Hmm... Sensitive about your beliefs now...
Sorry to have troubled you and your beliefs/illusions...
Persecrates wrote:Before to be able to characterize a concept as (il)logical, we must make sure that this concept refers to an actual phenomenon: That this phenomenon exists and that we are capable of identifying its nature.
So, please, define love.
Eveready wrote:Say`s only you, you can google it. There are plenty of definitons of love on the web to suit your [il]logical pallette.
Are you unable of choosing one definition that suits you and this discussion?
Are you afraid that I prove love (as a distinct emotion) doesn't exist?
Still, you don't have ONE coherent definition of 'love' to offer but you believe in it and assert it's not a logical concept.
It's like if I asked you what 'Agvju' is and you answered me I don't know but I believe it to exist and to be illogical by nature.
Great argumentation, here.
Persecrates wrote:I'm not big on trusting people. So, what makes you think that I believe what anyone has to say?
Eveready wrote:If you haven`t experienced it you can`t claim to know it.
I've experienced many emotions but I don't know if I experienced Love... I'm still waiting for your defnition of it. All the definitions there are out there don't satisfy me because they are not logical because they are not describing any real 'phenomenon'.
I was hoping that you could have a valid definition of it and enlight me...
I Guess I overestimated your capacity to understand what
you're saying... Is it too much to ask from you to know the meaning/nature of the words
you use?
That's a lot of assumptions attributed to a concept you can't even define...
Who said you have to trust anyone? Off point into the random ramblings of Persecrates not understanding what love means.
Again, if you do, please enlighten us all...
It's not like it's a question (
what love is?) asked by countless of philosophers since the dawn of civilisation but still unanswered...
Please share your wisdom and groud breaking knowledge/insight of/on Mankind's most praised/desired yet undefinable emotion...
I don`t trust what you are saying right now, I am still reading it.
Same here.
Persecrates" wrote:Second, how the fact that people are stupid enough to 'love' someone without knowing why is relevant in trying to identify/hypothesize the exsitence of a different cognitive process than Logic?
[quote"Eveready"]You are using a non sequitur[/quote]
Actually you're the one making an irrelevant statement without basis to try to prove that love exist and is illogical. And that somehow this has something to do with the Logic method as cognitive method (obtention of meaningful information/knowledge.
So, you don't realize it but I point out
your non sequitur...
[quote"Eveready"]and trying to build a strawman[/quote]
Again you're the onr doing it by claiming that some people can love someone else for no reason. YOUR example.
Don't blame for
your incoherence.
1] [quote"Eveready"]
its entirely because of and through their reasoning and the logic they say they don`t know why they love someone[/quote] I added
'they love someone' for a better understanding.
If I was petty I would put this quote as signature...
[quote"Eveready"]by using the cognitive process of their deeper feelings perhaps?[/quote]
Does this sentence even mean something??
[quote"Eveready"]I don`t think its up to you to speak on what they believe and know. You can only speak for what you believe and know.[/quote]
There is no belief here, but a simple fact.
Any emotion/thought has a (or several)
pscychological reasons and physiological/biological causes.
Now if you care to demonstrate us otherwise, please do so.
Also, on the 'stupidity' I assert people are affected by when loving someone (they don't know and WILL change):
How can you expect to perfectly know someone?
If you don't perfectly know someone, then you don't know someone... Or you 'know' only the parts/aspects that you believe to have identify in someone.
Therefore the things you don't know about someone could make you change ENTIRELY your opinion of someone.
Therefore you don't only percieve an image, a subjective/incomplete/faillible representation of someone but it can change at any moment.
So, tell me, how can you love someone, not the subjective mis(representation), the image
you have of someone??
Is that a logical enough argumentation/demonstration for you?
What's stupid is for people to claim to love someone they don't even know...
[quote"Eveready"]Human inner drives and desires can be just as logical as their reasoning skills and sometimes more so.[/quote]
Again, I would like you to substantiate this claim please.
Give examples and, if you can, an argumentation.
Because for now you're making claim after claim. Your belief maybe important to you, but I, as any rational person on a
philosophical forum, would rather see some arguments here... Not just a meaningless rant.
Still, trying to answer:
If their propensity/capacity to intellectual reasoning is very low... Yes.
But if they can reason, even just a little, it will always be better than to rely on primitive emotions.
Persecrates wrote:What does it have to do with the cognitive process and method know as Logic?
Eveready wrote:As much as your linear reasoning love has to do with it. [touche`]
Persecrates YOU trying to teach me what Logic is? YOU? umm the person who boldly declared GRAVITY doesn`t exist that YOU? Logic is reasoning skill. There are many avenues to arrive at logic.
Still not making the difference between an idea, a concept, a theory and a phenomenon I see...
Did you check in yet?
[quote"Eveready"]there is a lot happens in life that defy`s logic.[/quote]
[/quote="Persecrates"]Nope. Nothing does[/quote]
[quote"Eveready"]Can you show me nothing does? or is this just your rhetorical opinion?[/quote]
I'm still wating for a demonstration/argumentation proving your first claim. Or by default, I'll satisfy myself with an example defined and explained (i.e. the nature of the phenomenon/concept which Logic cannot be applied to and why is it so...
In an argumented manner.)
The burdden of proof's on you.
I took all the (meaningful) examples you gave and demonstrated to you (and any reader) that they were logical or at least we were able to make meaningful logical demonstrations/argumentations about their nature, existence and soundness.