show me I'm wrong, tell me what you have in mind with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) How do you know your mother loves you? Would your relationship with her be enhanced by viewing it primarily through the lens of objective analysis? Or would such an approach miss something fundamental about the experience?

Interpersonal relationships are often rightly dominated by illogical (or "non-logical") thought. Of course some aspects of those relationships should and will be analyzed rationally, but logic simply can't grasp the nature of friendship and love; faith and intuition come much closer.

I don't know how often that kind of mistake is actually made -- there probably aren't many virtual androids out there who are determined to be completely objective about their friends and family.

2) A more common error can be seen in debates here and elsewhere on the internet: people go too far with their logical analysis and start trying to prove their axioms. They fail to give any credence to emotion, intuition, faith, etc., and so never consider the source of the building blocks for all of their arguments. Instead they get tangled up in some complex tautology involving logic and epistemology that just kills the discussion, because trying to explain where they went wrong is just [censored] impossible.

This is somewhat related to (1), in that it probably springs from people's failure to realize two things: logic doesn't speak to emotion, and emotion is relevant.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.