logic and compassion aren't polar enemies

Post Reply New Topic

Well, I wasn't specifically saying 'your focus' ('your' was kind of a general 'your') but take the compliment anyways because I do agree with it. Much thought should be placed in any debate, for either side.

I was merely stating that a person's focus is there ability to become 'intelligent' in whatever it is they enjoy. The Mechanic is not 'gifted' but rather 'interested' in a topic. His mind does not think of 'can't' when reading or designing or solving a problem in 'mechanics.' If he was 'gifted' in that it all came natural, then cars would have been invented a long time ago. Its an evolution of intelligence and understanding - it leads to innovation (the thought of 'why stop here?' or 'how can I make this better?' are thoughts I have all the time).

My friend was amazing at guitar. Was he gifted? No, the guy poured a ton of time into it because he enjoyed it. It never became a chore, or work, or boring, it just 'was.' Was he smart anyways? Sure, but the guitar is something we can all learn. Yes, some people can grasp the concept much faster then others but its always there for everyone. Some would say he was gifted in how long it took him - maybe, but most people touch a guitar, find it difficult then put it down. I know tons of people with a guitar with dust on it.

I just started learning some months back and felt it was boring at first - I sucked! Now, its not and I'm gaining the understanding of not only the guitar but music itself. I'm improving and can notice this. Some months ago, I knew no scales, now I know about 6, chords, and can move my hand around more easily then when I started (amoung some things).

As well, think of kids today - I grew up with a computer. No one taught me anything of it, I just learned it because I enjoyed it. My parents, they can barely turn it on. My dad refuses to learn and he thinks its useless. A child can learn it faster then my father but why? Well, one has an opportunity to grow up with it, one just doesnt want anything to do with it - who will learn it more effectively? What if my Dad found out how cool they were and wanted to know everything about them? Well, now he is interested and, back to my point, focused.

Just as we have laws against slave trafficking, we also have laws against animal cruelty. So, there are plenty of people willing to take their side, as far as that goes. Not self-interest, but popular interest, much like people who care about the mentally handicapped. No animal rights aren't as important as human rights and human lives are more important, but they do deserve not to be f*****g tortured and beaten.

Same principle. You say it's totalitarian. Well, so is the concept of having laws, altogether, since we will never agree on them as a whole. But, you don't seem to mind the ones that benefit you.

And animals killed for meat are for food purposes. I said QUICK AND PAINLESS demise, and they are then to be eaten.

This is not the same as slowly torturing a dog simply because your inbred ass can't find another form of entertainment. I'm done, since I'm not going to change your opinion. BUT, I'll say one more thing. "Self-interest", for me would be disposing of "humans" like you with the slightest excuse given. Not working for the advancement of "humans" of your irk. Argue away. I'm finished.

Sorry, I just saw 'your' and really I didn't think of a general 'your' as 'you' tends to be specific. You know, "hey YOU". It does not tend to be a generic term. Thought should be placed for either side, and efforts should be made to meet their points.

Well, that was long winded and it requires a distinction between intelligence and skill. I assumed with previous examples that these people were good because they naturally tended towards it, so the argument here must be treated differently than the past one. People can become more skilled and it does make them seem more intelligent. This much is obvious. As well, working on skills does pay off and make one more valuable. Really, though, it was excessive creating 3 paragraphs with the same basic theme.
Except that the laws are not the same, one is an extention of rule utilitarianism, but the other is authoritarian. Popular interest can easily BE authoritarian, like the German solutions to the jewish problem, for a society to worship the will of the fickle masses above freedom is for that reason despicable. Frankly, to put animal rights up at all is an attack against human interests and human freedom.
I agree that laws are totalitarian, which is why I am arguing that less is better and that we should limit them to a parsimony based upon matters that are relatively rule utilitarian. Less laws means less disagreement, less authoritarianism and less legal complexity. Of course I don't mind the laws that benefit me, that is natural, but the removal of animal rights laws won't affect either of our lives while still providing benefit to other people within our society.
Why does it matter? Death is death, it is pretty final, and few things like it to happen to them anyway.

Sure it is, you destroy the animal and you get pleasure from that destruction. It really doesn't matter how the animal dies though, it dies, it will dislike whatever method of death is chosen. Well, then it is quite good that I live within a society where I am protected from men who would kill their fellows and that such is a rule that most could agree on the necessity of.

awesomelygolorious, i accept your argument, and i will say, i will be back to this thread to argue my point further. at the moment, i am slightly drunk (hehehehe) i only came online to check my emails. the one word i will say in response to you at this moment is "thalidomide". but, as i say, i'll argue this point with you tomorrow....

edited to correct drunken spelling errors...

I really don't care about the issue, I don't pretend to be a medical expert. As well, Thalidomide was simply an example of manipulation anyway and started a tide for more oversight on the effectiveness of drugs, really, I'd argue that any medical figure that gives quack medicine should have the s**t sued out of it, that is more effective than any other measure. The only issue I have is the idea that we necessarily know more than the people in the actual industry, the only word I have for your side are the often emotional arguments of an iconoclast doctor while the other side seems to have the majority of experts. Now, one may argue that with animal testing being possibly untrustworthy we might have the FDA require significant non-animal tests to show effectiveness while still having the company be free to use whatever test they consider most reliable to pin down what drug is effective. If we separate animal testing from legal validity, then animal testing will only be used if it really works for developing a better product cheaply, if it is a test that doesn't help doctors then corporations will scrap it as being an ineffective tool for research.

you seem to have an oversimplistic view of everything. there is actually a large movement of doctors against animal testing. if you have just a quick look at this page, you will see many testimonies from highly respected and highly qualified medical doctors
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/dav.html

i dont claim to be a medical expert either, but there does seem to be a large number of medical and scientific experts who would agree that vivisection is completely pointless from a scientific standpoint, without getting into the area of morality and suchlike.

I am over simplistic? You merely throw around a buzz word and not one with any meaning, at least you have given no argument to prove my lack of simplicity, I could argue that you are being overly simplistic for always throwing around openly biased sites that seem to conform to your views as if they were your only mouthpiece and the source for your every opinion. I will admit that my last argument in your mind was more trusting of experts than you'd like and less accepting of change, but for non-experts to tell experts how to act is backwards, and I will also admit that given a lack of expert knowledge, neither of us can really come to any conclusion upon this matter as the only reason I don't attack your sources more seriously is because I don't care enough to turn this into an open, biased conflict where professional opinion attacks professional opinion and where neither of us have the experience to come to any conclusion on our own, however, I know that you work mostly to support your moral view while I mostly don't care and would rather have a more objective, decisive way of putting something to the test, AKA my position stating that if a form of medical research becomes an invalid way of proving it legally, it still does not make it more or less invalid for probing around for data, an argument that clearly seeks a center. Yes, and you will see a lot of highly qualified and highly respect doctors arguing for the other opinion. Your article have many opinions of individuals dating back to before the 50's though and are clearly dead. These people's opinions cannot be treated as current arguments or indications of a running movement, to be a current member of a movement, being alive is a prerequisite.

No there doesn't, you only listed a few names and if we only count recent doctors and those who spoke on the debate in question then we only get 10 names, not a number one can attribute to a large movement and you got them from openly biased sites meant solely to promote a certain view of the world. As well, if you noticed my last point, I argued that the best way to deal with this matter isn't to have the uneducated promote viewpoints from their respective ideologues but rather act to remove any non-research based incentive to use animal testing and let doctors then decide whether or not it is a useful tool to find a medicine that can be accepted without getting more or less credibility from the results of animal research. Being that corporations are self-interested, a point that almost everyone will accept, medical companies will then start using whatever actually gets them a product that will pass these tests based upon the most efficient manners in which one can do research.

I have grown up seeing people trying to twist the world, and other people, to fit their own tunnel vision ("it is so because I want it to be so" and "you owe me everything, how dare you be yourself and not what I tell you to be" being just some of the most common patterns of thought). This is illogicality at its finest, and it most certainly gets in the way of compassion.

While I don't like people who rely *only* on dry logic, and behave like icicles on microchips, I've come to value common sense a great deal. It is an essential thing to have.

I think God gave us both logic and emotion for a reason: that we use both. None is "worse" than the other and both are just as necessary. When we have an excess of one and try to deny the other, things end up going wrong (as with any excesses in general). When there is too much rationality, people tend to use it for not really thinking, but rationalizing, justifying all sorts of unseemly things (given that rational thought in itself is pretty much neutral and could be used both for good and bad ends, it's all too easy to use it for the bad ones). When there is too much emotion, people get blind and don't see where they're heading.

I'm really with the ancients in that there ought to be a golden middle between the two extremes.

What is wrong with dry logic? If one thinks upon things a bit, it becomes apparent that logic is one of the only manners in which one can essentially know any truth about the world. Common sense, while a result of some experiences and teachings, has its problems because it is just a bunch of taught rules and has a validity dependent on the teacher.
One is definitely worse than the other, I will admit that both are necessary however, a man without much emotion(note: I didn't say without all) is still a functioning human being to a great extent while a man without logic is likely to get himself killed. Too much logic is indicative of nothing, unless you claim that every philosopher or scientist is trying to rationalize some evil. Reason can be used for rationalization, which tends to illogical anyway as the individual in question really just tries to hide his emotional bias and use clever ways to strengthen his own side and make it look normal while attacking the other through many methods that are bad logic. Emotional blindness though is a present evil.
I argue that emotion has no validity in thought because of the fact that epistemically only logic is valid between the 2. So, given something that can provide truth about the world and another thing that is flighty and cannot provide any truth about the world, I would pick one over the other and most certainly not want to dilute truth with non-truth.

Knowledge and "learning" IS a feeling - can you consider it an emotion? Love is felt in the chest area, the 'heart' area, hence why it is symbolized by a heart. My love is also intellectual, feeling of the mind AS WELL as the heart (body). Trust, honesty, truth, those are intellectual. Break those higher level areas, break my heart. Meditation goes through many levels, love and mind being 2 of the last 3. (I have a link at home that goes through them all (7) and I believe logic has a good place with Meditation - they compliment one another in my belief, at least)

My point? Even logic has its feelings. We wouldnt pursue pointless, unemotional challenges if we FELT nothing, would we? Why travel across a galaxy if there was no feeling towards it? Just to learn it? Why would you learn it if you don't care? Seems like an illogical waste of time. I'm not learning the guitar just 'because' but because 'I am interested in music/guitar.'

Dry logic? Dry logic only works for a computer because you told it to do something YOU wanted it to do - its dry because its efficient and works. Humans, on the other hand, need a reason to do these tasks beyond being 'told to' like a machine. They need interest and most people are not interested in boring things (a computer can sort the data as it has no interest in the end results, its mindless and emotionless). Again, you can argue interest IS a feeling. Without these types of 'feelings' you've no drive to obtain the end product. Emotion has its place in Logic, I imagine it just might feel 'different' from the emotions you feel 'now' so it would be hard to judge.

All I know is that I take more pleasure in honesty, truth, trust, honor, and other mental strengths. These are above love or 'body.' However, these also have emotion attached to them (If there was none, I wouldnt care if they were broke).

As much as some people here think, we are not robots nor will we become robots. Dry logic is rough and 'risk' can be considered illogical when viewing importance of 'life' or 'death' so doing 'anything' may increase risk of death (traveling space)

Knowledge and learning are not feelings. Knowledge is knowing and knowing is the quality of having information corresponding to truth. Learning is acquiring knowledge. Just because intellect can be linked to emotions does not mean that logic is an emotion.
Logic has no feelings, logic can be based upon premises that are not themselves logical but based upon pre-existing desires but still that does not mean that logic is an emotion, it only shows that logic is a tool used by man to get what he desires based upon emotions. As well, considering that these premises can be evaluated logically as well to a certain point means that even they must be addressed logically in a logical discussion as these premises have logical conclusions that the possessor would find undesirable.

Emotion is still separate from logic, emotional causes may cause the use of logic but that does not mean that emotion has a place in logic or in logical analysis. I did not state the abolishment of emotion, I know that we have emotions for a few biological purposes something that you logically show to some extent as well, this does not change the nature of knowledge though. We do not gain knowledge through emotion, emotion might causes us to desire knowledge but only logic gives the information. Let's just look at it like building a house, emotion is the source of a desire for the house, logic is the tools necessary to create a framework. Logic builds the house, the house symbolizing knowledge, even though emotion is what might call for a house to be built. As well, if a man attempts to build a house using his logical tools less, or not at all he ends up with a shoddier product just as you cannot put pieces of wood together without nail and hammer and you have problems with level shelves if you use no leveller.
People do take pleasure in those things and it is due to emotion but people take pleasure in imaginary friends as well. Because you have emotions calling out for the existence of something does not mean it doesn't exist, and any person who has a taste for truth, the subject of most philosophical questioning, must rely on logic and remove unnecessary emotional restriction, peeling back the layers of emotionality which we allow to cloud out everyday life and attempt to get at the heart of matters.

It can be argued that we have a lot in common with robots but I think that most definitions of robots claim that human beings by definition are not robots. Some risks are illogical some aren't, it really depends on your expected gain and how much risks are desirable or not so.

Logic, itself, is nothing more then the form of 'deciding' on something. The events LEADING up to that are the reasons. My point is that logic is nothing more then a way to get something but that something is what is driving the 'passion' to obtain it which can derive from emotions. There has to be a DRIVE or REASON to USE logic as the tool of choice.

You are right, that logic is not emotion, I am wrong on that, but 'feeling' the 'gaining' of knowledge is a reason to do it because it makes you feel 'good.' So emotions are not removed. If you've no feeling of 'goodness' then there is NO reason to do something. I dont sit outside and spit because of nothing, I'd do it for a reason - most likely positive (happiness). Logic is just the absolute BEST way to obtain that. Logic is more then 'information' seeking, its simply 'the best way to do something' or the 'way with less risk.'

Logic can often choose the more compassionate side. For instance, its more logical, given the choice, to kill a baby versus 20 people. The fact 20 peoples lives are on the line versus one has caused logic to move towards the more compassionate side. Another logic might state that those 20 people are not contributing to society and the baby has full potential to do more then all 20 people altogether. Its how you are viewing the problem, initially, and what your outcome is to be.

I'm also confusing myself on the initial questions and dont have the energy to reflect on them

I agree with Corvus on this, he's pretty much said the exact same thing I was trying to say but could not find the words for. Also, your comparisons of dog fights to boxing was stupid, there is a logical difference there. That being the boxer/wrestler has a choice, they choose to do what they do. Nobody is forcing them to do it (That being said while an animal does not deserve human rights perse, if it has enough cognitive ability to have a conscience and a personality, it does deserve some rights).

Human society cannot thrive on dry logic alone, compassion needs to be there. If you tried to run a society on dry logic, you'd either end up with chaos or totalitarianism. Did you not say that humans deserve rights? I'm atheist too, but the difference is I'm not brainwashed by this propaganda from the religious right about "atheists are immoral". Your being exactly what they want you to be, a computer. Any successful society needs some sort of morals to govern itself by, otherwise its just gonna fall apart. Logic dictates that this moral structure is as simple as "are you hurting another cognitive being for reasons other than food or immediate self preservation, or the preservation of other people?" If it's not for immediate preservation there are usually other ways to accomplish your task. And this is the most free and productive form of morality one could have. The thing about the house just ringed up as "a double quarter pounder with cheese or a fillet minione, you have $7.00 to eat on, what will you go for?". The quarter pounder may not be completely healthy, but it does provide fuel for your body, and is much more affordable to the circumstances. I doubt you'd be able to afford the fillet minione.

Besides, I'd rather someone blow the world up with a bomb than our world to run completely on dry logic, this is even IF somehow it managed to work to some extent towards it's goals.

Really though, I'm done posting on these forums. If I'm interested in talking to someone i'll private message them. I just encounter way too much illogical stupidity on these forums and it drives me insane and sometimes i think I'm nearly the only person in the world who isn't a sociopath. I mean there are good people here too hidden between the extremists. But it's either political correctness, dry logic, religious fanatacism, gratuitous offensiveness, I've seen all these illogical extreme behaviors in like the great majority of, well hell, society in general. While I'm not perfect, I do have a since of rationality. So I'll just private message those who are worthy of talking with me from now on, and if I don't write you it doesn't neccessarily mean your not worthy of talking with me, but for alot of them it does...... If this makes me sound like a stuck up prick oh well. I've said my part, I'm out of here.Bye.

I just dont take what people say to heart. If they are wrong, so be it, if I am wrong, so be it. My goal in life is simple truth, the rest is just illusions

There is a reason to use logic as the tool of choice. Logic is the only tool that can provide truth. As debaters on philosophy, truth is our concern, to pick anything else than logic is useless and harmful to our interests, therefore any choice of anything but logic is incorrect. I would apply this to the actions of others, it is simple to claim that basing actions on truth is good and conducive to effectiveness and basing actions on untruth is bad and unconducive to effectiveness, this is something almost simplistic to argue and I think that we all can agree upon this claim. This means that, seeing logic as the closest to truth, we should strive in our actions to use logic to come to the conclusion to our decisions because such has the best effects for our cause.
I know that, in fact there is a logic system known as praxeology that argues that human beings act towards their interest. I still define logic as information seeking though, because action is not an abstract thing as logic is, logic tells us the best way to do something and the way with less risk, action is the physical result of our choices that ideally should go along this logical path.
I know that, it is based upon premises and information available. I would argue a complete view based upon societal benefit rather than simplistic assessments of 'how many lives?' because we all know that the life of one person can sometimes do a lot more for changing society and making the world better for the whole than the lives of 10 others. There is only one logic though(at least in my opinion), there are different premises for that logic, perhaps I can be confusing to say logic system but that is just the result of different premises, at least in my primitive conceptualization of logic.

Certain philosophical aspects can be confusing, especially given aspects to the questions that exists.