Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Logic and maths too are self justifying and circular.
They are tools which help us describe and quantify the world and they have their limits.

It would be a mistake, and many make this mistake, to think that they provide direct insights into reality, as if the world was written in maths. That is not the case. What they seem to do very well is describe it, and in so far as these descriptions are coherent can lead to remarkable findings, which can be verified empirically.

But there is a further question. Although they are tools it is evident that they work consistently well. Why should this be so? This is the most remarkable indication that there is a reality beyond our mere perception of it and that this reality (however we might want to see it) is COHERENT. The universe is not capricious; not just ideas; it lies waiting to be discovered.

In his round about and clumsy way that is what Kant meant when he talked about "pure understanding".
But before we throw away the baby of idealism in favour of pure rationalism, we should always acknowledge that whatever we are givine innately is still based on an evolved understanding os such things as space and time, the warning that we can never fully know the thing-in-itself leaves room for finding for conceiving things beyond out normal experience.

If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.

[Pattern-chaser]

@Pattern-chaser
You query whether it is 'wise' to disentangle logical ideas and the emotions experienced' and I think it is important to try to do this because that may be the value of philosophy. Being able to do this may be the starting point for some kind of wisdom.

OK, but what if these "logical ideas and the emotions experienced" only make sense when taken together? What if your reductionist sentiment breaks them apart, and with that division, also breaks apart any possible understanding of what's going on? Sometimes a holistic view is the only one that delivers understanding. Not always, but sometimes...

[Ecurb]

Yes, and if we define words too narrowly, they become useless. In extremis, we end up with a word defined for use in one unique circumstance, and no other. There is a place - and a use - for generality.

Jane Austen chimes in on the controversy below. The battle about "nice" has, of course, been lost for these last 200 years. Catherine Morland is speaking to Henry and Eleanor Tilney, about Anne Radcliffe's "Udolpho", in "Northanger Abbey":

“But now really, do not you think Udolpho the nicest book in the world?”

“The nicest — by which I suppose you mean the neatest. That must depend upon the binding.”

“Henry,” said Miss Tilney, “you are very impertinent. Miss Morland, he is treating you exactly as he does his sister. He is forever finding fault with me, for some incorrectness of language, and now he is taking the same liberty with you. The word ‘nicest,’ as you used it, did not suit him; and you had better change it as soon as you can, or we shall be overpowered with Johnson and Blair all the rest of the way.”

“I am sure,” cried Catherine, “I did not mean to say anything wrong; but it is a nice book, and why should not I call it so?”

“Very true,” said Henry, “and this is a very nice day, and we are taking a very nice walk, and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh! It is a very nice word indeed! It does for everything. Originally perhaps it was applied only to express neatness, propriety, delicacy, or refinement — people were nice in their dress, in their sentiments, or their choice. But now every commendation on every subject is comprised in that one word.”

“While, in fact,” cried his sister, “it ought only to be applied to you, without any commendation at all. You are more nice than wise....

Oh for the days when "nice" actually meant something! I hope "logic" doesn't follow in its path.

p.s. Note Austen's use of "comprise", which means "include comprehensively". "Is comprised of" -- now acceptable -- sounds as silly to me as "is included of".

[JackDaydream]

@Pattern-chaser
It is interesting to wonder whether logic and emotion work best or taken apart. It may vary according to what one is thinking about and how to work out which is more reliable when there is a clash between the two. It may be that intuition is important here as a guiding factor. As different individuals have different degrees of development of these functions and perceptions through the senses may be why everyone comes from a slightly different perspective in viewing most issues in life.

[not a thing]

If someone told you he knows something, then you ask him plaase try to know something new, more about a thing you claim you know. He trys, aha ok i know somethin more, question is when this man knew, now or before ? he agrees now, but you again ask him please sir try to know something new, more about some thing we are talking about... To know something has nature very different thing hiden inside, she wants to shift our attention to smth different.
Lets for example look my car, one car in parkng spot, to know how it works, how to use it i have to this ONE car take apart in my imagination or with srew driver, both, on 20 000 parts... But at the end i am asking would i really know what a car is ? I would be a good race driver, i like to drive very fast, and i would know how it works, but ?
Logic would have always limitation is like you want to count to infinity, you count, get your more money, bigger house, most handsom husband, wife, childer but you miss a life or at least half a life, look in mirror, shake yourself to the bone.
Truth is what really works, people talk around table, is hard to test if some logic doesnt work, is not like you take shot in basketball court and you know straight away.

[not a thing]

@Pattern-chaser
It is interesting to wonder whether logic and emotion work best or taken apart. It may vary according to what one is thinking about and how to work out which is more reliable when there is a clash between the two. It may be that intuition is important here as a guiding factor. As different individuals have different degrees of development of these functions and perceptions through the senses may be why everyone comes from a slightly different perspective in viewing most issues in life.

Main course and dessert. If you eat dessert first, your tongue process everthing what comes next as sugar full, not good for nutrition. Nature rule first main course then dessert. People who wants big things, try to get emotion free decision, if they are sucessful, hm depression start slowly to kick in, you just learn yourself life wont touch you. Now you try emotion lead, hmm we all know story of that. So i dont know why people wont just use logic and make sure what are you doing, done touchess you. Just the order is important.

[Sculptor1]

@Pattern-chaser
It is interesting to wonder whether logic and emotion work best or taken apart. It may vary according to what one is thinking about and how to work out which is more reliable when there is a clash between the two. It may be that intuition is important here as a guiding factor. As different individuals have different degrees of development of these functions and perceptions through the senses may be why everyone comes from a slightly different perspective in viewing most issues in life.

Main course and dessert. If you eat dessert first, your tongue process everthing what comes next as sugar full, not good for nutrition. Nature rule first main course then dessert. People who wants big things, try to get emotion free decision, if they are sucessful, hm depression start slowly to kick in, you just learn yourself life wont touch you. Now you try emotion lead, hmm we all know story of that. So i dont know why people wont just use logic and make sure what are you doing, done touchess you. Just the order is important.

Sugar is excellent for nutrition. All animals crave and seek sugar since it is the most basic of all bodily fuels, and it is rare in nature. We have become adapted by nature to love sugar and that applies to all animals.
Main course then dessert is not natural. No such cultural conventions are about nature. Animals eat what is nearest, or whatever their bodies crave.
Aside from that I do not follow your post. It looks like a poorly translated text from another langauge.

[Pattern-chaser]

@Pattern-chaser
It is interesting to wonder whether logic and emotion work best or taken apart.

If they occur together, they are obviously best considered together. The only reason one would do otherwise is that we don't have the mental 'horse-power' to consider the whole issue in one mental 'bite'. That's the only reasonable justification for that kind of reductionism.

It may vary according to what one is thinking about and how to work out which is more reliable when there is a clash between the two.

I don't think reliability is an important criterion in many cases. A logic-only view might consider the issue in terms of reliability, but that's why logic is just one of many mental tools, of which emotions are a critical part. If there is a clash between logic and emotion, then emotion will normally win out. I offer no philosophical justification for that assertion, but only empirical observation: that's how humans behave.

[Pattern-chaser]

@Pattern-chaser

P.S. If you used the quote ("") button, I would get an appropriate notification, and know that you had replied to me, not just posted something in this topic. It's not compulsory, of course, but it would help by making things clearer.

[Pattern-chaser]

So i dont know why people wont just use logic...

Perhaps because they can't? We sometimes act logically, I agree. But it is a very rare human that always acts logically. We just don't do it, presumably because we can't? So it isn't a simple choice of whether I should use logic in this situation, but a matter of how logical I am able to be.

[LuckyR]

So i dont know why people wont just use logic...

Perhaps because they can't? We sometimes act logically, I agree. But it is a very rare human that always acts logically. We just don't do it, presumably because we can't? So it isn't a simple choice of whether I should use logic in this situation, but a matter of how logical I am able to be.

Logic as pertains to human behavior generally presupposes that choices will be made to the subject's benefit. However, individuals have competing interests beyond what is to their (typically long term) benefit.