Many people believe that the best arguments incorporate elements of both logic and emotion.
However, it is clear that the logical flow is the only idea desirable in debate and in pursuit of the truth.
Emotion can mislead people to jump to false conclusions. People have false ideas about their "intuition" guiding them, which is supposed to transcend reason. However, intuition has been known to fail on numerous occasions. Here is one of those examples where a seemingly intuitive answer is wrong.
One cannot rely on emotion in discovering the truth. Emotion is only good at clouding the mind and creating delusions that one is correct. Logic is the only thing one can use for determining the correct solution.
So what are your thoughts about the Logic-Emotion Dichotomy? Is it necessary? Is the emotional component a fundamental force of humanity or is it an undermining flaw?
Emotion can mislead people to jump to false conclusions.
So can logic. Your logic is not pure or provable. It is inherently circular, and the product of flawed information and faulty inductive reasoning.
Logic is not a pure force that will always bring you to the truth. What you call reason is a mess of fallacies you don't even notice, and its greatest flaw is that you can't see it for what it is. Not that it's not useful.
false dichotomy. Pure logic is acceptable in something like applied knowledge - say physics, mathemathics, architecture, and there logical arguments are the only accepted ones. But people don't live only in the world of logic, there are flowers over there, which, if prepared by science, lose attraction, being represented by huge formulae and other diagrams. Even flowers of one species are different, and this difference can't be strictly determined by logic. So there are spheres of human life where logic is at least unneeded.
About intuition - this is an interesting capability of a human mind, it can lead to wondrously perfect results, including revolutionary physical theories, which are afterwards completely proven by experiments, like the atom's structure by Rutherford. But intuition is like a heuristic analysis which takes only a small part of possibilities and determines the best suited outcomes, therefore it's probabilistic (and thus required fuzzy logic to explain) and uncertain, and can lead to erroneus results (sometimes to a degree of EPIC FAIL). Harnessing logic and intuition works a lot better than either logic or intuition alone.
About emotions - we humans are susceptible to emotions, they can indeed cloud our minds, but they are a solid source of information when it somes to human-human relationship. Sometimes you can determine that the speaker is lying using emotional sense only, thus preventing bad outcome for you. But, logic can also be used to cloud a person's mind and make him accept false conclusion. So both sides, logic and emotions, are required.
So what are your thoughts about the Logic-Emotion Dichotomy? Is it necessary? Is the emotional component a fundamental force of humanity or is it an undermining flaw?
I think we can use our emotions to fuel our curiosity and use logic to satisfy that curiosity.
But people don't live only in the world of logic, there are flowers over there, which, if prepared by science, lose attraction, being represented by huge formulae and other diagrams.
"I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts." -Richard Feynman
You just see the flower on the surface. With science I can see not only the flower but what makes up that flower and see the beauty in that as well.
Personally, I believe that emotion is unnecessary. Logic is what leads to technological advancements, and therefore mankind's current position. Emotion should only be used when it does not interfere with logic, because it has destroyed man's intentions many times by doing such.
I think that the emotion in an argument is completely necessary. It is almost impossible to rid one's self of all emotion during these arguments. When arguing, you're trying to make your side seem right, and in order to do so, some sort of emotion is required. Not only that, but when arguments heat up (as they tend to do), one often cannot truly control their emotions. So emotion is necessary to an argument.
@Waluigi But without emotion, we can completely focus on making our side seem right with debate. Also, if we didn't have emotion, there wouldn't be the heating-up in an argument, correct?
very true to both points, but I also think a debate/argument would be boring without emotion. Emotion is what sometimes spices up an argument because it sort of brings us out of just listing off facts.
However, it is clear that the logical flow is the only idea desirable in debate and in pursuit of the truth.
You can't make statements like that, seriously. Desirable to whom? In what context? Why?
One cannot rely on emotion in discovering the truth. Emotion is only good at clouding the mind and creating delusions that one is correct. Logic is the only thing one can use for determining the correct solution.
In what sense? If you're proclaiming this to be true in all situations then you are sorely mistaken. This is even more true when we look at how individuals see the world. Logic would be worthless without emotion, I wouldn't care about reaching a logical conclusion because I wouldn't have the capacity to care. Emotions, on the other hand, can be used without logic it's admittedly a flawed process but it can still exist.
If we are just discussing arguments we have to question, again, the context in which we are arguing. In WEPR logic is more important that emotion (although not all logical conclusions are the same). If I'm choosing to go to prom with someone I previously told I would or my girlfriend both logic and emotion most be employed.
Emotion is what makes us human, makes us feel, makes us real but logic is what keeps that in check. They rely on each other to function properly.
I wouldn't care about reaching a logical conclusion because I wouldn't have the capacity to care.
Wouldn't logic allow you to see the purpose to make the conclusion, therefore giving you the drive?
@waluigi I personally just seek logic in an argument. Therefore, it wouldn't be boring to me. Also, I would like to add that I have thought for hours wishing I could sacrifice my emotions for knowledge, so I don't care much for emotion anyway.
I see now Legion. As Samy was saying, I could see how that could be useful online or in other places where actual speech is not required to debate. But in a face to face argument, its hard to debate when you don't have emotion to go with it.
Wouldn't logic allow you to see the purpose to make the conclusion, therefore giving you the drive?
In that instance logic would both an emotion and a thought process. I understand your point but I don't believe I would have any drive if I only employed logic. For example, I do homework because I want to be successful. I can see the logical outcome but it isn't enough to actually make me care.
Therefore, it wouldn't be boring to me. Also, I would like to add that I have thought for hours wishing I could sacrifice my emotions for knowledge, so I don't care much for emotion anyway.
I, very respectfully here, disagree. I would sacrifice some of my logic for emotional capacity; often times I don't do things that I want to because they may not make logical sense i.e "I might get caught".
In that instance logic would both an emotion and a thought process. I understand your point but I don't believe I would have any drive if I only employed logic. For example, I do homework because I want to be successful. I can see the logical outcome but it isn't enough to actually make me care.
Well, what about this: Logic would allow you to see the benefit for performing an action. It would also allow you to see whether performing action for result is worth it. I don't see any emotion in there.
But without emotion, would you even have the will to carry on with it? Being able to see the results and benefits of something is good, but with no will to do something, it's not really worthwhile.
Well, what about this: Logic would allow you to see the benefit for performing an action. It would also allow you to see whether performing action for result is worth it. I don't see any emotion in there.
I still need a reason though and I would still need to weigh which decision is best, often times there isn't a clear "better" decision so emotion comes into play. Perhaps it's just people like me, a nice combination of right and left brained, that find the two so integral to one another.
If you are in the pursuit of truth, then logic is what you need, not emotion. Sure emotion can motivate you, and perhaps you guys' idea of a better argument is that which is more likely to convince someone to believe you even if it plays on emotion rather than anything reasonable, but at the end of the day how certain facts makes you feel has no effect on the facts themselves. My idea of a good argument is that which gets us closest to the truth, not one that plays on your emotions to trick you into believing. Although reading some of the posts, I think some of you are missing the point of the OP. The argument is about determining truth, not trying to provide incentive for a child to do chores.
The issue being discussed is more like; "Honey is good for your health because so and so studies show..." compared to, "Eating honey makes you happy so it must be good for your health"
Not; "Do your homework because it provides your brain with necessary..." compared to, "Do your homework or I will get mad at you"
