Is Logic a matter of Intelligence??
I see as one of the greatest problems that people (both in general as society but as individuals also)find extremely difficult to think Logically. I don't mean about beliefs or whatever but I mean in pure logic terms for their own personal benefit. For example racism is a matter totally out of Logic. In any terms there is no racist argument that can stand against Logic simply! But millions of people think like that. And I can mention hundreds other examples of out of logic thinking!
The thing that troubles me many years is if Logic is a matter of Intelligence? Though I m sure that it has to do with that at some level also. Still my strongest argument against it, is that you see manyyyy intelligent people and scientists have out of logic beliefs like racism that I mentioned for example. So if it isn't a matter of Intelligence what is the biggest problem that people find it so difficult to follow Logic? Is it psychological effects? Mental? What is the biggest obstacle?
So if Logic is indeed a matter of Intelligence then as society we don't have much hope! We have to hope only for more intelligent people to be born as to improve societies. But if it isn't then there is hope that people can create something that will lead people to think logical(maybe a better education system?). Genetics is something that people can't interfere, it's natural progress. But if Logic isn't a matter of genetics then there are plenty of things that can be done.
The thing that troubles me many years is if Logic is a matter of Intelligence? Though I m sure that it has to do with that at some level also. Still my strongest argument against it, is that you see manyyyy intelligent people and scientists have out of logic beliefs like racism that I mentioned for example. So if it isn't a matter of Intelligence what is the biggest problem that people find it so difficult to follow Logic? Is it psychological effects? Mental? What is the biggest obstacle?
So if Logic is indeed a matter of Intelligence then as society we don't have much hope! We have to hope only for more intelligent people to be born as to improve societies. But if it isn't then there is hope that people can create something that will lead people to think logical(maybe a better education system?). Genetics is something that people can't interfere, it's natural progress. But if Logic isn't a matter of genetics then there are plenty of things that can be done.
Comments (82)
Academic logic is not the same as intelligence.
Nor does being good at logic make you a decent person.
People are driven by desire and emotion not logic.
It's a great myth that people use logic to conduct themselves.
And its a great myth that academic logic is some kind of cure for everything.
People are shaped by their genes and environment. Even the smartest people have to fight against their prejudices.
I don't see it as a myth at all. Logic isn't the cure for everything but for sure is what can lead people in happier lives. I agree that people are driven by their desires but Logic can play a huge role as someone to realize what are these desires indeed and which of them truly he needs to fulfill and what others are social made desires for example.
I see Logic as the only reason someone has on his life. And how he can affect it. Using Logic to react in all circumstances for a better life. It's his only tool as to rule over his life. The other aspects he can't control as genes, social conditions he was born, family etc. But Logic is the only way to react in all these endless circumstances as to have a happier life. Logic for me is human's strongest weapon and not a myth at all.
So you think it is mostly a genetic matter?
So by logic you are meaning what?
Aristotle, platos dialectics or just intelligence?
Because everybody uses intelligence in their life.
Intelligence is not academic logic.
There are different types of Logics, and one which is mostly practical is based on just one simple law.
If the premise is wrong, then subsequent arguments and the conclusion will be wrong.
So always check the premise for its logical consistency, and take it from there.
There are other types of Logics such as Modal Logic (really for those who are interested in Maths or Computer Programming and A.I.), and Informal Logic or Critical Logic (used in the Courts by the judges and solicitors during the trials).
Logical conclusions are only to clarify right and wrong and consistency in the arguments or claims, but they will not cause actions or decisions or beliefs of the people who are using it. Only psychological motives and wills will decide their decisions, beliefs and actions. (based on the logical conclusions). i.e. with the right conclusions, they can still make wrong / bad decisions and vice versa.
There are many cases of people making up false logical propositions which are full of fallacies and just a pile of nonsensical mixture of contradictory sentences jumbled disguised as some sort of complicated logical statement. These are psychological traps to lure the others for parading their shady messages or endeavour to impress you for their intellectual superiority, which must be ignored at prima facie.
In most cases and the rule of thumb is, when reading a sentence, if it does not make sense, then it is not your fault, but more likely it is written badly or inconsistently.
I am closer to Aristotle's definition for Logic though I don't agree fully.
For me Logic is mostly the ability that humans are gifted to use their minds to reach Truth. In every matter of their lives. Logic is the point that you reach after using mind and this point is Truth (at least closer to Truth, cause what actually truth is, is a different discussion). When you use pure Logic, you come to a point that there is no argument that can stand against it. So for me that is what I consider Logic. Like humans "searching truth engine" . If I can put it this way.
But my question is if that engine's work is cause of Intelligence or something else?
The "engines work" is the expression of intelligence.
But not everybody thinks in an aristelian way.
Plus there is intuition,which is an immediate non discursive awareness or thought.
But if for example I have a desire to kill let's say. Can't Logic affect my acts at the end?? Can't I use Logic to realize that this psychological desire is purely wrong and it will make my life also miserable?? I still believe that Logic is a way as to tame our psychological desires and filter them as to act in our own benefit at the end! Our desires aren't always in favor of our happiness but Logic for sure is.
By the way interesting what you mentioned about Modal logic. Never heard it.
When you say "I have a desire to kill.", it is not a logical conclusion, but a desire, which is a psychological state. Maybe logical thinking has provided the information, which triggered the desire to kill. But the books say that Logic's duty ends there, i.e. providing the information. With the information, you could also have had a desire to leave, desire to go to a pub, or felt nothing. Anything could have been the case. The kind of desire triggered, or nothing would depend on the individual's state of mind and the circumstances, not the logical conclusion.
I am not too familiar with Modal Logic, and under the impression, it is for Mathematicians, Computer Programmers and A.I Engineers. But I am sure, the origin of ML is Philosophy, and it is also a field of academic Philosophy.
I'm gonna stick my neck out and disagree with this statement. Logic is, as you said, a "searching truth engine" - it's designed to take truths as inputs and spit out another truth that simply can't be false (deductive logic) or is most likely true (inductive logic). It, however, can't tell the difference between a truth and a falsehood - that's our job so to speak. If the inputs into the searching truth engine" is dubious, the truth of the output is not guaranteed, nevertheless one is being logical. When it comes to racists, the inputs are questionable "truths" i.e. they could be false. After that all bets are off - what the "searching truth engine" presents as an output could be true, could be false - we can't tell for sure.
Let's take an example of a valid argument form in logic
Modus Ponens
1. If p then q
2. p
Ergo,
3. q
A truth table for the above argument form
p..........q..........if p then q
T..........T.......... T
T..........F..........F
F..........T..........T
F..........F..........T
As you can see, there's no line in the truth table where all the premises are true and the conclusion false. This is one particular type of "searching truth engine". There are many others.
More to the point, notice that if any of the premises are false, the conclusion can be either true or false. This, my best hunch, is what's happening with racism. A racist uses a valid argument form but faer premises are of doubtful authenticity. In other words, racists are assuredly logical but they've screwed up premise-wise.
As for logic vs intelligence, think computer vs human. Logic is part of intelligence, possibly system-critical vis-à-vis intelligence but intelligence is so much more than just logic.
Quoting dimosthenis9
There is debate on whether we are primarily shaped by our genes, or our environment. I am tempted to say genes, but I haven't given it serious thought.
In any event, even our environment can motivate us more than our logic. For example if someone's born and bred in the middle east, their environment has likely led to them being a Muslim, and someone born and bred in India, their environment has likely led to them being Hindu. Not to say these religious beliefs are wrong, just that people's environment has taken precedence over their logic in developing their beliefs.
Mostly agree with the argument and conclusion, but It is important to keep in mind that symbolic logic cannot capture all the intricacies of the English language. When an argument begins with false premise, and the conclusion is true, the whole argument can be judged as inconsistent.
How would that determination be possible, if the very thing asked about requires the use of it?
The bane of epistemological metaphysics since Day One, not that it isn’t a worthwhile query despite having no irreducible...apodeitically certain..... answer.
Good post.
Very few of the decisions you make, the actions you take, the attitudes and beliefs you hold are mediated by logic. They're not necessarily illogical, more likely non-logical. Most of what we know we don't know in the sense that we can justify it logically. The world we inhabit mentally is one that we have built up starting and infancy. Much of it is non-verbal and non-conscious. Logic is the gold paint on the ball at the top of the flagpole. That metaphor is not logical.
And yet, here you have a philosophy forum full of unhappy people.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Billions of people lead happy lives without depending on logic. Logic can't lead you anywhere, it can only, sometimes, maybe, slow you down or stop you, change direction a bit. The will to act, intention, comes from somewhere else.
I agree with this.
Quoting Corvus
There are plenty of examples here on the forum.
Good post.
I had to make an account just to comment on this post.
And then not be able to because i spelt my email Id wrong, and spend 10 mins trying to figure it out.
But finally I am here.
I am surprised that I happened to stumble upon this post as i made a pretty similar post in reddit today.
Well, not really, but some elements of this post vibe with the elements of my post.
Unfortunately, it got removed as according the rules, I wasn't supposed to post discussions there. (oopsie)
Since, its been removed there, i guess i will post it here and hope people give more info on it.
Btw, I like OP's way of thinking so i hope they comment on my post.
Anyways,
I would like to talk to the OP directly, or just have this post be lively and get more input.
Here's my input about your question:-
I don't think logic is a matter of intelligence.
I think logic is just a tool to find the solution to a problem.
And intelligence is a way to measure someone's ability to use such tools.
Yes, I've been told that but I never got around to exploring those areas - I find them too unnerving not to mention complicated for the likes of me. I maintain a safe distance my policy being I'll cross the bridge when I get to it. Until then stay in familiar territory as far as possible.
By the way, what would be some examples of "...logic cannot capture all the intricacies of the English language"?
I can think of one. Take the word "but" which is equivalent to "and" in logic, both being translated as the logical connective AND (&). If I say, "John stayed but Jane left" what I wish to convey is there's some kind of tension, a logical one as in an inconsistency (Jane should've stayed) but this is lost in translation so to speak and the aforementioned statement is treated as identical to "John stayed and Jane left". That's about all I have on this issue with logic.
I am really sorry if this feels like i am trying to get audience towards my post i some way.
I just want the OP to make a comment on my post, and I cant DM them unless they follow me back.
It's not that I disagree but logic isn't only about finding solutions in problems but I see it more as adapting a general set of mind that helps you react in any life circumstances you get in. Like using it always to find the best path for you and at all matters to get as close as you can to the truth.
We talk about intelligence. So what about people with low iq? Are they condemned not to be able to act Logically? I don't think so. I have met people with low iq in my life but exactly cause they realize that they weren't the smartest people on earth and knew their abilities they really act with very logical way in most cases at least
How could you know that?
Quoting T Clark
Come on, so you say that we are totally unable to control our acts?? So what? Our life decisions are already given to us and we can't do anything about that?And what is that "somewhere else" that they come from at the end?? I disagree. Logic is not only about slowing you down and just postpone your decisions. It's about realize what is wrong and right mostly for you. I strongly doubt also that people without logic live such happy lives. Not that it can't happen but it's like winning by luck.I think Logic is a main requirement for happiness.
If for example I have a psychological urge to revenge someone by thinking Logically and realize that it will just give me more troubles and nothing else and I won't gain anything at all, it will not only slow me from doing it but at the end I just won't do it.
Quoting T Clark
I agree that decisions we make aren't mediated by logic. But that's exactly my point. That Logic is our strongest weapon as to filter all these things that we have the urge to do and clarify if they truly are good for us. I don't say that Logic generates our acts. Not at all. But that Logic is the best filter for them and we always have to use it.
Well, i can't really talk against your claim, but in my experience, the people with lower IQs i have seen generally tend to not use logic.
Also, just IQ isn't a good way to determine someone's intelligence, there is also EQ and other stuff.
You believe in EQ yet want to eliminate emotions?
Yeah, I picked it up somewhere, but cannot recall where. Anyhow ...
Another example would be,
If S and T, then CG.
If it is sunny and I have time, then
I will cut the grass.
But for S condition, what if it was partly sunny and
there was some rain too, and then sunny again?
And for T condition, what if I had time, but only for 15 minutes?
For CG, what if I did manage to cut the grass, but only 1/2 of the lawn due to lack of time?
And for all that, what if I cut the next door neighbour's lawn instead of mine, because we just moved into the house, and didn't know the garden was shared by 4 other households?
S -> T then CG can look like a perfectly true statement, but in real life situations, it turns out not to be a very meaningful statement at all.
The truth table is great for simple mathematical workouts, but is not very practical for the real life applications due to its limitations in linguistic capabilities and also complicated situations arising from the real life representations.
I think that to make good argument, it must start from clear and logically valid premise, and all the following each propositions must be also valid and true, to arrive to the true conclusion. And then this argument will have higher chance of acceptance by the other party. And really only good valid logical arguments prepared with full linguistic logic can achieve that.
If there is any problems with either the premise or supporting propositions, then even if the conclusion is true, the whole argument will be looked upon bad argument or inconsistent one, and will be rejected by the other party. In legal court, the arguments like that will be thrown out, and the case will be lost.
Logic, it seems to me, is a formal-symbolic tool crafted by and for intelligence the exercise of which is matter of cultivation (of aptitute) and habit (competence). Intelligence – adaptive optimization of error-correcting problem-solving – is a species function / defect expressed (embodied-enacted) to varying degrees in individuals via ecological affordances.
Quoting Corvus
:up:
But my point was to demonstrate, how daily life dialogues, intentions, dispositions and thoughts are like, and trying to convert them into the Symbolic Logic and Truth Table formats doesn't work.
But of course you have to have mind and some intelligence as to find Logic. I don't expect logic from cockroaches. But seems to me that intelligence might not be the main requirement for it. I think recently that working hard with your own self might be the main obstacle for Logic but still I'm not sure about it.
I m really surprised though from many answers I see here how many people underestimate logic. Thinking about it like useless or can't be possible or myth or being something abstract. I didn't expect that at all since for me, I insist, is one of the most important matter in human life. Not to say the most important one.
I feel that the Classic Logic and Modal Logic not too much useful for my own daily life applications. Maybe it is because I don't know much about them too, but I feel they are more suitable and useful for the specialised applications in the technological fields.
I find the Informal Logic more useful and practical for my own daily life applications such as debating, discussing and negotiating. I am a newbie student for the subject, and have been reading the books trying to learn more about it myself.
You're right but, as some say, we seem to have run out of options. Thanks though for the word of caution. I'll be more careful in the future.
But again I don't think logic generates people's acts. I see it exactly as the progress that human mind can do as to "judge" all these intuitions and non discursive thoughts. Like filter them. I don't say people's acts are driven by logic but that logic can lead in better decisions, acts, even prevent intuitions that are bad for us.
I would venture to say exactly that. Would mathematical logic, and propositional logic in general, even be possible, if the human way of thinking wasn’t itself logical?
The inherent circularity in that is embarrassingly obvious, but whatcha gonna do, when the question just begs asking.
Not everyone here is unhappy, but there are a lot. You can know that by just reading what they write. People here are pretty open about their lives, worries, and problems.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Of course not. I only said that logic is not the mechanism by which most of our decisions are handled. As I noted, very little of our mental life is taken up by logical or conscious thinking.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I didn't say people who use logic extensively are less happy than people who don't, only that I don't see people who spend a lot of time in self-reflection as happier than others. On the other hand, I think a case could be made that unnecessary self-reflection does make you unhappy. That's just based on an impression. I don't have any specific evidence.
Quoting dimosthenis9
This sounds like the process I described - the motivation comes from somewhere else. You call it a psychological urge, which makes sense. Then logic can come in to moderate, guide, or stop that impulse.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Again, you seem to be describing the same process I did. You do bring up a question I haven't addressed - is logic the best method to guide our actions? I say "no," or at least "not necessarily." If it works for you, good. It doesn't work for me and many other people.
Since we agree on that. How you find logic as an unnecessary progression then? If the impulse is totally wrong for someone and for society and logic can stop it. Isn't that something that improves your life??
Since logic is the best path for our minds to seek truth (at least for me, don't know if you think the same on that) both in our lives and in social matters, why you think that it's not a good guide for our actions as to moderate them? I can't see any other better way. How you moderate your actions then if not logical?
And at the end all people use some form of logic in every day life (at work, as to solve problems, practical things in general etc) but they have massive difficulty when it comes to life matters or decisions or beliefs as to filter them. If logic works fine in practical issues why not in all life aspects then?
It's not necessary, but I didn't say it might not be valuable. It's just not the only way and, in my opinion, not the best way, at least for me.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I think you and I are hitting on an important factor here. We both wrote "at least for me." That's the point - different styles work differently for different people. I'm a civil engineer. I guess you'd say, and I'd probably agree with you, that engineering involves logical thinking. Civil engineering can solve a certain type of problem very well, as long as it can be expressed in rational terms. To express something in rational terms, you have to simplify it, break it down, analyze it. When you're done, you can build the world back up from those little pieces. And that's the problem, engineering, and logic, oversimplify the world. That's why so many civil engineering projects are disastrous. Roads, highways, sewers, canals, property development, airports, can be incredibly disruptive. Failure to take factors outside a narrow focus into account lead to unintended consequences, e.g. flooding, destruction of communities and economies, pollution of waterways, increases and disruptions of traffic, air pollution, etc., etc., etc.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You wrote about psychological urges. It is possible to become more aware of your internal life - thoughts, feelings, attitudes, urges - and where they come from. When you can do that - I'm going to get all metaphorical on you now - you can learn to ride those impulses, desires, and feelings like a surfer rides a wave. You don't control them any more than a surfer controls the ocean. Can I do this? No. Well, maybe sometimes. I'm working on it.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I think most people address most problems using their intuition rather than by any self-conscious process such as logic. It's true, as an engineer there were many times when I had to apply a formal decision making process. That's really what design is. In the end, that has to be somewhat logical because it has to be presented in such a way that other people can understand why you made the decisions you did. Many times that logical process was used to justify, certify, decisions that had been made intuitively.
You are right that there are many people who are very good at dealing with problems in their work with moderation and reason and, sometimes, logic, but who are unable to do that in their private lives.
Quoting T Clark
That's Exactly the method I suggest in every matter that concerns someone's life. And I mean Everything! From practical every day life matters to life decisions, existential questions, society etc.! Really I couldn't put it better!
1.You take a problem (whatever kind of problem I don't care) and break it in pieces as you mentioned. The tiniest pieces it is possible! The "atomic" pieces of each problem to put it that way. You do that till you reach the Root. Or at least as close to the Root someone can get!
2.When you reach the Root. You take a really really good look in each every tiny piece. You wait some time without doing anything (that's as to avoid as much as you can the inevitable motional reactions you might have and have a more objective decision). Just observe the tiny pieces
.
3.Then yes you start rebuilding!But from which parts you start first? From Unquestionable truths! Things that simply Can't be deniable at any point!(according to human knowledge so far of course). Fundamental Truths. You take the tiny pieces first that you are totally sure that you know exactly where to put them. Fundamental Truths for example in racist problems could be that all people die! There is no discrimination to race at all for that. (just trying to give you an example of what I mean fundamental truths in every matter).
4.After finishing with the pieces that you are sure about. Then you go on as to build the closest answer to every problem(and good luck for that). But knowing definitely that you will never reach the perfect!! Never 100%.its impossible! Exactly as in your field as you said! People can never get it all right! And for me at least that is another Fundamental Truth. So you just aim for the highest "score" you can reach in every problem!And that's why I find Logic as the greatest guide and so important.
Sorry for rambling so much. But you triggered me when I read what I quoted.
Quoting T Clark
Not familiar with your field at all, but why is that a problem to Engineering? And why also a disadvantage for Logic?
Quoting T Clark
I aim the same but through Logic path. Not sure that I am walking right though. But I still maintain my faith in Logic. What is your "vehicle" if not Logic then? If it's not something personal that you don't want to share of course.
Who better than an engineer to recognize the limits of what rationalization can achieve and it's possible dangers.
Quoting dimosthenis9
You left out the part where I said "That's why so many civil engineering projects are disastrous."
Quoting dimosthenis9
As I said before:
Quoting T Clark
Quoting dimosthenis9
Logic is not the right path for me. As I described previously:
Quoting T Clark
Formal methods for becoming more self-aware include meditation, therapy, religion - studies that focus inward. Informally, it's just a matter of paying attention to what goes on inside you.
All these failures you mention it's not engineering's science fault. It's human fault in the way they practice engineering. I can only imagine that engineering must have strict rules that should be followed. If people do not follow them it's their fault. If I want to build a bridge and I follow all engineering steps 100% then the bridge won't end up a disaster at all. Same thing with logic. If people can't practice it well, it's not Logic's fault.
For example in racism matter if I start my case that all black people are born genetically inferior than white people then for sure I will end up to a disastrous argument. Is it Logic's fault that it won't produce a right outcome?? Since my first case actually rapes Logic! As I support logic is mind's searching truth engine. If the "data" I put in this engine are totally false of course the outcome would be a failure.
As I noted, it is the essence of engineering that it breaks the world down into smaller pieces then builds a simplified model and uses it to make design decisions. In civil engineering in particular, they then go out into the world and dig holes, build roads, dam up rivers, build levees, build sewers and so on and so on. The simplification is essential and it's what leads to damaging outcomes. Yes, there are definitive rules. Those rules require the use of the oversimplified models.
But I guess not all these oversimplified models are wrong. There must be engineering projects that are totally successful right? With no social, environmental, or whatever negative results. The way you describe it seems that engineering just can't be totally right on everything but isn't on the right track at least?
Same with Logic i don't support that is a solution for everything. Of course is limited since human knowledge is limited too (maybe that's the problem of engineering too?). I mean humans don't have all the answers for everything so of course Logic can't work with total success in everything too. There are issues that truly might not be much helpful. But at fields where human knowledge is enough it can "build" some totally successful "projects" like engineering.
At the end as an engineer and despite your objections about oversimplification don't you think engineering even with its weaknesses is valuable and the only way to actual build things? I mean could it be a better alternative?
Yes, sometimes, often, engineering projects work out well. The models aren't wrong, they just leave out parts of reality not directly related to a specific focused goal. Often that's fine, but sometimes factors not taken into account cause problems. A typical situation - in designing drainage for a redevelopment site, you select pipe sizes to handle the greatest amount of water you estimate will be generated by precipitation within, for example, 25 years. This modelling provides protection against flooding onsite, but changes in the amount of water discharged or the timing of those discharges may cause flooding downstream.
Is it model's fault or humans that these parts of the reality aren't taken under consideration? Shouldn't humans consider all factors even if they aren't directly related to the focused goal? Don't know just asking. At your example with pipes is there something that could be done better from humans or cause of models that's inevitable?
I mean you just do your best as to make the best estimation you can, but not all factors can be predicted totally. If a huge nature change happens for example and the engineering project collapse can you blame the engineer for not predicting it? It's beyond his power. At least as I see it. On the other hand you can blame him if he didn't follow engineering rules fully and that led to a disastrous project.
Model's are necessarily simplified, so, yes, it's not their fault. It is inherent in the engineering, and I would say logical, process that this type of simplification takes place. Same is true for science. The only way we can get the precision of what is called "hard science" is to strip everything away except the simplest features - electrons, electromagnetic waves, chemical bonds. That's a limitation, but it's where the power of science comes from. As you get closer to human scale, the limitations can lead to unintended consequences.
Quoting dimosthenis9
This is a really interesting subject for me. As an engineer, I am responsible for following "good engineering practice." Good engineering practice generally includes just those simplified models we have been discussing. So, as I said, the simplification process is built into engineering at the most basic level.
As for unforeseen conditions, dealing with uncertainty is part of the engineering process. Normally, uncertainties come in from selection of physical properties, e.g. soil strength, wind loads, water levels, material bending properties, variation in the properties of materials used. Uncertainties also come in from the simplifications in the equations themselves. These types of uncertainties are often dealt with by using factors of safety (FSs). You figure out the safe load using equations, then divide by the FS.
Another way is to use stochastic, statistical, methods, e.g. you measure physical properties - wind speeds, flood levels, rainfall amounts - for years, run some statistics, and then calculate recurrence levels for design storms. There are published tables of storm recurrence for most locations. They tell you the wind and rainfall amounts you can expect to recur every, say, 25 years. Standard practice or regulation tells you which recurrence interval you have to use - another simplification that may have consequences.
Of course, a big problem with stochastic predictions these days is climate change. Flood levels, wind speeds, air temperatures, rainfall amounts, etc. are changing so that the old data we have to figure out engineering factors are more and more inaccurate. Yes, of course, statistical predictions should be updated. Problem - how do we figure it out if we can't trust historic data. There is also resistance from bureaucratic agencies reluctant to acknowledge climate change for political reasons.
emotions are more important than logic
and power is more important than emotions
In what way you find emotions more important than Logic? Of course acts are triggered by emotions and not Logic but isn't Logic a great way to tame emotions? As to filter our acts in a better way?
And how power also is more important than emotions? At the end isn't the desire for power an emotion itself?
dont tame emotions.
dont tame any part of yourself
go live in a cage at the zoo if u want to be tamed
Yeah don't tame emotions. That's why you see everywhere people who act only by emotions without filter anything bringing such chaos in societies. Sure if my anger pushes me to punch someone what good is Logic as to stop me? Just go and punch him as to let my beloved emotions flow natural.
Maybe zoo suits better for animals without Logic ability. These surely driven only by their emotions and instincts! So thanks for the advice but I will pass it.
maybe chaos in society is from people trying to tame emotions
stop doing that and we will have more prosperity
But at the end is something else that can be done in engineering except simplification (despite its faults of course)? According to science so far aren't these models the best (or less bad at least as to put it that way) way as to build things?? Of course they need improvement but I guess engineering at the past was much worse than nowadays. I guess many more disastrous projects occurred at the past. But isn't that natural since human knowledge gets bigger? Maybe in future these oversimplified models might get much better also.
That's what I support with Logic. It's not a magic cure for everything but it's the best (less bad at least) method.Since human knowledge is limited Logic effect is limited too but as knowledge expands Logic expands too.
Quoting T Clark
So same with Logic, seems Engineering also has to deal with a real Chaotic environment and we demand the best possible solution from it. As we demand from Logic the best possible solution in chaotic human societies and chaotic existential problems that a person faces on his own also. Shouldn't we be a little soft both in engineering models and Logic also? Recognize the hardships they have to deal with.
When I started this topic I never imagined I would find so similar things to Logic and Engineering (never thought it in deep level) and the more we debate about it the more similarities I see(in problems they face, the way they deal with problems and the chaotic environment that both need to deal with). For sure you have an interesting job. No boring days at work for you.
How is it ever possible Logic to bring chaos in societies??
I gave you an example of how useful can be to tame your emotions sometimes. As you notice around you most people don't tame their emotions at all and don't use logic either. And yet you see chaos everywhere. If the majority of people start to act Logically and then a bigger chaos occur then we can discuss it again. Till then I stick to my point.
ok keep taming yourself
make yourself weaker and more passive
and i will be untamed and rule over you
How can you rule over someone who doesn't acknowledge your authority?? Oh my friend I see why you hate Logic so much.
because i will rule over them with power not authority
power = the law of the universe.
Really interesting. I will read it extensively tomorrow. Maybe at the end psychological factors are the biggest obstacle to Logic. And not intelligence itself.
Oh whatever. Rule over me, whole world,animals, trees also if you want. Good luck with that.
i dont need your permission
i only need the permission of the universe
Universe bless you then.
whatever can be accomplished is what the universe allows
whatever you have to do to make that accomplishment is the price the universe demands
these are the only real rules that exist
I love engineering and science. My whole family are engineers. I have an engineer's personality. I think like an engineer. I'm not putting it down, I'm just trying to be aware of it's limitations. The way to deal with engineering is to use it in it's appropriate role and not to use it when it's not appropriate. Which is where this whole discussion started.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I was never arguing against logic in the kind of role you are describing. I have only been saying it's not the only way and it's not the best way for me. There is not just one way and not just one good way.
learn the MBTI
Before I became an engineer, I was a psychology major. I don't think the Myers-Briggs is very useful. It takes what is basically an engineering approach to personal differences. It takes an "objective" measurement and then gives the person a classification. That's just the kind of simplification I was talking about as a limitation for engineering and a potential source of problems.
you dont have to limit yourself to the mbti only
there is also the BIG 5
Pure Logic.
Quoting T Clark
Fair enough.I think I got the main point of your side. Interesting discussion.
I have seen retarded people make logical choices and i have seen people with more degrees than a thermometer make the most illogical head up ass decisions you've ever seen
That's what I have noticed too and made me criticize my original belief that Logic is a matter of intelligence. But as you said this belief started to fade from actual events that I was noticing around me. So if not intelligence what the fuck you think is the main obstacle that make humans so hard to follow Logic??
I feel that it's not something that has 1 simple answer but many different reasons
From what I've seen when a person is logical it seems to be in a situation of importance BUT without much attachment to the specific situation which allows them to have a clear mind to the implement logic
And in scenarios where I've seen a very smart person be a dumbass there is usually some form of attachment to the situation usually in the form of information that's taboo or just in general they don't want others to know or some root desire causing them to toss logic to the side in almost a schizophrenic desperate attempt at obtaining an end result and in doing so they overlook all the logic of the situation because they just want it in result and this causes them to be a complete illogical dumbass in the moment
Why you think that it's a social thing? For me Logic follows human knowledge (science etc). I also believe that Logic is transforming and it will be different for sure in thousand years as you mentioned but cause of human knowledge would be different. And not cause of social matters.
Quoting MAYAEL
So it seems that different reasons in each situation makes people to lose their connection with Logic.
I would dare to distinguish Logic in 2 forms
1. Practical Logic (if I can name it that way). Meaning Logic about things in everyday life. Like for example when you have a problem at work or at home and you try to find the best solution. Let's say that I lost my keys and I can't get in my house. The Logical thing to do is to call an expert to open the door for me and not break the door as to get in. In such everyday problems seems that Logic depends on Intelligence indeed. And that seems to be the biggest obstacle.
2. Life Logic. Meaning the way someone live his life (beliefs, life decisions, relations with others etc). And in that form of Logic seems that intelligence doesn't play the biggest role. If someone for example has a drug or alcohol problem. He might understands how bad is for him (logic) but he just can't stop it (put logic in practice). In that kind of cases and others too (like racism) the biggest obstacle seems to be psychological factors, maybe genetic factors too. But for me in such cases(racism) an important role plays that these people don't work with themselves at all. They don't dare to give the fight with themselves. They are too scared to doubt what they have already known (from the families, societies etc). They prefer to shit Logic as to avoid face their own selves! They just grab on their beliefs despite how illogical or idiotic they might be cause their whole world would "collapse" otherwise.
Lots of racketeers make money out of the dumbed down so-called "MBTI". In the real one which I've done, your reading of yourself is subjective and you can discern your development over time if you wish.
Importantly it flags up what auxiliaries you have potential to further excel in. For example, a general who talks to the troops outside the tent with the subaltern inside attending to detail, is like an extrovert that doesn't forget his inner strengths. While a general inside the tent pondering deeply while the adjutant explains is like the introvert that's good at communicating and interacting. By the time they are 60, barring mania, you can't tell extroverts and introverts much apart.
The reason for eight or more poles is that they are not opposed. Furthermore one can be fairly near the middle. For example I was INTP but some of those were nearly middle. (The question procedure prevents one "making" any particular result.
Intuitive and analytic don't conflict and go together terrific. Gary Klein's The power of intuition (2003) is about this.
I could have been a mathematician, engineer or chemist (but you have to watch dodgy contracts that get foisted on you). I got steered out of the requisite classes, not entirely because I'm fumbly. My forebears were tailors, engineers' pattern makers, carvers, labourers, musicians: tectonic and aesthetic. I'm a spatial thinker. I've had the opportunity to always stay near words.
To me "logic" means wider reason. A bumptious subset have elevated inapplicable gobbledygook above reason instead of making it be (if possible) at the service of wider reason and the wider public: our challenge to them is, "we want in".
The premise of reason is always to accept what "is" and not claim to dumb it down (that is how Newton did things). All inference should be in degrees. All hypotheses, and ideas towards hypotheses, should be kept on the table indefinitely but provisionally prioritised and re-prioritised. This is a fresh task from each individual and isn't meant to be uniform across society.
Facing responsibilities takes thoughtfulness. A thing most destructive of humanity is telling people thinking is not for them.
The position at 1 is to pause for thought to figure out how many possibilities there are and prioritise them for examination or trial.
The position at 2 is to revalue. Most of us had such traumatic schooling (or outlook in the family background). It took me 30 years to overcome shame and my schooling and family are fairly lucky. After that one can proceed as 1.
Bad thinking in families or social classes isn't in genes, it gets passed on as memes, which hits us in our habitus (which Bourdieu deals with).
Good one!
At the end that seems to scare the most people. To "pause for thought" cause then we have to face our thought - self. Not many are brave enough. That's why many prefer to keep "running" during the day 24h non stop.
Quoting Fine Doubter
So that's good news for humanity. I tend to believe the same. Genes play sure some kind role but it might not be the most crucial one.
Quoting Fine Doubter
For most people a whole lifetime isn't enough. The only what matters is that you got there eventually.
>>>Why you think that it's a social thing? For me Logic follows human knowledge (science etc). I also believe that Logic is transforming and it will be different for sure in thousand years as you mentioned but cause of human knowledge would be different. And not cause of social matters<<<
I consider that a social thing
>>>1. Practical Logic (if I can name it that way). Meaning Logic about things in everyday life. Like for example when you have a problem at work or at home and you try to find the best solution. Let's say that I lost my keys and I can't get in my house. The Logical thing to do is to call an expert to open the door for me and not break the door as to get in. In such everyday problems seems that Logic depends on Intelligence indeed. And that seems to be the biggest obstacle.<<<
although I can definitely see your point and I want to lean towards the green with that point I have to disagree because I'll though to me and you that both seems like very obvious and logical scenario we have to keep in mind that there are people like for instance in the rainforest that have zero Western education so by Western standpoint they are not intelligent and yet they have figured out a way to survive in the rainforest which is a very hard place to find nutrients and clean water despite its name
and some of these Contraptions they can make for hunting can be quite impressive and so in their own way they show high intelligence and yet
will turn around and have a celebration where all the virgin men one that one sleep with a virgin woman and then the last one if the sacrifice as two massive pillars fall down crushing both of them in celebration
which they voluntarily chose to die for and then our boiled and eaten as the celebration dinner and all because they didn't have an individual identity but it was more of a hive mind identity where you thought of yourself as the tribe and not the individual you which we find morbid and absolutely ridiculous in Western Society
and so intelligence was paired with Logic for survival reasons and yet went out the window at Mach 4 when judged by our Western version of logic
>>>2. Life Logic. Meaning the way someone live his life (beliefs, life decisions, relations with others etc). And in that form of Logic seems that intelligence doesn't play the biggest role. If someone for example has a drug or alcohol problem. He might understands how bad is for him (logic) but he just can't stop it (put logic in practice). In that kind of cases and others too (like racism) the biggest obstacle seems to be psychological factors, maybe genetic factors too. But for me in such cases(racism) an important role plays that these people don't work with themselves at all. They don't dare to give the fight with themselves. They are too scared to doubt what they have already known (from the families, societies etc). They prefer to shit Logic as to avoid face their own selves! They just grab on their beliefs despite how illogical or idiotic they might be cause their whole world would "collapse" otherwise.<<<
there is quite an interesting situation with a human being where we can know damn well what we need to do and yet keep shooting ourselves in the foot because the human body seems to be separate from the mind yet not and because of this can be trained to do something the mind doesn't want to do and the only criteria to train it is repetition so once you make the body repeat something enough times it gets addicted to it and then it almost doesn't matter what the brain says and it requires somebody with extremely strong willpower to redirect the body and stop doing these self-damaging things..
and I would have to agree with you people have shown to be very lazy minded and quite frankly evil in my philosophical Endeavor to understand myself and reality
because I only want to know what's the truth or the closest thing to it cuz it is opinion-based but I very very very rarely come across somebody it actually holds the same goal in mind I usually am disappointed as I watch people turn a blind eye to the most horrific perspectives just so they won't have to have anxiety for have to re contemplate and form an opinion on something and it's White Eagle to be perfectly honest
or at least to me it is.
I get what you mean, so I have to clarify that I don't consider "western logic" better than others.
Of course Logic depends also from the environment someone grew up and the things that he has experienced. For example human Logic wasn't the same in Homo sapiens as it is now. Logic, for me, follows human knowledge and science.And according to them it adjusts and transforms.
But even at the rainforest tribes that you mention. Won't there be any "Rainforest men" who would be more intelligent than others and in that way to practice their Logic better than others? For example finding more logical solutions as to find clean water more easily or hunt better or build better shelters etc. Imo even to their kind of Logic intelligence plays some role.
Quoting MAYAEL
I think you mentioned the key phrase here "strong willpower". It is extremely difficult I agree. But it can be done. Mind can rule over body in such issues. But it takes a hell of a fight for that!
Quoting MAYAEL
I used to be disappointed also as you say. But the past years I am much more lenient with people. Human creatures are called to deal with a total chaos everywhere(societies, families, psychological matters, stereotypes etc etc) and as I mentioned it is a huge fight and the most difficult one.To fight with yourself and to challenge your own beliefs. I can understand why someone would want to avoid it. Even if I don't agree with that, still I can understand it.
No it isn't. Can't really see how someone would end up in such a conclusion.