Society, Intuition and Logic

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course logic speaks to emotion, what a silly, propagandized thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

What an odd choice of words.

Granted, "logic doesn't speak to emotion" is, as phrased, a much too broad declaration. The two are interrelated, as emotions will have an impact on logic, and logical conclusions will have an impact on one's emotions. However, this:

[ QUOTE ]
Logic is a process. Emotion is input. Logic takes your input, processes it, and gives you an output.

[/ QUOTE ]

. . . is an arbitrary view. One could just as accurately define logic as mere input for an emotional output. Your formulation seems to define non-logical epistemologies out of existence -- as fodder for the ultimate and inevitable logical process -- and what does that get us?

[ QUOTE ]
I could think my mother loves me because she says she does, I know that historically most mothers love their children, she feeds me, she buys me clothes and takes care of me, lots of things. Or I could know that my mother loves me because she smiles at me and makes me feel good and hugs me and I can see loving looks on her face. These are emotional responses. BUT IT IS STILL LOGIC. I am LOGICALLY coming to the conclusion that, based on these emotional inputs, my mother loves me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if you were to examine your relationship with your mother logically, that's about what it would look like. People seldom actually do that, though, because it's not that helpful. Given any sufficiently specific definition of "love" I'm sure you could take those hints and deduce that your mother "loves" you, but it doesn't reveal anything about the relationship itself. It usually just helps you lay out the words used to describe that relationship in a more consistent manner ... which is great, but it's still doing a very poor job of illuminating the nature of relationship. It's far too intangible, ineffable.


Meh, I get the feeling that no one in this thread is doing a good job of defining his terms. We're probably not getting anywhere until that's rectified.


EDIT: Ok, that's a start.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh, I get the feeling that no one in this thread is doing a good job of defining his terms. We're probably not getting anywhere until that's rectified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a reoccuring problem in numerous threads.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
2. a fact, truth, etc., perceived in this way.
3. a keen and quick insight.
4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or quick insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the TRUTH that I was going to be harmed and that's why I ducked from the shadow of an airplane 10,000 feet above my head?

Or the TRUTH that the railway tracks do go together in the distance?

Learning to ride a bike may became a conditioned reflex but it never reveals any TRUTH or FACT as claimed by definition #1.

Whether something is true or a fact is what we'll determine after the event in those quick-reaction cases, by logical analysis. Once we determine that "hey, I got it right!" we still can't go back and "it is right because I intuited it". It's the logical test ... "did the plane hit me?" that determines the truth of the intuitive action.

luckyme

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The girls that fall in love with abusers and child-molesters, etc. Would you say their intuition/emotion served them well? On what basis would you be able to say that? Would you base that on logical analysis or just wait for an emotion to come by with the answer?

Emotion tells us how we feel about something, it can't judge whether that feeling is getting a correct evaluation of the situation. People that get taken advantage of, even by a mother, can claim their emotions/intuitions were 'right' if they want, but the scars should prove otherwise, even though it's a mere logical conclusion.

It's "the wife is the last to know" or "my son wouldn't do that" situations that help illustrate this. Outsiders can see the manipulation of a gold-digger, say, because they are using logical analysis.

I like carrots, brunettes and convertibles. I get 'hunches' at the poker table that I act on ( people reading ones, not "my flush is rivering" ones). None of that is immune to logical analysis and in fact that is how I will judge whether my emotions are screwing me or not. If carrots constipate me, brunettes swindle me and convertibles cause bug-throat I may still be stuck with the 'liking' but now avoid the activity.

We can't help how we feel but we don't have to pretend that the hunches, intuitions or feelings are some mysterious source of deep wisdom. Slugs and barnacles react to their environment too, and some trout would have done better if the did a bit more hmmmmming before they snapped at the fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this doesn't address what I've actually said. For example:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course some aspects of those relationships should and will be analyzed rationally. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simply that there are some kinds of information that logic does a relatively poor job of illuminating. That's all.

[kurto]

now that I'm thinking this through... based on this definition-
"1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension."

I'm thinking this doesn't exist that much. I don't think most people magically come up with a truth. There is a reasoning process happening in the brain. They make snap judgements, educated guesses, etc. Or they are reacting to information... but its not intuition. I would argue that there's always a reasoning process... it just happens at a lower level and is therefore quicker but oftentimes less accurate.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]

You mean the TRUTH that I was going to be harmed and that's why I ducked from the shadow of an airplane 10,000 feet above my head?

Or the TRUTH that the railway tracks do go together in the distance?

Learning to ride a bike may became a conditioned reflex but it never reveals any TRUTH or FACT as claimed by definition #1.

Whether something is true or a fact is what we'll determine after the event in those quick-reaction cases, by logical analysis. Once we determine that "hey, I got it right!" we still can't go back and "it is right because I intuited it". It's the logical test ... "did the plane hit me?" that determines the truth of the intuitive action.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to excuse me, I don't come from a philosophy background so I don't really get your point. Please explain some more.

And on closer inspection, I overlooked the second part of the first definition. I think it's fair to say that I am using the third and fourth definition.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
now that I'm thinking this through... based on this definition-
"1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension."

I'm thinking this doesn't exist that much. I don't think most people magically come up with a truth. There is a reasoning process happening in the brain. They make snap judgements, educated guesses, etc. Or they are reacting to information... but its not intuition. I would argue that there's always a reasoning process... it just happens at a lower level and is therefore quicker but oftentimes less accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intuition in the traditional sense doesn't really exist. The definition needs to be modified with current information coming from neurologists and psychologists. The information isn't out of nowhere, and there is always a reasoning process. Just sometimes that reasoning process is understood by the individual, and sometimes it isn't. Intuitive processes are by no means more or less accurate then conscious logical deductions. We rely on these intuitive processes for almost everything we do. Only every now and then do we need to really sit down and think something through. Usually we just react, and often that's all we have to do.

How I see reasoning is also different too. Reasoning implies a conscious effort. Intuition does not.

[tame_deuces]

I think you touched on an important point Varlosz (if someone else has said similar stuff I apologize). I don't think you can separate 'intuition'(whatever that is, it seems purposefully hazy to me) from logic.

Logic to me atleast, is an abstract way of thinking. Quite like law academics or maths, which are very pure applications of the rules of logic. You create a system of thought based on axiomatic rules or false, true or (in some cases) maybe. But we will still always be that hazy thing we are, and to some extent bound by this. Logic or not.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh, I get the feeling that no one in this thread is doing a good job of defining his terms. We're probably not getting anywhere until that's rectified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a reoccuring problem in numerous threads started by Splendour.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course logic speaks to emotion, what a silly, propagandized thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

What an odd choice of words.

Granted, "logic doesn't speak to emotion" is, as phrased, a much too broad declaration. The two are interrelated, as emotions will have an impact on logic, and logical conclusions will have an impact on one's emotions. However, this:

[ QUOTE ]
Logic is a process. Emotion is input. Logic takes your input, processes it, and gives you an output.

[/ QUOTE ]

. . . is an arbitrary view. One could just as accurately define logic as mere input for an emotional output. Your formulation seems to define non-logical epistemologies out of existence -- as fodder for the ultimate and inevitable logical process -- and what does that get us?

[ QUOTE ]
I could think my mother loves me because she says she does, I know that historically most mothers love their children, she feeds me, she buys me clothes and takes care of me, lots of things. Or I could know that my mother loves me because she smiles at me and makes me feel good and hugs me and I can see loving looks on her face. These are emotional responses. BUT IT IS STILL LOGIC. I am LOGICALLY coming to the conclusion that, based on these emotional inputs, my mother loves me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if you were to examine your relationship with your mother logically, that's about what it would look like. People seldom actually do that, though, because it's not that helpful. Given any sufficiently specific definition of "love" I'm sure you could take those hints and deduce that your mother "loves" you, but it doesn't reveal anything about the relationship itself. It usually just helps you lay out the words used to describe that relationship in a more consistent manner ... which is great, but it's still doing a very poor job of illuminating the nature of relationship. It's far too intangible, ineffable.


Meh, I get the feeling that no one in this thread is doing a good job of defining his terms. We're probably not getting anywhere until that's rectified.


EDIT: Ok, that's a start.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...it is not an "arbitrary" view that logic is a process. Logic cannot be an input for anything. You can input whatever you want into a logical framework, and depending on what you put in, you will get some result. But logic cannot be the input. Its pretty important that you understand this.