Can you have logic if you are filled with emotions? Any one that ever saw Star Trek knows the Vulcans did not believe so.
Roddenberry did a pretty good exploration with Spock. If he had made Spock fully Vulcan I think it would have made it better.
If there has been a person from a group that wrongs you in a traumatic way. It taints the way you look at that group. You lose logic through emotions. the really interesting thing of course is our abilities to justify , rationalize and find psuedo logical proof that the group is horrible and any that are in it are horrible…
We can be indoctrinated into hate with out experienceing trauma… The people that raise us or have the most influence can change our emotional and logical thoughts towards a group.
Good, productive, helpful, peer vs. evil antagonist user and lesser human.
Our perspective of these are tainted if we are emotionally affected by a group either through positive emotions or negative ones. Logical thought goes out the door. If emotions don’t rule our thoughts then we can see the individuals with in and not judge them by their affiliation, perhaps. Is this good? Is it good to judge groups only? Is it better to see each person as an individual human before seeing them in any group? I would say yes. A group on a whole may be undesirable but there will be individuals that are not.
To emotionally only see the person as a member of a group and not as an individual harms only ourself.
A group that opposes your group is equal to your group. If there is opposite then there is equality.
Pseudo-logic is right. This, I believe, comes from people failing to distinguish between the content and the form of their train of thoughts - or in other words, between what they believe and why they believe it. People often confuse logic for facts/truths. All grass is green. All men are grass. Therefore, all men are green. This is a perfectly logical argument, but the great majority of people will say it’s illogical because it’s not factual. The content (that all men are grass) is not factual, but its entailing the conclusion that all men are green (with the help of “all grass is green”) is still logically valid.
When it comes to emotions, they seem to impinge on our thought processes by introducing unfounded beliefs and perspectives. If we lose in a competition, we may get angry even though everyone abided by the rules. Our anger may blind us to this fact though, and we might start thinking the judge was being unfair or our competitor was cheating, etc. These thoughts are introduced by our emotions, like the content “all men are grass” may be introduced out of nowhere, but it doesn’t hinder the logical form of the argument it figures into.
So a person P from group G may have hurt you in the past, and this may anger you. The anger may lead to the unfounded belief that all persons from G are hurtful and mean. Who knows why it does this. Maybe the idea that all members of G deserve to be hurt for their meanness makes it easier to quell your anger - so you don’t have to exact revenge on the one who hurt you in particular, but you can on the next person from G who crosses your path… or something like that.
Anyway, that all members of G are mean and deserve punishment certainly doesn’t follow logically from the fact that one of them hurt you in the past, and the introduction that all members of G are mean and deserve punishment as a premise certainly isn’t true even if it can figure into a logically valid argument.
I totally agree. We are just too varied a species to be pigeonholed into groups and stereotypes. Sure these stereotypes may be an accurate reflection of the average, but an average is only as good as the standard deviation is narrow. In other words, if the diversity in a group is wide and far reaching, its average is about as useful for making judgments and predictions on individual members of that group as a screw driver is for hammer in nails.
Or makes you a biggot.
Yes, in a certain sense. I think it’s best to say that for every perspective on or atttitude towards a certain group, there is an equal yet opposite perspective or attitude held by that group onto yours.
gib , do you not think being a bigot is moslty harmful to yourself? As a bigot you can only harm or control others if they allow you too, at least mentally , now physically that is not true of course. Someone who sets themselves apart or above another group loses what is good in that group. Loss of positive is always harmful. Look at religious or poitical wars. Or even the ridiculous gender bashing. When you fight your opposite or hate them you lose that balance and positive that they bring. You create an inequality that does not naturally exist, that is harmful to yourself.
Well, yeah, if by “harm” you mean “lose out on the positive”, sure. I don’t know. I think for all practical purposes you’re right. That’s usually my problem - I think too much in terms of airy-fairy principles and abstractions.
You can guess where I’m going to take this statement…
Men can be “logical” while filled with emotion, yes, but it’s a case-by-case circumstance. And while women may seem to employ “logic” in some instances, I do not believe that it is the same as what I call “male-logic” between “female-emotion”.
For example, in two separate instances, a man and woman is driving separate cars on an icy road when they begin to skid. When you skid on ice in a car, you are NOT supposed to slam on the breaks or you will lock them and lose complete control of the vehicle. What are the chances that either the man or woman instinctively slam on the breaks without previously knowing this fact? Are they … equal? There’s no need to answer this hypothetical question, because I am going to make a different point. Let’s assume that both drivers have been taught how to drive on an icy road. The same thing happens; both cars begin to skid. However, both drivers are taken by surprise and even though they “know” they shouldn’t slam on the breaks, the panicked “emotions” compels them to do just that, slam on the breaks. Who will slam on the breaks: the man or the woman?
I am not going to say who does and who does not, because there are instances where men would not and instances where women would not. Though, when it comes to me and my personal experiences, I would much rather have my father driving the car than my mother. Furthermore, when my ex and I lived together, I was the one who drove when there was 2-inch blanket of ice on the highway. (I’ve never been in a car accident by the way in my entire life) Am I justified to have this belief? And more importantly, if tests were taken quantitatively, then would there be a discrepancy in safety between a male or female driver behind the wheel on average???
(Guess what that “average” would look like – where’s Cyrene?)
This is perfect “female language” Kris. On average, I would say that for males, it does not taint the way you individually look at the group of people. I assume that it is females who instinctively define this particular discrepancy out of “group-think-logic”. If a black man harms me, then I would seek retribution against him and him only. I don’t really care that he’s black. In fact, I wouldn’t make the distinction unless trained by another person to do so (in a racist manner). Racism is an ignorance, just like all other -isms, because they limit a person’s capacity to make reasoned conclusions regarding any matter.
However, the black-association is required for a more base justice / moral / retribution system. Today’s society is different. I can understand the “mechanics” behind such “racist” ideology. Long ago, people could not afford the luxury. If you were in a tribe of whities and a blackie killed one of the whities while hunting, then the associative violence would trigger an aversion out of likeness: whities must stay away from blackies. This couldn’t be avoided. Now, people “know” better on an “individual” level. The black man is just a man when it comes to a certain context and his being black is a necessary observation in another setting within the same context. For example, if a black man pushed me, then I wouldn’t mind it, because he’s the bouncer at a night club and I’m trying to get past him to get inside. And on the other hand, when I see a black man running away after bashing in my car window to steal my stereo, then I’m going to want to correlate what being black has to do with his actions. I shall conclude my points to say that the black bouncer is doing what a man would do, irregardless of whether he’s black (even though being black may account for his physical girth, irrelevant to a white bouncer doing the same action to me). The black guy who was or did steal my car stereo on the other hand; I wonder if there’s a disparity between black & white theft crimes – and guess what – there is. To understand these “racist” distinctions are all part of the wonderful “logic” involved.
You don’t lose logic through emotions if you can allow logic to override those emotions … when the car is skidding out on ice, then the driver just may pump the breaks and turn slightly into it rather than slamming the breaks and turning away. Which people make “pseudo logical proofs” that the group is horrible and how? Which group are we talking about here? There is no truth in rhetorics without context, if a context cannot be given.
The people that raise us can lead us to believe that God cries like a baby when you peel open an orange, or that book-monsters are kings of the moon.
This is only true to an extend. When you overlook the grouping and sociological aspect of man, then you fail to find real responsibility. How responsible is a child for “thievery” when he / she steals a cookie from the cookie jar? Should that child be lashed and burnt with a poker, or have their hands cut off? Should we punish tigers for murdering gazelle, since tigers are quite obviously, “evil”? When human action can be predicated on animal behaviors, then, to me, they are no different than animals, and it is only a “higher intellect” that can determine the true / real blame, faults, or causes at hand. When a child steals from the cookie jar, then you punish that child in a manner befitting to your purpose as a parent in accordance with a lack of true “fault”. There is no fault, no blame, just the action and the reaction – that when you steal it is unacceptable to society – so the action must be “corrected” unless that child is made to be a bane to society.
Can you personally make this distinction even though it is counterintuitive to women? Sometimes, you show signs of trying without really changing…
This presupposes that both groups as powerful as each other. If one is stronger, then both are fundamentally unequal in strength.
Opposition may only assume equality when the forces at play are balanced. This is rarely the case, if ever, in the world, because the spirit of man creates discord and chaos in that balance, intentionally upsetting it in order to create new strengths and power within his spirit. There’s a reason behind every war, whether it’s known or not.
Now that’s a pretty bold statement to make. Even if it were true that women, on average, yeild to their instincts or learnt conditioning more than men, this says nothing about their logical thinking. A woman, or a man, could be compelled by their instincts to act in a certain way in any situation that invokes those instincts despite the fact that they know full well, by reason and logic, that such acts are not optimal. That’s why instincts are so hard to fight - you have to know they’re not right in order to fight them. This is starkly different from emotions clouding your rational thinking. In those instances, you don’t know that your emotionally driven actions are wrong - not while you’re in the thick of it at least.
First of all, what Kris said is not “female language” - it’s human language. I understood it. You understood it. Anyone would understand it, regardless of sex, and we’d all understand it in the same way. This isn’t some esoteric code that us men have to decypher. The meaning is plane and simple - and moreover, it’s true - being hurt by members of a certain group, especially if it happens over and over again, does taint the way you look at the group. It does this regardless of whether you’re male or female. We each have the capacity to rise above it too, men just as much as women, putting our emotions at bay and remembering to think logically.
Second, I’ll agree with you that statistically it can be shown that blacks are more likely to steal than whites, but you know what I’ll bet is an even stronger indicator of theft? Socioeconomic status, education levels, and things like domestic abuse and violence. Yes, it so happens that far more blacks live under these conditions than whites, but it’s a grave mistake to attribute stealing to “being black” when all these other factors are much more likely to be the culprits.
I’m not sure what this has to do with judging people based on group affiliations vs. their individuality. Are you saying that each individual must be approached according to the group they come from (that’s the only parallel I see with approaching a child according to how the group ‘children’ ought to approached, or a tiger according to how the group ‘animals’ ought to be approached)? If this is what you’re saying, then it certainly sounds dangerously racist.
This all begs the question to me; given that men & women are allowed to drive cars on icy roads, would there be a discrepancy in accidents if males drove vs. if females drove in the cases where nobody was educated on how to drive on icy roads? Would the males be any more or less safe than the females? This goes further and further back – who drives in dangerous conditions, men or women, and why?
Why were the first astronauts men?
Why were the first test pilots men?
etc. etc. etc.
To imply that women have an “equal” capacity, or even greater, to be implies something that is incongruent with reality. Why?
I didn’t understand it. She squawks at me, sometimes it just seems like English. So I squawk back at her…
So where does the distinction come between an individual being responsible for action on behalf of the whole??? That’s the question…
Not coincidentally, “being black” and “being poor” run together and can be lumped into the same social grouping. Maybe “being black” implies that the same person is also poor (for varying reasons)?
There is no lion without its pride. I don’t see how I’m a racist by observing this cold, hard fact about reality. Then again, I wouldn’t mind anyway.
Did you drive because your girlfriend was female or because she was an incompetent driver? See insurance companies seem to disagree with you. Rates are highest for young men. Young men are the worst drivers on the road. I assure you they are not gender biased just money biased.
Men did these things first, not because of capability but, because of availability,that is reality.
An idiot will be the one to smash the brakes, idiocy has no gender bias, no race bias or Religious or political bias.
If you think racism is ignorant then why are some of your views about male and female racist in form?
Yes there are always differences in what ever group you belong to, white black red yellow christian muslim republican democrat facist what ever. Differences are not superior, Power does not mean superior. Often the most powerful fail in conflict. Because they got caught with their pants down.
The powerful allow their ego to blind them their logic and thought fail. Thanks to emotions. If you have a superior atititude you have faulty logic and thinking. You will lose.
I can’t drink my thoughts away tonight, No beer
I had a more detailed reply but, I had to shut my computer off quickly earlier, Too much lightening too close and now too little time. Fried modem smells horrible gib has done well with it though.
Kris,
Are emotions always to be seen as negatives? I’m not talking about out of control emotions, I’m talking about your everyday, run-of-the-mill emotions. They always seem to fare badly when compared to logic, but aren’t there situations where emotions come in handy, when they elevate us above the decision-making ability of a computer program?
I am not discounting the importance of logic or trying to argue that emotions should rule.
I’m only suggesting that we also contemplate whether emotions can ever add value?
For example, when deciding in what nursing home to send your aging father, if you were to logically make the choice, you might choose based on the cost alone. But because he means more to you than simply dollars and cents, you may also take into consideration whether or not he will receive good care there, and whether or not he may be happy there. One could argue that in this instance, including feelings in the decision-making results in a superior outcome.
I know this position is going to get twisted a hundred different ways to insinuate that I’m a woman advocating touchy-feely emotion over cool, clear logic and that is NOT my intent at all.
And I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here, Kris, because as I stated above, I don’t believe emotions should rule. Oftentimes logical thought should rightly prevail in order to make a correct decision. I’m just proposing that sometimes there are situations in which it’s appropriate to allow our emotions to be part of the equation.
We have emotions for useful reasons AnitaS, it is just when they rule that can cause problems. In your scenario about your father, emotions assisted not ruled. Right?
Emotions are useful tools. Fear keeps us from doing something stupid. Anger can help defend, hate can help bring justice, etc etc.
We do need our emotions for some decisions as guides but, if they rule they mostly cease to guide or help.
'Scuse me if I’m being simple minded (I am simple minded), but it seems to me, that if we are healthy, our emotions tell us what, our mind tells us how. To allow one or the other to dominate skews both our perceptions and colors our pre-conceived notions in unecessary ways - both positively and negatively.
they can be at odds but not always. you can be passionate about science without letting it bias experimental results. ior more commonly reinforce each other. IF you want to be safe avoiding close encounters with tigers is logical, fear only reinforces that decesion about risk assessment. often times fear produces irrationality, but depending upon goals it can reinforce logical choices.
I’ll let you fill in the gaps on this one; the bath water’s too hot to get in right now.
That’s interesting; was I talking about young men or men in general???
And you’re right; those studies are money-biased. Though, I wasn’t speaking to those points.
[b]WHAT!? How is that possible???[/b]
I swear Kris, reprogramming your circuits is going to take an eternity … then again, when it comes to females, I usually pay attention to other “things”.
If only that were true…
Do you care to expose these reasons, hmmm???
Everything I say is “racist” in form; I believe I’m better than everybody else, remember? I want to be the best at what I do – everything!
Dear woman, differences define “superiority”. Power implies “superiority”.
The powerful only fall, because a weakness has been exposed. The hungry usurpers are always waiting for weaknesses, patiently…
That depends on critical presumptions, that a singular man can never win or succeed. Though, it happens all the time.
History writes the names of such men into the books, a bookkeeping of what it means to “succeed” in life…
But are there women astronauts now? Are there women test pilots now? Mm-hmm, lots of changes since the big, bad, scary women’s movement took hold, huh?
Don’t turn around, RU, ‘cause we’re sneaking up on you as we speak. Got that bomb shelter built yet?
[size=83][You’re gonna need it. haha][/size]
Oh, and I’d put my ability to drive on icy roads up against your’s any day, honey.
Okay, let me repeat it more slowly for you:
“Some - times there are sit –u –a - tions in which it’s a-ppro-pri-ate to a-llow our e-mo-tions to be part of the e-qua-tion.”
Just let me know which words you don’t understand and I’ll explain them to you, silly boy.
No, you said it yourself, insurance companies are monetarily biased. What they observe, specifically, is that young men (teenagers, 16-24, mind you) are often reckless. I agree; teenagers don’t understand “responsibility”. Hell, I still don’t understand it – on a profound level that is. Regardless, my generalization was about men & women of all ages, not the discrepancies of youthfulness, which are included anyway. I wasn’t talking about teenage males; I was talking about males in general.
What’s the deal with “female drivers”? Do stereotypes have any truth to them, or are they created out of thin air, based on alien imaginations?
Go on…
Ok, go on…
Ok, go on…
This is where the divergence begins. The sons got preferred training … in what? I say, they got preferred training in being a man! And they don’t anymore, but they should, from my perspective. To make a son into a woman is to make him into an inferior beast, a dog, when he should become a man instead. To make a daughter into a man is to make her into an inferior beast as well. She should be made into a woman instead. Somewhere along the line, somebody fucked this system up, allowing for retardation, bastardization, and equalization. To be retarded is to be equal. To be a bastard is to be equal. To be a woman is to be equal to a man … I don’t buy it. You want the wrong things, Kris, me thinks. The problem that I have with retards, bastards, and humanists is that these people are afraid of self-sacrifice for the sake of strength. If I was born retarded, then I could only hope for myself, from my perspective right now, that I would spend my life attempting to correct that “wrong” or “injustice” done to me by my parents – being born. Because if I could not correct it, then I would be a weak failure. Sometimes, such is life – compartmentalization.
How about instead of wanting to be men, or like men, you can go tell the feminists to be women instead? That is an “inequality” that I can respect.
You’re wrong again. The “capabilities” of women are what has kept society alive, in difference with the “capabilities” of men. By crossing these over, people play a dangerous game. It’s a forced matter though; we’re past that now. I understand. You just need to heed the words; men came first for a reason. When you disassociate this and claim “equality”, you are doing an injustice to the sacrifice of men – that men have given you everything and you have taken everything in return. It’s time for you, and other women, to give back. Give us nothing. That’s all men ask. We don’t even want something – “equality”. We don’t want it.
The men who fight for “equality” admit their inferiority. They lose from the beginning of the race.
It’s like the white distance runner claiming for “equality” against the black Ethiopian distance runner. He wants it, because he’s at a disadvantage from the beginning. Men are a little smarter than that, well, sometimes. We understand that the only equality is the difference we’re continually attempting to correct. We don’t want balance. We want to fucking win the race, to be first! This isn’t going to change anytime soon…
Incorrect, you need to listen more closely. The “ratio” is not the “cause”. The cause is inequality between a man and a woman – a necessary separation of spirit. Two beings are suited for two different tasks, not one. That may be changing now, but don’t push for it if you don’t like the outcome you can’t even see. Do you dare cut off the wrong limb of your body when you know one of the four is infected with a disease? Figure it out first.
Are you telling me that men have “equal” capabilities with women to bare children in their wombs???
(And I’m not talking about Transman … yet.)
Dear Kris, if there’s anything biased in the world, then it’s idiocy, by a long shot!
The ignorance in racism is believing that the divergence of genetic race (mostly based on skin color / tone / nationality) is the only cause for racial plights. I’m wiser than that. Causes go deeper. Therefore, anybody may categorize me anyway they please – whatever delusions help them sleep at night… I am not a racist, because while I understand & accept the “differences” and “inequalities” of “racism”, I know that there are more forces & causes at play below the surface. Do I care about Wally the black blues musician? No, I don’t, unless I need something from him and he needs something from me.
Men are adept at understanding what a “fair trade” is Kris…
Not exactly, you’re contradicting yourself. How are differences and powers both superior and inferior at the same time under the same context?
Do explain…
Like I said, the “winners” in life, those powerful men in history, get their names written down in the books for a reason – proper bookkeeping if nothing else. Women get added where necessary. You are going about this “necessity” in the completely opposite manner. Women don’t “equalize” themselves with men by attempting to be what they’re not. A woman is a real woman. A man is a real man. One has a huge dick. The other has a tight vagina. You can switch them around and pretend all you want; I’m not. That’s all I’m saying and have ever intended to say.
Soon, I will have a steady job again. I look forward to affording alcoholism. This shit is getting real old, real fast.
You know life is depressing when you miss the pungency of such a wretched aroma over no smell at all. :-&
You have no idea how versatile and plastic the human brain is. It adapts to a vastly diverse range of environments and cultural indoctrination. It can learn skills and trades of all kinds. A female brain will pick up the skills and trades just as readily as a male’s. It will adapt just as readily as a male’s to new environments and social niches. What’s the big scare then about women taking on traditionally male roles and men taking on traditionally female roles. You think our brains will “break down” under the pressure, perform poorly in an environment it was not built for? Is that what you’re expecting?
I don’t? That’s weird, because I don’t recall ever seeing much interesting philosophy on ILP concerning cognitive sciences and how that’s going to correlate to metaphoric linguistics and conceptual knowledge within this century… Maybe I’ve been looking in the wrong sections. Damn Mundane Babble!!!..
I suppose I’ll keep talking to myself in my bathroom for a few more years before others begin to hop on board.
(P.S. I like to be up-to-date on Kris’ ramblings. She’s full of un/pleasant surprises.)
On the contrary, a female mind is better than a male’s at memorizing tasks. I’ve never assumed otherwise … logical abstraction on the other hand???
It depends on the environments and social niches. Women have an affinity for meaningless social drivel.
I can’t stand the stupidity of soap operas. Women, on the other hand…
There will be consequences for these role-reversals. Is it really difficult to understand why men do some jobs and women others?
The big scare for me is that a woman will act the part of a man so well to me that I won’t be able to restrain myself from treating her like one. Violence is not for women; I don’t care if any feminazi thinks otherwise. Women cannot conceptually understand how to kill mercilessly and indiscriminately. Do you want to know why, since you clearly do not seem to understand the difference? Females do not have 100,000 years of devoted tactical & strategic warfare devoted to their genetic composition. Males do; men do. You and I, and everybody else who partakes ILP has a long genetic lineage of warfare … as survivors of death. To diminish that fact is to put the sacrifices that brought us here in vein. Men didn’t devote their lives to the tribes so their little girls could go get mauled by tigers. They send their sons.
I’m expecting catastrophic failure from people misunderstanding where men & women came from, where we’re at now, and where we’re going to be in the future. Women can bitch & moan about inequality of the sexes all they want; it doesn’t hide the fact that they’re clueless about it. I’m going to teach my son to be a man and my love-slaves are going to teach my girl to be a woman. In this way, everybody is going to see the results for themselves – oh I wish I was like so-and-so because they’re great / beautiful!!! Envy is primal. Penis envy is natural. The more you fight it, the more you lose ground.
Why are people so adamant about handicapping themselves? Is retardation glamorous yet? Am I missing something???
- I think too much in terms of airy-fairy principles and abstractions. 
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
