All Logic Serves Emotion

[Ex-User (5841)]

Perhaps this could more accurately be phrased in terms of what I believe to be the ultimate Socratic intersection: Can emotion be escaped from? Keep in mind that the MBTI purports emotion to be ubiquitous yet gradiential.

If so, then the title of this thread is a true statement. Logic ultimately serves to alleviate fear and anxiety by increasing comfort. Logic is, in essence, the Ego.

Can (?) we now lay the notion that an emotional argument equates to logical self-implosion, to rest?

 

[snafupants]

Keep in mind that the MBTI purports emotion to be ubiquitous yet gradiential.

In MBTI and Jungian thought, Fe is probably closer to "emotion" whereas Fi is closer to values.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

In MBTI and Jungian thought, Fe is probably closer to "emotion" whereas Fi is closer to values.

Aren't values equally rooted in that unquantifiable black box "emotion"?

I demand justification! NAO!

 

[BigApplePi]

In MBTI and Jungian thought, Fe is probably closer to "emotion" whereas Fi is closer to values.

I like the word "values" because it is a different dimension than thought. I find "emotion" is a troublesome word to use as it's at the end point of "desire" or "feeling." Emotion stands out there more. When I say, "My feeling is such and such" I'm giving an evaluation however mild.

 

[snafupants]

Aren't values equally rooted in that unquantifiable black box "emotion"?

I demand justification! NAO!

@thehabitatdoctor

Fe is about dis/connecting from things, gauging and responding to the emotional ambience, and expressing judgements. When someone says "she's such drama" they probably mean she's high Fe haha. Fi, as Jung would have it, is about "feeling tones" and values. High Fi users usually have "a cause" or seem deeply held belief about the world (e.g., environmentalism). An Fe user believes more in bonhomie and the unity of the human experience whereas an Fi user might talk about how much something meant to her or about doing something special for one person in particular; an Fe user would give to any homeless person, because they're homeless, whereas an Fi person would need to be moved enough, value it enough, to do so. Basically, Fi is more concentrated and selective, but deeper, and Fe just sprays it all around haha. Fe users focus on politeness and being considerate, or at least they're cognizant of these things, and Fi users focus more on sincerity and values. It's surprising but Fi users aren't as aware of the emotional tone in a room or the reaction they're having on others. For this reason, an INFP enneagram four can be very awkward for other people: it's her uniqueness, her sincerity, her sprinkled whatever the fuck and that's that.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

.

In the context of this thread though, I see no issue lumping Fe and Fi (use of and/or reliance upon neither negates logic).

 

[McGraw]

Aren't values equally rooted in that unquantifiable black box "emotion"?

I demand justification! NAO!

If you are having a logical argument or figuring out what to do, I would say you base all higher decisions off of lower ones, a tree of 'whys', and in most domains of discussion, the root of this is usually some improvable premisses that are generally accepted but unprovable.

So if you are having a philsophical or politcal arguement or just trying to live your life rationally, I would say there is one root 'why' at the center of it all, the thing we are trying to maximize, I say it's 'happiness" in the boring utilitarian sense. The only thing I see as having any real, fundamental meaning in the world.

So I would agree! I say most logic used by us hedonistic monkeys would be used to serve to maximize our happiness, our emotions.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

So I would agree! I say most logic used by us hedonistic monkeys would be used to serve to maximize our happiness, our emotions.

Can you think of any use of logic that doesn't?

Oh, and welcome to the forum, fellow utilitarian hedonist!

Spoiler

To the Introit with you! NAO!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Perhaps this could more accurately be phrased in terms of what I believe to be the ultimate Socratic intersection: Can emotion be escaped from? Keep in mind that the MBTI purports emotion to be ubiquitous yet gradiential.

If so, then the title of this thread is a true statement. Logic ultimately serves to alleviate fear and anxiety by increasing comfort. Logic is, in essence, the Ego.

Can (?) we now lay the notion that an emotional argument equates to logical self-implosion, to rest?

What overall direction do you intend for the thread?

I would say not logic, but rationalization serves to increase comfort(also to negate cognitive dissonance), this all having nothing to do with logic, which is a formal and rigorous method of reasoning, whereas rationalization can be filled with illogic and bias. I would say self-justification is the Ego.

 

[Duxwing]

Perhaps this could more accurately be phrased in terms of what I believe to be the ultimate Socratic intersection: Can emotion be escaped from? Keep in mind that the MBTI purports emotion to be ubiquitous yet gradiential.

If so, then the title of this thread is a true statement. Logic ultimately serves to alleviate fear and anxiety by increasing comfort. Logic is, in essence, the Ego.

Can (?) we now lay the notion that an emotional argument equates to logical self-implosion, to rest?

Logic requires predicates and the universe itself provides none. Ergo, if we are to "do" logic, then we must create predicates. Handily, we are a species in which our "Truth" file is very easily corruptible by our "What Feels Good" file, and we can thus allow this corruption to seep in in order to supply predicates. Ghastly? Of course, but we're all mad: we all chase our dreams and passions just to get that 'high' of emotion. As a side note, I'm developing a philosophy that treats the entirety of rational thought as the interplay of values, beliefs, and perceptions on a grand and beautiful scale, so stick around and I might post a treatise in another thread one day.

-Duxwing

 

[McGraw]

Can you think of any use of logic that doesn't?

Oh, and welcome to the forum, fellow utilitarian hedonist!

Spoiler

To the Introit with you! NAO!

Hi! Thanks that was my first post, you guys seem fun! Your avatar is... so distracting....

But anyways! Physics have its roots in observed physical phenomena and not human emotion. Mathematics roots in nothing? That numbers exist and can interact?

But I'd say that even those two domains (and more) aren't inherently emotion-based, we people certainly use them as tools to maximize our emotional happiness.

Like we would never practice physics just for physics' sake, we do to so to solve or get better at solving problems in our lives.

Sorry if that was too pedantic, I've had it pent up forever!

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

What overall direction do you intend for the thread?

It does what it does. That's just how I roll.

I would say not logic, but rationalization serves to increase comfort(also to negate cognitive dissonance), this all having nothing to do with logic, which is a formal and rigorous method of reasoning, whereas rationalization can be filled with illogic and bias. I would say self-justification is the Ego.

Would it be fair to say that logic leads to knowledge, which then in turn satiates emotion?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Logic requires predicates and the universe itself provides none. Ergo, if we are to "do" logic, then we must create predicates.

Can one create predicates in a predicateless universe?

Handily, we are a species in which our "Truth" file is very easily corruptible by our "What Feels Good" file, and we can thus allow this corruption to seep in in order to supply predicates.

Both files are encompassed within the "Belief" folder. I'd say both form a feedback loop, agree?

Ghastly? Of course, but we're all mad: we all chase our dreams and passions just to get that 'high' of emotion. As a side note, I'm developing a philosophy that treats the entirety of rational thought as the interplay of values, beliefs, and perceptions on a grand and beautiful scale, so stick around and I might post a treatise in another thread one day.

If you're referring to your personal philosophy, I commend you. If you're referring to the field of philosophy, some famous dead guy probably thought of it 300 years ago. You might consider the philosophy behind the Principia Discordia. It's at least humorous: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/9.php
@ Mods: I assume ^this is right on the border between Philosophy and Faith and therefore okay? Technically it's a "religious text," but... honestly it's about the furthest thing from any popularly defined religious text I know of.

That's a non-answer. Argue, or concede the point, the choice is yours.

- @Duxwing

A little rough and tumble... I like it.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Would it be fair to say that logic leads to knowledge, which then in turn satiates emotion?

I don't follow. What is logic to you?

Can you explain how it is involved in alleviating fear/discomfort? And how it is the Ego?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I don't follow. What is logic to you?

Can you explain how it is involved in alleviating fear/discomfort? And how it is the Ego?

I'd posit that logic is a mechanism to obtain knowledge, and knowing brings both comfort and discomfort, which in turn leads one to seek more knowledge using logic.

This was simultaneously one of my "feeler" threads that helps me form an idea while also whining about essentially using emotion as ad hominem. The result of idea formation, though, is the realization that the two form a feedback loop, which is then the "ego," which is itself up for grabs in regard to its existence from my perspective, but that's a different cup of orange juice.

Something along the lines (beyond a certain point), for example, of "This knowledge hurts so I shall seek alternates" or "This knowledge can hurt, so I shall use it as a weapon against its (subjectively defined) inferiors."

@Duxwing If the above feedback loop is true, then what is the deterministic mechanism of ego perpetuation? (Un?)substantiated belief in the future, as the existence of flow along the track of the loop itself implies motion through time? Belief in a "better," more improved, or, given the laws of physics, ordered or disordered state?

 

[Duxwing]

If you're referring to your personal philosophy, I commend you. If you're referring to the field of philosophy, some famous dead guy probably thought of it 300 years ago. You might consider the philosophy behind the Principia Discordia. It's at least humorous: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/9.php
@ Mods: I assume ^this is right on the border between Philosophy and Faith and therefore okay? Technically it's a "religious text," but... honestly it's about the furthest thing from any popularly defined religious text I know of.

A little rough and tumble... I like it.

We can create axioms for the sake of an argument or exercise of imagination, but nothing more, for otherwise, we are little more than madmen.

And as for my post, would you please reply? Your non-answer is what provoked that anger in me.*

Regarding the ego, I have no idea. I surmise that the having an ego is the default state of the human condition, but I'm stuck in epidemiological nihilism.

-Duxwing

*I do apologize for having shown my anger, though; emotional displays are hardly the mark of a good debater.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

We can create axioms for the sake of an argument or exercise of imagination, but nothing more, for otherwise, we are little more than madmen.

Aren't axioms the result of faith (as defined in terms of belief as opposed to in terms of Sky Santa, in a conscious attempt to keep this within "Philosophy"), a demonstration in the belief that something is true? In this sense, aren't faith and madness one in the same? All-encompassing?

And as for my post, would you please reply? Your non-answer is what provoked that anger in me.*

The bottom of post 14 is what I'm getting at. I thought this would be a better place for the discussion at the risk of derailing that thread.

Regarding the ego, I have no idea. I surmise that the having an ego is the default state of the human condition, but I'm stuck in epidemiological nihilism.

-Duxwing

*I do apologize for having shown my anger, though; emotional displays are hardly the mark of a good debater.

I don't care about anger; a perspective brought on by antinegativism and the fact that this is the internet.

And why aren't emotional displays the mark of a good debator? Is emotion not a component of any debator; of any debate? Is ignoring emotion detrimental to oneself? I mean, rhetoric (in the Socratic sense) is a perfect example of the synergy of logic and emotion. Even if logic provides the perfect holistic solution, emotional appeals are necessary to make it happen.

“I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”- Maya Angelou

@Duxwing Am I making sense? I don't intend to be hostile, and indeed I do actually (mentally, at least) smile and laugh after nearly every post I make.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'd posit that logic is a mechanism to obtain knowledge, and knowing brings both comfort and discomfort, which in turn leads one to seek more knowledge using logic.

This was simultaneously one of my "feeler" threads that helps me form an idea while also whining about essentially using emotion as ad hominem. The result of idea formation, though, is the realization that the two form a feedback loop, which is then the "ego," which is itself up for grabs in regard to its existence from my perspective, but that's a different cup of orange juice.

Something along the lines (beyond a certain point), for example, of "This knowledge hurts so I shall seek alternates" or "This knowledge can hurt, so I shall use it as a weapon against its (subjectively defined) inferiors."

Logic is a mechanism to obtain knowledge..right, I agree there.

But where you say knowing brings comfort/discomfort, "this knowledge hurts"... that's the point where cognitive dissonance kicks in, and logical knowledge-seeking becomes confirmation bias and reasoning is reduced to self-justification.

That's why I don't follow that Logic is the Ego, because humans are fallible and become all the more subjective/arbitrary when under cognitive dissonance.

I still think I'm misunderstanding your perspective but if I don't then I just disagree with the ideas.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

But where you say knowing brings comfort/discomfort, "this knowledge hurts"... that's the point where cognitive dissonance kicks in, and logical knowledge-seeking becomes confirmation bias and reasoning is reduced to self-justification.

That's why I don't follow that Logic is the Ego, because humans are fallible and become all the more subjective/arbitrary when under cognitive dissonance.

I agree that logic alone is not the ego (a development resulting from the OP). I'd consider self-justification to be a cyclical property of all knowledge, regardless of how it is obtained. The scientific method typifies the logical method, emotion the second, and authority/faith the third (and largest, because it encompasses things unknowable by the other methods). I think it makes sense to assume every human has access to all three.

In this case, the ego would be where all three feedback loops intersect:

The original line of thought only included loops for logic and emotion, somewhat akin to ∞, which would still hold true if emotion and authority/faith are in fact the same loop. In either structure, at the individual level, in/fallibility shouldn't matter regarding the integrity of the structure itself.

Above the individual level, things get a bit loopier.

Some knowledge is shared, some individuals have more than others achieved through different means, etc.

Now I'm starting to head off into collective consciousness mode...

I still think I'm misunderstanding your perspective but if I don't then I just disagree with the ideas.

For what it's worth, I'm doing a crap job of explaining. If only I were on a video feed with a white board... Keep prodding as necessary.

EDIT: Perhaps the ego doesn't exist at that exact intersection, but is what drives the interactions?

 

[Duxwing]

I don't care about anger; a perspective brought on by antinegativism and the fact that this is the internet.

And why aren't emotional displays the mark of a good debator? Is emotion not a component of any debator; of any debate? Is ignoring emotion detrimental to oneself? I mean, rhetoric (in the Socratic sense) is a perfect example of the synergy of logic and emotion. Even if logic provides the perfect holistic solution, emotional appeals are necessary to make it happen.

Emotional appeals are the mark of unstated axioms.

“I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.”- Maya Angelou

@Duxwing Am I making sense? I don't intend to be hostile, and indeed I do actually (mentally, at least) smile and laugh after nearly every post I make.[/QUOTE]

And that's what can be frustrating at times; endless frivolity can be draining.

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Emotional appeals are the mark of unstated axioms.

They can, and are, also used in synergy with clearly stated logical axioms; to accomplish the same goals. Any presidential speech is an example of this. I'm familiar with Stephen Kellert's work regarding attitudes about wildlife, which is a perfect example.

Attitudes are divided into 9 categories, each clearly influenced by different combinations of different ways of knowing (e.g. humanistic folks who dress their lap dogs in custom doggie clothing as if they were children are more influenced by emotion than utilitarians):

Naturalistic is the primary interest and affection for wildlife and the outdoors.
Ecologistic is the primary concern for the environment as a system, for interrelationships between wildlife species and natural habitat.
Humanistic is the primary concern and strong affection for individual animals, principally pets.
Moralistic is the primary concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals, with strong opposition to exploitation or cruelty towards animals.
Scientistic is primary interest in the physical attributes and biological functioning of animals.
Aesthetic is primary concern in the artistic and symbolic characteristics of animals.
Utilitarian is primary concern for the practical and material value of animals of the animal's habitat.
Dominionistic is primary interest in the mastery and control of animals typically in sporting situations.
Negativistic is primary orientation for an active avoidance of animals due to indifference, dislike or fear.

But wildlife is a public resource in the U.S., designated through the constitution itself (In England, all wildlife belonged to the king. The "King's Deer", etc. The founding fathers didn't like that very much ). Because of this, all of these attitudes must be compiled into a comprehensive management plan, the goal of which is to appease everyone as much as possible. To quote Teddy Roosevelt "The purpose of conservation: the greatest good to the greatest number of people for the longest time."

All manner of appeals aid in achieving this goal, as certain constituencies are essentially immune to certain appeals. As an INTP, how would you motivate an ISFP or an ESFJ? In the stereotypically phrased "real world," other perspectives are unavoidable, so one must vary their methods accordingly.

And that's what can be frustrating at times; endless frivolity can be draining.

Frivolity, or dissonance (i.e. it's not frivolous, but someone doesn't know it's not frivolous)? I don't intend to be a douche, just give me some feedback, is all. Click occasionally to help out with echolocation.

:smiley_emoticons_mr​

 

[Duxwing]

They can, and are, also used in synergy with clearly stated logical axioms; to accomplish the same goals. Any presidential speech is an example of this. I'm familiar with Stephen Kellert's work regarding attitudes about wildlife, which is a perfect example.

Attitudes are divided into 9 categories, each clearly influenced by different combinations of different ways of knowing (e.g. humanistic folks who dress their lap dogs in custom doggie clothing as if they were children are more influenced by emotion than utilitarians):

Naturalistic is the primary interest and affection for wildlife and the outdoors.
Ecologistic is the primary concern for the environment as a system, for interrelationships between wildlife species and natural habitat.
Humanistic is the primary concern and strong affection for individual animals, principally pets.
Moralistic is the primary concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals, with strong opposition to exploitation or cruelty towards animals.
Scientistic is primary interest in the physical attributes and biological functioning of animals.
Aesthetic is primary concern in the artistic and symbolic characteristics of animals.
Utilitarian is primary concern for the practical and material value of animals of the animal's habitat.
Dominionistic is primary interest in the mastery and control of animals typically in sporting situations.
Negativistic is primary orientation for an active avoidance of animals due to indifference, dislike or fear.

But wildlife is a public resource in the U.S., designated through the constitution itself (In England, all wildlife belonged to the king. The "King's Deer", etc. The founding fathers didn't like that very much ). Because of this, all of these attitudes must be compiled into a comprehensive management plan, the goal of which is to appease everyone as much as possible. To quote Teddy Roosevelt "The purpose of conservation: the greatest good to the greatest number of people for the longest time."

What are we discussing at this point? I find biology and ecology interesting, but I am utterly lost.

All manner of appeals aid in achieving this goal, as certain constituencies are essentially immune to certain appeals. As an INTP, how would you motivate an ISFP or an ESFJ? In the stereotypically phrased "real world," other perspectives are unavoidable, so one must vary their methods accordingly.

You're moving the goalposts: we were talking about debate, not spreading a message to those to whom logic and reason are anathema. And I find using emotional appeals abhorrent: they're hits below the belt, and few things short of the necessities of life, limb, or career would make me use them. Now if an ISFP had backed me into a corner whilst wielding a knife or some other implement of destruction, then I would consider them insane and see no wrong in using every sly trick in my arsenal: histrionics, loaded language, butt-kissing, the works. But I'd literally have to consider someone sub-human before doing such a thing... it's just... wrong.

Frivolity, or dissonance (i.e. it's not frivolous, but someone doesn't know it's not frivolous)? I don't intend to be a douche, just give me some feedback, is all. Click occasionally to help out with echolocation.

:smiley_emoticons_mr​

Well, for one thing, you're on such an ethereal Ne-plane that I can't even understand you: every time I try to pin you down, you weasel your way out or move the goalposts. It's infinitely frustrating.

-Duxwing

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't understand the diagrams in relation to what you're saying. Would a venn diagram be just as sufficient? If not, why?

You've brought up other methods of obtaining knowledge, emotion and authority/faith, other than logic. If humans are susceptible to cognitive dissonance; if the mind resists against what it finds unpleasant and uninteresting, then wouldn't that mean the emotional method of obtaining knowledge encompasses and influences the other methods? Wouldn't that imply emotion is the Ego?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Would a venn diagram be just as sufficient? Yes, but that second image does a better job showing shared knowledge between individuals, obtained through different mechanisms. Actually, now that I look at it... no it doesn't. If not, why?

"Ne: It makes sense at the time "

^Should be made into a meme...

then wouldn't that mean the emotional method of obtaining knowledge encompasses and influences the other methods? Wouldn't that imply emotion is the Ego?

Agreed. @snafupants Would it be fair to say that the ego-mind is this construction; the dissonance created by the mind's resistance to emotional damage?

 

[Hadoblado]

@thehabitatdoctor

Fe is about dis/connecting from things, gauging and responding to the emotional ambience, and expressing judgements. When someone says "she's such drama" they probably mean she's high Fe haha. Fi, as Jung would have it, is about "feeling tones" and values. High Fi users usually have "a cause" or seem deeply held belief about the world (e.g., environmentalism). An Fe user believes more in bonhomie and the unity of the human experience whereas an Fi user might talk about how much something meant to her or about doing something special for one person in particular; an Fe user would give to any homeless person, because they're homeless, whereas an Fi person would need to be moved enough, value it enough, to do so. Basically, Fi is more concentrated and selective, but deeper, and Fe just sprays it all around haha. Fe users focus on politeness and being considerate, or at least they're cognizant of these things, and Fi users focus more on sincerity and values. It's surprising but Fi users aren't as aware of the emotional tone in a room or the reaction they're having on others. For this reason, an INFP enneagram four can be very awkward for other people: it's her uniqueness, her sincerity, her sprinkled whatever the fuck and that's that.

haha?

This abrupt injection of textmirth is unlike you. Are you trying it out?

 

[snafupants]

Agreed. @snafupants Would it be fair to say that the ego-mind is this construction; the dissonance created by the mind's resistance to emotional damage?

@thehabitatdoctor

Oh yes, the crux of personality and psychic division is concocted during early childhood in response to perceived gaps in one's ability to cope with the environment. The defense mechanisms themselves, moreover, become impediments to psychological-spiritual growth later in life.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Oh yes, the crux of personality and psychic division is concocted during early childhood in response to perceived gaps in one's ability to cope with the environment. The defense mechanisms themselves, moreover, become impediments to psychological-spiritual growth later in life.

Triangulation achieved. Another puzzle piece added. (Thanks all!)

 

[snafupants]

Triangulation achieved. Another puzzle piece added. (Thanks all!)

Hopefully I've been internally consistent throughout.

Spoiler

See you in the next life.

 

[Cognisant]

Strict logic is strict logic whether you want it to be or not.

Which is not to say people don't pick and choose when to use strict logic, as they do.

 

[Nezaros]

As human beings it is impossible to separate ourselves from emotion. All decision-making is based in emotion, whether you want to admit it or not. Logic may sway the emotions of a logical person but their final decision is still emotional.

 

[Cognisant]

Indeed but it seems to me that this is being put forward as the foundation of a counter logic fallacy or to somehow validate invalid emotional biases.

Meh, go ahead, it won't get you anywhere though.

 

[Nezaros]

I'm not trying to deny or lessen the importance of logic. It's just psychology.