- Logic - "Reason or sound judgment"
- Emotion - "An affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness."
Not to insult your intelligence, but I felt definitions were necessary. Some see logic and emotion to be polar opposites, others see them to be different sides of the same coin. Fair arguments, since as far as I can tell, the two aren't even used in the same subjects. Science and mathematics call for logic, while literature (and at times, social studies and politics) typically call(s) for emotion.
All good things in moderation (whichever of the two poisons you prefer), a balance is of course absolutely necessary. However, I feel that in many cases, this balance is disregarded in favor of emphasis over one side or the other. Those with firm logical backgrounds may find their emotions guided by their logic, or a total lack of control over their emotion at all when presented with a scenario that requires the use of emotion. One well versed in emotion, as well, may find their logic affected or guided by their emotion, etc. I feel that not enough of us appreciate (or try to apply) the importance of having balance between the two.
Simply put, too much logic is bad. Why? Applying too much logic (at least, what it's supposed to be) alienates the emotional. An example, whether or not you think people should wear furry jackets instead of hoodies. That's your opinion, and no one should be able to tell you that you're stupid for your opinion. But it works both ways. Arguing your point to an opponent of your viewpoint is a waste of time, since you can't defeat opinions like you can defeat facts. Opinions are supposed to be different. People are also particularly offended when you try to attribute certain traits to them based on given labels, regardless of whether or not there is actual, seemingly valid scientific evidence in favor of the argument. It's just sometimes easier to say that everyone has the same opportunity, since hopelessness or other forms of negative emotion can set in pretty easily when you start to realize that things you cannot control affect quality of life. And that's for either side, for the emotional or the logical. It goes without saying that some scientific facts are offensive, and the truth hurts. If that fact means things are favorable for you, then consider how you'd feel if someone said the same thing about you. That somehow, you were inferior, for a lifestyle or something you couldn't control. That there's a standard you're "supposed" to be living up to in order to matter; I'm under the assumption that we prefer when things are fair.
Too much emotion is bad, as well. True, emotion is what makes us human and it's one of the thing everyone is born with. But consider this: a friend goes up to you and tells you one of your other friends is spreading spiteful rumors about you. Without considering the contrary, you confront them on it and an argument breaks out. Then a fight, and the problems from there keep escalating until you two are no longer talking. Now, is that really fair? Instead, you could have considered a more controlled route and you could have asked the accused of whether or not they were guilty. Not satisfied with their answer? Try to get more people to corroborate with the story of the accuser or accused. But reacting to the first emotional impulse without trying a logical approach just creates problems. You don't need to return every punch, especially if punishment for the other party will come even if you don't respond. It's as simple as just thinking before you act.
If balance were applied, then maybe, for example, politics would not be such a fiery issue. It's more logical to accept a person's views, regardless of how they conflict with yours, than to feel an obligation to make them more like yours. There's nothing wrong with debate, but I find too often people treat political arguments the same way they treat religious ones: differences in opinion spur anger or an unwillingness to consider the other side's validity.
Links/References
Definitions courtesy of dictionary.com (didn't have a dictionary handy)
4 comments:
While I agree with the basic premise, that political debate should be more open-minded, I don't think that the dichotomy between logic and emotion is the best way to look at things.
I do not agree that logic and emotion are polar opposites. Logic and emotion are not by nature opposed. They only come into opposition when people insist on using one to the neglect of the other. Both should be moderated, not by one another, but by morality, a factor which has not been taken into account here.
I would agree with your statement that the over-application of logic alienates the emotional, but I do not agree with your interpretation and analysis of this statement. I take it to mean that it is better to conceal some objective truths in order not to offend people. I believe in always speaking the truth, but with gentleness and love. This does not mean using less logic, but using the full extent of one's reason in the framework of morality.
I find the last few sentences of your "too much logic is bad" paragraph difficult to comprehend. When does science or reason ever dictate that someone is morally inferior for factors outside of their control? Lifestyles are different; they are never outside of your control. If a lifestyle can be shown by logic to be harmful, then it is not moral to deny the fact. For instance, we know by reason the harm that alcoholism causes. It is no act of love to keep this information from the alcoholic simply because it would offend them. Whether the harm that such a lifestyle causes is fair or not does not depend at all on what And all people matter, regardless of whether or not they live up to whatever moral standard.
While I agree that too much emotion has gotten into the way of politics, I am not convinced that the application of more logic will improve political tolerance. If people were to fully apply logic to the political debate, the debate would probably would be more well-informed, but it will not necessarily be more tolerant. People may come to different logical conclusions, and if they apply more thought, they may be even more certain that they are right.
Rather, I believe that logic and emotion should not be set at odds, but both subject to morality, which I believe to be separate from both logic and emotion. Logic and emotion are tools to serve the good, and both must be honed, not dulled.
I don't think anyone here actually understands what logic is.
A dictionary definition is not suitable. Deductive Logic is, for all intents and purposes, the only way to absolute knowledge. Induction is fine and well, but it leads to knowledge that is less concrete.
Why is 1 + 1 = 2? It seems intuitive, but it took a 360 page proof based on the laws of logic to demonstrate that.
This is not to say that logic is the only way to gain information and knowledge, but it is the only way to have knowledge you are totally certain of. Inductive arguments can be strong. But, as Hume pointed out, there is no logical foundation for this.
Logic and emotion are certainly NOT opposites. But they do often conflict. Logic is a tool, while emotion is a state of being. I like to look as logic as a tool that can be used to serve our emotions. Want to find a way to accomplish something you want? Logic may be the answer.
However, often one side should be emphasized over the other. When I want to know the answer to a mathematical question the answer should be entirely logical (remember that logic is the foundation of mathematics). In ethical questions, I find that logic is certainly useful for creating methods, but logic requires a premise, and these premises are usually emotional. If I think happiness is the goal of morality, that means I'm going to use logic to decide what methods will make people happy.
The point you made about arguing over whether hoodies or furry jackets are better is correct. We accept what are usually emotional premises about what we, individually prefer, and it ends up being simply a matter of preference.
But your example does not extend to other matters of opinion. It might be your opinion that blue is orange, but that opinion deals with facts, and it is wrong. And there are opinions that have a much greater bearing on reality than "blue is orange".
For example, let's take a big, fiery issue, the statement: God exists. This statement is either wrong or it is right. There is no middle ground, and whether or not you agree with it can have a huge bearing on how you behave, what your moral premises are, how you vote, and whether or not you get up early on Sundays. You say that there is no purpose to my arguing the point with you, but it's also true that if I believe in God, and you don't, one of us is wrong. That is a fact, just like the existence of God is a fact. Logic is one of the tools (science is another but SCIENCE IS NOT DEDUCTIVE LOGIC) we can use to assess this statement. This is clearly an emotional issue, but the correctness of one person or another is not going to be determined by how the existence of God makes them feel.
The ethics of how this issue is debated is another matter. Ethics are largely emotional. It is, I think, immoral to call the other person in the debate a stupid irrational doodyhead, because that makes them feel bad. I want to have a respectful, productive discussion where both parties feel comfortable. Accepting this as a premise means it is logical not to use ad hominem arguments. It is logical to show courtesy to the other person.
You say it is more logical to accept a person's views as different from your own, but what premise are you using? That if we believe we have truth and think we can prove it we should hold our tongues? Is not discussing a difficult issue to avoid confrontation more important than truth? If we believe someone is doing wrong, is it ok to accept that they simply believe differently than we do, and let them go about their business?
Also, I would be careful how you use validity as that is a term used in formal logic. It doesn't mean that someone has a reasonable position. It means that, if the premises of their argument are true, then their statements are totally and irrevocably correct. An atheist and a Christian cannot both accept the validity of the other person's position because one of them must be wrong. That isn't to say they should be disrespectful, it means that only one of the two can be right.
Otherwise, your points regarding emotion are good.
Finally, hi Mr. Silton! I told you I'd probably post at some point.
Jack: "When does science or reason ever dictate that someone is morally inferior for factors outside of their control?"
I may have worded that a bit incorrectly, but I was alluding to kind of a Holocaust-type scenario. Obviously the reasoning was flawed, but people accepted what was said to be true. "Facts" that go unchallenged become true, just as scientific principles are changed constantly when they are found to be incorrect.
"I am not convinced that the application of more logic will improve political tolerance."
Intolerance is illogical. People who do not like each other should still be able to logically work with one another. If you don't tolerate something, it's because of your opinion on it. That factors into how you feel about something, which relates to emotion.
Sam: I got owned.
I wanted to address fact-based opinions like "blue is orange" but I didn't really know how I could have gone about it.
However, about being either wrong or right, I feel personally that within reason, perception is reality. God exists if you want him/her to exist, and God does not if you don't. If you think you are immortal, and someone kills you, then you die thinking you are immortal. Therefore, you are still immortal (you believe you are, but others around you do not, therefore you die to others). Beliefs that are not strong can be augmented, but if you believe absolutely in something, then no one, not even evidence, can convince you you are wrong.
You know, like nobody is really wrong. The desire to augment ones belief does not come from a basis of "informing the ignorant," but to support our own beliefs. After all, if everyone around you tells you you are wrong on a day to day basis, is it likely you are going to continue believing that?
Do you see what I mean by that? I think it's a reflection of a personal belief, that making someone else wrong is not the same as having both sides discover the truth together. Feel free to disagree, because I think the belief is based upon my feelings, and a direct result of my upbringing (not trying to use that as an excuse).
"It is, I think, immoral to call the other person in the debate a stupid irrational doodyhead, because that makes them feel bad. I want to have a respectful, productive discussion where both parties feel comfortable."
^
I really wish I knew more people who felt that way.
Post a Comment