Logic is of course more important. If you get presented by facts that are TRUE, you shouldn't act like you didn't hear any of em'. An opinion is fine and all, but as soon as it gets insulting, that's the stopping point right there.
Objectivity is vital for areas like science and technology, important also in politics and economy. One should always try to be as objective as possible when debating a point.
Subjectivity, on the other hand, is an integral part of our social relationships and society/culture. We are all subjective to some degree, without exception; this needs to be taken into account.
Hence why I find it presumptuous to state that feelings are only for the weak-minded. This statement is unjustified and, as it seems to me, ignorant of our nature.
I agree that logic is the more important thing to master, because we can think lots of false things and pursue irrational courses of action.
One objective thing to realize is that all of us are strongly impacted by our backgrounds and cultures. We're also limited in our knowledge. So any claims we make to objectivity should come with a strong dose of humility.
That depends on the context. In science, you have to be as objective as possible. In art, you should allow for total subjectivity. In philosophy, both must be balanced.
We developed the ability to feel further than most species (or at least in a more visible way) [...]
Um... No, not really.
Colours are not colours, they're just a depiction of some category that a guy invented because they could no longer refer to X colour as 'that one'.
Colours are colours. The law of identity is quite clear on this.
Same with everything, things are tecnically not following our concept of themselves, we simply pretend they are so we can talk to each other about that 'thing'. Basically, every concept, object and thought is simply trapped in human comprehension, they're not what we think they are, they're just... something out there in space, we just happened to call them names to not lose ourselves in an ocean of 'that thing' or 'this'.
Reification has nothing to do with objectivity. Objectively, the 'thing' is a thing, with its own characteristic thingyness, and this is all independent of context or perspective. Subjectively, it may or may not be considered a thing, depending on how you look at it.
In philosophy, both must be balanced.
Not really. Only in ethics is subjectivity really required, and then only because objectivity doesn't allow for any kind of ethical dilemma.
I mean, it honestly depends on what area of life we are talking about.
The only time the two really cross paths and offer a sort of decent argument between the two is within journalism/reviews for art (traditional art, movies, video games, books, etc.), and if you can't be both objective and subjective when doing so then you might have some issues that need to be addressed.
Hence why I find it presumptuous to state that feelings are only for the weak-minded. This statement is unjustified and, as it seems to me, ignorant of our nature.
Who said this was limited to terran, no I mean human, nature?
How would the validity of his statement be affected by who said that.
It would affect it because I'm not asking: "Which is more important in our nature? Feelz or logic?"; I'm asking: "Which is more important? Feelz or logic?". Do you get the point?!
It would affect it because I'm not asking: "Which is more important in our nature? Feelz or logic?"; I'm asking: "Which is more important? Feelz or logic?".
That is not an explanation; just a reiteration of your objection. At no point did he suggest that the statement applies only to humans.
That is not an explanation; just a reiteration of your objection. At no point did he suggest that the statement applies only to humans.
When I said "our nature", I kinda implied it applies to 'us', i.e. humans. But that is not the problem. As you rightly mentioned before, it does not really matter at all. The OP never specified whether only humans are meant or not; but frankly, there is no reason whatsoever to assume any other than humans are considered in the OP. Hence why my original statement is perfectly valid.
Besides, the very opinion of the OP that "subjectivity is for the weak-minded" can only be considered in a human frame, unless specified otherwise. If you do want to consider any hypothetical sentient species other than humans, you would need to specify the nature of said species to allow an evaluation of the question. If nothing is specified, no answer is possible.
