| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3937 Joined: 17 Feb 2008     | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3331 Joined: 10 Feb 2008    | I don't pick one, both are useful in different situations. One isn't 'better' than the other, both simply have different uses.
Whereither it's the best example depends from whom's perspective you look at the problem (I just féél this sentence is 'epic fail' grammar-wise). I doubt it's the best solution from the girl's perspective, maybe it's safer for you, but not for her. |
Muckraker  Posts: 233 Joined: 19 Mar 2009     |
The explanation is relatively simple for this, emotional decisions can be made within split seconds from the occurance of such an event, whereas logic has a longer processing time than emotional reactions. This can lead to acting impulsively upon emotion before there has been enough time for any logical conclusion to arise. |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 101 Joined: 6 Nov 2008     | Logic > Emotion when time is not of the essence. If one is able to easily sit back and discern what is actually happening at a given moment in time, most people will lean towards logic, but most people when faced with immediacy, no matter how logical of a person that they state that they normally are, will fall towards tendencies that are considered more on the emotional side. EXAMPLE: |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 595 Joined: 3 Mar 2009    | Separating logic and emotions is pointless. They are both critical components of human decision-making processes. Both are short-term, long-term, valuable, fallible and so on. |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 636 Joined: 1 Oct 2009     | To be perfectly honest, its a question with no answer, by which I mean which is the path to choose, "Logic or Emotion?" On the one hand, your emotions could leave you spiralling down a world of potential consequence, both physical and mental, where as the logical side could leave you emotionally cathartic, but potentially in the game way, they both have the outcome we desire. As said, its exactly in I-Robot, the robot can only choose logic, and logically in the same senario, he must choose the path of decision that is most beneficial, no matter what the consequence, so the robot choose to save Will Smith over the girl as he has a better chance of being saved. Only because it was a robot, it wouldn't have the cathartisism (if thats a word) of a human, which is why Will hates them so much in the movie. |
Paperboy  Posts: 18 Joined: 24 Feb 2009    | Has anyone posted this yet? It's about the reverse(inverse?) of the OP, as it is presented in fiction. It also has some good definitions of what logic is and why the criticisms of it are ill informed. Some good bits: "The most common mistake is to assume that logic and emotion are somehow naturally opposed and that employing one means you can't have the other. Excluding emotion doesn't make your reasoning logical, however, and it certainly doesn't cause your answer to be automatically true. Likewise, an emotional response doesn't preclude logical thinking - although it may prevent you from thinking in the first place - and if an emotional plan is successful, that doesn't make logic somehow wrong. Fiction often mixes up logical with other concepts as well. For one thing, authors sometimes say "illogical" when they mean "counter-intuitive." Correct logic is very often counter-intuitive, however, which is to be expected, as logic is meant to prevent errors caused by relying on intuition. As such it has more in common with mathematics than with Common Sense. Authors also routinely conflate "logical" with "reasonable" or "rational". To be logical, something has to meet very strict requirements. For a plan to be reasonable or sensible, it just has to get you in the direction you want to go by avoiding the stuff you don't want to happen. The rational plan, in the strictest sense of "rational", is the one that best achieves this. It is therefore by definition impossible for the plan with the best chance of working to be irrational. Logic ultimately exists to make sure you can never arrive at a wrong answer from true premises. As such it is supposed to make sure that you don't make errors in your reasoning, for example by contradicting yourself. It won't, however, make up for incorrect or incomplete information. If the premises you start with are false, like "the sun is green" or "Superman isn't a dick," then logic can't be relied upon to give you a true answer; as computer scientists say: "Garbage in, garbage out"." |
Copy Clerk  Posts: 71 Joined: 15 Jul 2009  | The dichotomy isn't actually an accurate one. I'd say people make decisions with their 'emotions' as much as they do with their 'logic', even if it seems to them that they're being entirely rational. Choices aren't meant to be considered without feeling; if they were, life would be boring as hell. And you're a lot more likely to come up with some rationalisation - one that really seems and may even genuinely be convincing - if your guts tell you to swing that way anyhow. |
PROBATION  Posts: 4450 Joined: 19 Feb 2009    |
No greed that results in getting a job and making money either. No lust that drives us to reproduce or just fuck for fun, and rape isn't about lust by the way (ugly chicks get raped too). Without emotion the world wouldn't think at all, because we'd be fucking dead, no emotion means no fear, and no fear means there's nothing stopping you from walking across an eight-lane highway during rush-hour to save a few minutes on your travel. Logic is worth fuck all without emotion. User was put on probation for: People who think they are Vampires. (3 days) |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1331 Joined: 19 Feb 2009   |
We don't necessarily use fear to determine what is dangerous. If you logically look at an eight lane highway you can easily work out the chances of surviving a casual stroll across it. Fear wouldn't kick in until you decided to try and cross it. You would only fear the situation if you have experienced or known of the experience in the first place. Irrational fears are illogical. Rational fears are logical.
What is interesting is that sometimes we still consider the moral thing to be the right thing despite being the illogical thing. As shown in the film, Will, maintains the view that he should have died in her place. Or at the very least he should have died trying to save her. So even after the logic has caught up, he still sides with his emotions. Does this mean emotions are more powerful to us than logic, if we are willing to die for them? I think so... |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 3205 Joined: 12 Nov 2008    |
Excellent post there, I agree with it all. Logic is... something that isn't human. It is a method of discovering cold, hard, fact. It is neither good, nor bad, in the same way that a Boeing 747 is neither good nor bad. It just *is*. In the wrong hands it can be extremely destructive, and in the right hands can be used to do great things. Emotion is what we are. When someone else slaps your girlfriends ass? When you see a kitten meowing at you in the street? When the gas fitters promise they will be at your house by 10AM but don't show up until 3PM? How you feel, and then how you react, defines you as a person. Without emotion, I would just be a chemical robot. Intensely logical, but ultimately without any vivacity, compassion, warmth, affection, or empathy. For me personally, emotions are more important. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1331 Joined: 19 Feb 2009 |
Unless you are Al Queda. Then 747's are good in both hands... |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1267 Joined: 24 Jul 2009    |
I think your right there, everything would have to come to a stop. Things would need to be completely re-evaluated, the economy, the government, everything. Then maybe, if everyone could just stop killing each other long enough to talk about why they're doing it, we might get somewhere. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1331 Joined: 19 Feb 2009 |
I think the world simply has too many people in it for this to become reality. Too many generations of people have been brought up with the same predjudices, the same greedy values. If religion could be unified, this would be a start but I think the catalyst would be a major disaster of apocalyptic proportions. It's actually for this very reason that I'm pro 2012... I hope it happens, if it'll help make the world a better place for my kids when I have them. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1461 Joined: 1 Jun 2009   |
I agree with your class and your views on Aladdin. Also, your name kicks ass. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1049 Joined: 20 May 2009  | It's hard to say. In an emotional situation, logic may go out the window. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1267 Joined: 24 Jul 2009 |
Well humans have to go extinct sometime anyway. Whether or not we'll achieve a perfect society before then is anybody's guess. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1331 Joined: 19 Feb 2009 |
I just hope we don't take the planet with us. It doesn't deserve that after being around for so long only to be ruined by our relativley short lived presence. Perfect society isn't a cause worth killing for, but it is certainly a cause worth dying for... |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3205 Joined: 12 Nov 2008 |
I have to say I disagree. I don't like the idea of religions, ideologies, and cultural customs being unified, I prefer diversity. Having other people who are different, and believe something different, and have differing values and customs, makes us question our own more. Having to rub shoulders and get along with different people should make us more accepting of differences. If everyone was the same then how would we treat the quirky characters of life? |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 414 Joined: 11 May 2008    | Sometimes we need to forgo emotion and do the best logical course of action. Emotions can interfere with the ability to see the best course of action for the future. Emotions are important, but when it comes to the crunch we must be driven by logic. The I, Robot statement is a good example. Say the robot was driven by emotion, and went to save the child. There is a very good chance BOTH would have died. The survivor, whilst suffering from survivor's guilt, did go on to live a product life afterwards. The choice was the right one. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1331 Joined: 19 Feb 2009 |
I agree with you entirely, i didn't mean to use such a blanket term. I think of religious unification as meaning when religions all respect the idea that other religions are just as correct as each other. I have reasons to believe that all religions are essentially spreading the same vital message. The friction comes when one believes it is more right than the other. Have you ever read The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield? Somewhat of a cult spiritual classic but it and it's sequels shed some fascinating light on the subject. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3205 Joined: 12 Nov 2008 |
Let me try this question of logic. A brilliant brain surgeon is seriously ill. He contracted some disease or other and needs a new pair of kidneys to survive. A matching pair is found - inside the body of someone with Downs syndrome. We can take the organs out of the Downs syndrome person, killing him, and giving the kidneys to the surgeon. Or let the surgeon die. What do we do?
Haven't read that. Will have too sometime. :D Friction between creeds, cultures, or ideologies tend to happen when one culture somehow thinks that humanity is "going somewhere", and that culture is the only one that can take us to that destination. If you look at any of these people you will see an entrenched belief that humans should be heading for a moral utopia, or some perfected human society. From Harris and Dawkins talking about the End of Faith to John Hagee calling for the apocalypse to start now and for Jesus to return through to the Jihadist fundamentalists in Afghanistan - the overall message is the same - "humans are destined for greatness, and we will show you the way." The fact is that human history and all scientific data demonstrate that we aren't going anywhere. We might be changing and evolving but it isn't always for the better, and it isn't necessarily something noble or good even if it isn't particularly bad, it just "is". What we, as humans, should do, is to focus on ourselves. I don't mean be egocentric twats, quite the contrary, I mean we should not worry about whether everyone else is doing the right thing, but just make sure that we are. If more people did this, then a lot of problems would just sort themselves out. Morality, much like emotion, is something internal too us. Logic is external. |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 725 Joined: 21 Mar 2009    | Hume said, "reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions." The question of logic and reason versus passion and emotion is not a matter of two incompatible things in competition with each other, it is a matter of two different things that have their own cognitive roles. It misses the point to say that emotion leads to false conclusions and logic true ones, or that logic is cold and calculating while emotion is human and that to choose one means forsaking the other. Being emotional or excited does not necessarily prevent one from being logical and perceptive, nor does the absence of passion make anyone more logical than anyone else. Emotion is the foundation of judgment; logic keeps judgment consistent. It is simply wrong to say that cold logic dictates anything whatsoever, for logic is just not the kind of thing that gives us conclusions by itself. This is why we run into problems when people just assume into existence some sordid calculus of moral worth and give it the label "logic" when it is just a set of empty and arbitrary assumptions stripped of so-called 'bias' or sentimentality and thus robbed of any connection with real perceptions of value. With logic, we perceive facts and construct a reality that can make sense. With emotion, we perceive ourselves and what we want from reality. It is a very clear mistake to try to substitute one with the other and every attempt thus far has been filled with a very silly kind of confusion. Emotionality is not an excuse for being irrational and sober calculation is not an excuse for being an amoral shell of a man. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1146 Joined: 29 Aug 2009  | well i prefer going with emotion. we need both but i like emotion more, yeah i don't know. i think most people know when it's time for an time
it will also be booooooooring as hell. imagin everyone straight faces. someone says i cured cancer....... others:yay....... |
Press Junketeer Posts: 414 Joined: 11 May 2008 |
Nothing. The person is still alive. We cannot kill one life simply because it is convient to do so. If they both required kidneys and only one was avaliable, the surgeon would obviously recieve them. However, we cannot murder to preserve the surgeon. The surgeon has taken a hypocractic oath and hence even he would not want someone murdered in his name. Plus we still don't know if the operation will be a success. We could end up losing 2 people instead of just 1. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3205 Joined: 12 Nov 2008 |
That puts logic aside for the sake of compassion - an emotion. If we were to ask an emotionless computer this question the computer would undoubtedly suggest removing the organs from the disabled person and giving them to the doctor - as that doctor is more "useful" and could save even more lives. But you as a human with feelings thinks differently. So when it came to the crunch there, you didn't quite go all the way with logic after all. |
Press Junketeer Posts: 414 Joined: 11 May 2008 |
There are many more factors required to make such a judgement. And besides, even with logical you need to filter in human reaction. If you end up killing 2 humans when only 1 was going to die, people aren't going to like that. Additional death just compounds the problem. Even with Downs syndrome the human could have provided some service to humanity. And why specifically Downs syndrome? Surely this hospital is full of people who would serve as possible donators. Better yet. Take it from a repeat offense mass murder. Removes a detrimental element to society and provides a service. Your statement offered a very narrow view of options. There are always more options and more factors that can be considered and processed. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3205 Joined: 12 Nov 2008 |
The options were deliberately narrow in order to give you the choice between logic and emotion. No "what ifs" and caveats. A materialistic, unemotional view of the world, I believe, is extremely detrimental in the long term. We shouldn't endeavour to take the compassion factor out of every decision we make. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1331 Joined: 19 Feb 2009 |
Interesting, I hadn't really thought of that. Thinking about it, science is guided by ethics right? This is to make sure that scientific progress is made with noble intentions. And how do we define what is ethical? If ethics come from morality which comes from within a society, of which all societies have emerged from religious background, keeping many of its values intact. Then you could go on to say that scientific experiments are guided by religion. I may be jumping the gun, but you could say that science needs religion to be considered noble and of the best interests of mankind. Now obviously religion isn't without it's flaws, of which are certainly numerous in quantity. But once they have been worked out and science learns the boundries of it's own uses, science and religion may evolve to the point where they work together productively and we may start to see beneficial progress. (if you agree with this, you will definately enjoy that book)
I think that is very much the right way but for this to work, morality has to be seen as absolute and correct for all people. When we are trapped in a world of racists, bigots, facists and well, all of those types, we can be sure that the idea of a standard morality will not be feasible. Long story short, the worlds got a lot of problems but there are solutions. God or Jesus won't solve them for us and dismissing them won't solve them either. It's up to us. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2031 Joined: 9 Aug 2009   | In a highly stressful situation, which ever of them is better is irrelevant. 9/10 times, emotion will win no matter what. |
Nobel Laureate  Posts: 16101 Joined: 26 Dec 2008  | Emotion doesn't have any place in the decision-making process. But that's just me. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1331 Joined: 19 Feb 2009 | Another logical problem, for those that are still interested, can be found in James Cameron's underwater classic "The Abyss" Here is a part of the script of the scene I am refering to. Sorry about the wall of text but in brief, the dilema is this. Bud and Lindsey are in a submersible which is quickley filling with water. There is only one suit capable of providing oxygen and the safety of the undewater base is too far to swim on one breath. They have perhaps three minutes to think of a solution. Lindsey's logic is that Bud should use the suit and she will drown and be revived later if Bud takes her body to the base. Bud reluctantly agrees, but not before exclaiming "FUCK LOGIC"... Do you: a) Think this is even possible? I have since wondered why they didn't try and share the oxygen in the tank, I can only assume this is because that was impossible given the time restriction or that there wouldn't be enough oxygen in the tank for two people. The result, incase you were wondering but have not seen the film... |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2814 Joined: 23 Dec 2007   | Logic is nothing more than a word used to justify thought processes. In essence, it's little different from emotion. |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 3205 Joined: 12 Nov 2008 |
Ok, this one is a bit trickier as they both seemed to be forced into a situation where that was the only real solution. If it was me, and it was someone I really loved, I would give them the oxygen suit or whatever it was. I wouldn't take the risk of not being able to revive them. If it was a random stranger with me, I would fall back on logic and wear the stuff myself, then do all I could to revive them. If it is any consolation to the corpse which would be cooling quietly on the submersible floor due to my inability to practice CPR, I would feel bad about it. |
Infamous Scribbler  Posts: 699 Joined: 13 Jul 2009  | "IN THE ARENA OF LOGIC I FIGHT UNARMED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in seriousness logic makes sense so use it |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | |
Reply to Thread
|
|
Not registered? Sign up for a free account! |
I think a lot of people say that using Logic to analyse and determine a reaction to a situation is superior to doing so based on what you instantly think (Emotions) because they think taht taking the latter choice will cloud their Judgement and result bad shit happening.
To relate this to your example; the 'moral' response is to save the girl, but when viewed Objectively this could result in you dying (the chances were, as you said, fairly low) so it's not necessarily the best thing to do.
But I think merely asking the question betrays a lack of understanding. Logic is just a way of drawing a conclusion based on a set of premises, emotions are just what you feel. You should take them both into account when making a decision, Logic just can be more useful because it tends to promote critical thinking, which can lead to you making a better decision.
That's what I think anyway.