To be rational, or irrational? Both?

How do you chose to think, Rationally (Using Logic as a factor above Emotion), or Irrationally (Using Emotion as a factor above Emotion)? Do you manage to balance them both happily?

EX: I personally chose to balance them both as often as it is permitted, but being irrationally selfless and harming myself for the benefit of others usually wins the subconscious tug-of-war when making a decision, unless other factors are presented favoring logic over feelings. Assuming the postulate of thinking logically representing the greatest benefit to the majority, I can personally say I tend to lean more towards the decision that benefits everyone to a certain achievable level, rather then only a few or myself.

----

Sound off.

Logic beats emotions in every single encounter.

Emotion only wins if logic is drunk or sleepy.

Skrevet av Tundy, 19.12.2013 at 15:47

Logic beats emotions in every single encounter.

Emotion only wins if logic is drunk or sleepy.

If you felt like that, you would not have problems in accepting that you are a Gringo. But instead you insist in being called latino. Isn't it?

Skrevet av Tundy, 19.12.2013 at 15:47

Logic beats emotions in every single encounter.

Emotion only wins if logic is drunk or sleepy.

Skrevet av Tundy, 19.12.2013 at 15:47

Logic beats emotions in every single encounter.

Emotion only wins if logic is drunk or sleepy.

One can "react" upon emotion, but one cannot "act" upon emotion. One acts upon logic. Therefore, there is no choice, it's automatic.

Now, these two factors aren't entirely separate. In the case of action yes, but in the case of instantaneous reaction, there's of course a combination of the two. However, when it comes time to actually conduct a thought, reflection or action, it is always upon logic. There are of course different degrees of logic for every person, some have flawed logic as we all know.

I disagree with tophats because he is tophats, even though he is probably right.

Skrevet av tophat, 19.12.2013 at 19:58

One can "react" upon emotion, but one cannot "act" upon emotion. One acts upon logic. Therefore, there is no choice, it's automatic.

Now, these two factors aren't entirely separate. In the case of action yes, but in the case of instantaneous reaction, there's of course a combination of the two. However, when it comes time to actually conduct a thought, reflection or action, it is always upon logic. There are of course different degrees of logic for every person, some have flawed logic as we all know.

I guess the Spock/Kirk quotes "The needs of the Many outweigh the Few", and "The needs of the Few outweigh the Many" are really what i was trying to refer to with this thread, but your insight and information is deathly valuable nonetheless. I realize all things run on logic, but it's by Human's flawed logic that we chose irrational alternatives to situations that benefit the few that we care about, in sacrifice of the many, yes? Would that be referred to irrationality in a situation, whereas rationality would be doing whatever logically benefits the many?

Skrevet av Guest, 19.12.2013 at 21:44

Skrevet av tophat, 19.12.2013 at 19:58

One can "react" upon emotion, but one cannot "act" upon emotion. One acts upon logic. Therefore, there is no choice, it's automatic.

Now, these two factors aren't entirely separate. In the case of action yes, but in the case of instantaneous reaction, there's of course a combination of the two. However, when it comes time to actually conduct a thought, reflection or action, it is always upon logic. There are of course different degrees of logic for every person, some have flawed logic as we all know.

I guess the Spock/Kirk quotes "The needs of the Many outweigh the Few", and "The needs of the Few outweigh the Many" are really what i was trying to refer to with this thread, but your insight and information is deathly valuable nonetheless. I realize all things run on logic, but it's by Human's flawed logic that we chose irrational alternatives to situations that benefit the few that we care about, in sacrifice of the many, yes? Would that be referred to irrationality in a situation, whereas rationality would be doing whatever logically benefits the many?

only a fool sacrifices himself for "the many".
>honor on death
>glory of the few
>sacrifice
>save others
>prestige

plz, that is a bunch of romanticism propaganda, you are acting like the ignorant young soldiers that charge to the other trench to save their country and honor.

Skrevet av Guest, 19.12.2013 at 21:44

I realize all things run on logic, but it's by Human's flawed logic that we chose irrational alternatives to situations that benefit the few that we care about, in sacrifice of the many, yes? Would that be referred to irrationality in a situation, whereas rationality would be doing whatever logically benefits the many?

In most cases, I think you can formulate a logical argument for both sides (many > few and few > many). Determining which is correct in this case is more a question of ethics. Logic can be used to defend two opposing viewpoints. You can use logic correctly and still be entirely wrong. For instance, a sound logical hypothesis is still often proven wrong by empirical evidence.

Skrevet av Tundy, 19.12.2013 at 15:47

Logic beats emotions in every single encounter.

Emotion only wins if logic is drunk or sleepy.

oh? 2 people are drowning, a heathy 40 year old male and a 7 year old girl. you can only save one, the male has a 80% chance of survival the girl has a 50% chance of survival. logically you should go for the male. but most people will save the girl. drunk or sleepy logic notwithstanding.

Terminal will go for the girl, I'm 10000% sure

Skrevet av Guest, 19.12.2013 at 21:44

Skrevet av tophat, 19.12.2013 at 19:58

Skrevet av Guest, 19.12.2013 at 21:44

Skrevet av tophat, 19.12.2013 at 19:58

One can "react" upon emotion, but one cannot "act" upon emotion. One acts upon logic. Therefore, there is no choice, it's automatic.

Now, these two factors aren't entirely separate. In the case of action yes, but in the case of instantaneous reaction, there's of course a combination of the two. However, when it comes time to actually conduct a thought, reflection or action, it is always upon logic. There are of course different degrees of logic for every person, some have flawed logic as we all know.

I realize all things run on logic, but it's by Human's flawed logic that we chose irrational alternatives to situations that benefit the few that we care about, in sacrifice of the many, yes?

Yes, precisely.

Would that be referred to irrationality in a situation, whereas rationality would be doing whatever logically benefits the many?

It depends. Flawed logic is by definition, irrationality, yes. However, sometimes something that benefits a "few" is more logical than something that benefits the "many". Not often, but sometimes. For example, an argument can be made in a situation where one must choose between keeping 500 educated people alive (doctors, scientists, philosophers) or 10000 average workers.

Skrevet av tophat, 20.12.2013 at 11:48

Skrevet av Guest, 19.12.2013 at 21:44

Would that be referred to irrationality in a situation, whereas rationality would be doing whatever logically benefits the many?

It depends. Flawed logic is by definition, irrationality, yes. However, sometimes something that benefits a "few" is more logical than something that benefits the "many". Not often, but sometimes. For example, an argument can be made in a situation where one must choose between keeping 500 educated people alive (doctors, scientists, philosophers) or 10000 average workers.

Again, a sound logical argument can be made for both sides of this question. I think you are both confusing being logical with being right.

Skrevet av Grimm, 20.12.2013 at 14:09

Skrevet av tophat, 20.12.2013 at 11:48

Skrevet av Guest, 19.12.2013 at 21:44

Would that be referred to irrationality in a situation, whereas rationality would be doing whatever logically benefits the many?

It depends. Flawed logic is by definition, irrationality, yes. However, sometimes something that benefits a "few" is more logical than something that benefits the "many". Not often, but sometimes. For example, an argument can be made in a situation where one must choose between keeping 500 educated people alive (doctors, scientists, philosophers) or 10000 average workers.

Again, a sound logical argument can be made for both sides of this question. I think you are both confusing being logical with being right.

I'm using the word logic because it is the premise of this thread. Reason, is the actual correct and base term. Not being right, morality is a different component that only influences logic and reason.