Is being logical really the wrong way to go?

[ChristopherColumbus]

What we have lost is synthesis. Now logic and 'emotion' tend to stand estranged from each-other. This was largely the work of logic, which analyses and separates. The other power of our mind is to combine and unify. We all need to work this out in our own lives one way or another at the existential level.

 

[logicallefty]

How come you choose to be logical as much as possible? .

First of all, it is the way my brain is wired.

Second of all, being logical generally benefits the common good, the future good, more people, etc. While being emotional generally benefits a person on an individual basis in the here and now only.

Example: I get a glass of milk and don't put the gallon of milk back in the fridge. Emotionally, I don't WANT to put the milk jug back because I already got MY glass of milk in there HERE AND NOW. I am tired. I worked all day. I got MY milk so my emotions are satisfied.. BUT, it is logical for me to put it back because then the milk will be fresh and available for the rest of the people of the family, and me, in the FUTURE.

 

[eftexas]

Men are logical and women aren't. Men have to be aware that women aren't logical.

 

[thatfeel]

Steve jobs was just a salesman peddling rampant consumerism. Why are you putting him on a pedestal?

 

[daddymonsterpoodle]

The game seems to work in the "opposite" of natural emotions.

Not sure I agree completely. Passion and lust and a sense of fun all seem like natural emotions to me and women love a man who can show these.
I am not saying we can afford to operate solely on these but operating on nothing but logic makes us script readers and makes dating really ****ing boring.
There was a reason kirk not Spock got the girls.

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

Logic is an evolutionary trait of all men. This is why we all seek black and white answers to impossible, intangible questions, just as this thread is attempting to.

Human emotion is a subject to infinitely (and I use the word literally) variable physiology and experience; exemplary of chaos theory. That is about the only logical assumption I can personally think to apply to it. It is a continuum; one that just keeps expanding, with each individual setting a new and unique reference point.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with experiencing emotion as a man. It's almost impossible not to 'feel' something; short of being clinically psychotic.

What seem to be a pertinent considerations are how men (and women) in the 21st Century have been taught to express their emotions; and, how emotion and logic are practically applied in modern life. The study of politics is the perfect example of this.

Long story short, experience and process your emotions, but don't be a soppy emotional tw@t, least of all around females..


Here is an exert from a review of Shopenhauer, on The Suffering of the World that I am reading recently. I can't find the original text but it is a pretty clear and dare I say logical summary.

I think it reflects some of the discussion here:

"Schopenhauer also argues that non-human animals are happier than human beings, since happiness is basically freedom from pain. The essence of this argument is that the bottom line for both human and non-human animals is pleasure and pain which has as it basis the desire for food, shelter, sex, and the like.

Humans are more sensitive to both pleasure and pain, but have much greater passion and emotion regarding their desires. This passion results from human beings ability to reflect upon the past and future, leaving them susceptible to both ecstasy and despair. Humans try to increase their happiness with various forms of luxury as well as desiring honor, other persons praise, and intellectual pleasures. But all of these pleasures are accompanied by the constant increased desire and the threat of boredom, a pain unknown to the brutes. Thought in particular creates a vast amount of passion, but in the end all of the struggling is for the same things that non-human animals attain—pleasure and pain.

But humans, unlike the animals, are haunted by the constant specter of death, a realization which ultimately tips the scale in favor of being a brute. Furthermore, non-human animals are more content with mere existence, with the present moment, than are humans who constantly anticipate future joys and sorrows."​

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

But humans, unlike the animals, are haunted by the constant specter of death, a realization which ultimately tips the scale in favor of being a brute. Furthermore, non-human animals are more content with mere existence, with the present moment, than are humans who constantly anticipate future joys and sorrows.

Oh dear, so much for Schopenhauer. Though he is prescient of Nietzche and Freud, where it all starts going wrong. If thought is not to devolve into contradictory banalities, then it must at least go back to Kant. The moderns were very much in his shadow.

I quote, 'I am not an animal!', in the words of Kramer.

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

Oh dear, so much for Schopenhauer.

I'm not so familiar with Kant, but I will look it up.

The Schopenhauer stuff I found accessible at least and interpret this passage as a lecture on the human condition; with the premise of the thread in mind, essentially humans need to get passed the pre-occupation with their own pathetic emotions and get the fck on with it. "Look at the bright side, you could have been born an earthworm".

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

I'm not so familiar with Kant, but I will look it up.

The Schopenhauer stuff I found accessible at least and interpret this passage as a lecture on the human condition; with the premise of the thread in mind, essentially humans need to get passed the pre-occupation with their own pathetic emotions and get the fck on with it. "Look at the bright side, you could have been born an earthworm".

I found this an interesting listen the other day. Various speakers on Wagner, but there is also a lot about Schopenhauer in it.... how he influenced both Wagner and Nietzsche.

 

[TheFixer14]

First of all, it is the way my brain is wired.

Second of all, being logical generally benefits the common good, the future good, more people, etc. While being emotional generally benefits a person on an individual basis in the here and now only.

Example: I get a glass of milk and don't put the gallon of milk back in the fridge. Emotionally, I don't WANT to put the milk jug back because I already got MY glass of milk in there HERE AND NOW. I am tired. I worked all day. I got MY milk so my emotions are satisfied.. BUT, it is logical for me to put it back because then the milk will be fresh and available for the rest of the people of the family, and me, in the FUTURE.

Hmm.

I disagree 100% that being logical generally benefits the common good, the future good, more people and etc. I think that being able to use your emotions the correct way actually does this. Being too logical can make you come across as cold and calculated.

Steve jobs was just a salesman peddling rampant consumerism. Why are you putting him on a pedestal?

Oh come on. He was much more than that and you know it.

Logic is an evolutionary trait of all men. This is why we all seek black and white answers to impossible, intangible questions, just as this thread is attempting to.

Human emotion is a subject to infinitely (and I use the word literally) variable physiology and experience; exemplary of chaos theory. That is about the only logical assumption I can personally think to apply to it. It is a continuum; one that just keeps expanding, with each individual setting a new and unique reference point.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with experiencing emotion as a man. It's almost impossible not to 'feel' something; short of being clinically psychotic.

What seem to be a pertinent considerations are how men (and women) in the 21st Century have been taught to express their emotions; and, how emotion and logic are practically applied in modern life. The study of politics is the perfect example of this.

Long story short, experience and process your emotions, but don't be a soppy emotional tw@t, least of all around females..


Here is an exert from a review of Shopenhauer, on The Suffering of the World that I am reading recently. I can't find the original text but it is a pretty clear and dare I say logical summary.

I think it reflects some of the discussion here:

"Schopenhauer also argues that non-human animals are happier than human beings, since happiness is basically freedom from pain. The essence of this argument is that the bottom line for both human and non-human animals is pleasure and pain which has as it basis the desire for food, shelter, sex, and the like.

Humans are more sensitive to both pleasure and pain, but have much greater passion and emotion regarding their desires. This passion results from human beings ability to reflect upon the past and future, leaving them susceptible to both ecstasy and despair. Humans try to increase their happiness with various forms of luxury as well as desiring honor, other persons praise, and intellectual pleasures. But all of these pleasures are accompanied by the constant increased desire and the threat of boredom, a pain unknown to the brutes. Thought in particular creates a vast amount of passion, but in the end all of the struggling is for the same things that non-human animals attain—pleasure and pain.

But humans, unlike the animals, are haunted by the constant specter of death, a realization which ultimately tips the scale in favor of being a brute. Furthermore, non-human animals are more content with mere existence, with the present moment, than are humans who constantly anticipate future joys and sorrows."​

This is great stuff. I agree that you have to experience and process your emotions the right way. No one is saying that you should act like a chick. But give yourself permission to feel your way through life. Being too logical makes you way too into your head and that is the cause for pain and suffering. You then give off a negative energy that others feed off of.

 

[logicallefty]

Hmm.

Being too logical can make you come across as cold and calculated.


.

I am a police officer. So are you saying its OK for me to arrest you because you are wearing a St. Louis Cardinals shirt? Because my crazy ex was a Cardinals fan and when I see your shirt like hers it triggers bad emotions in me. So I can arrest you then, huh? Just for that? Or would you rather I take the logical approach before I stick you in cuffs???

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

Certainly in different professions it pays to be more emotive or pragmatic.

Personally, I could not be a police officer, nor a teacher, nor anything else where I consistently had to deal with the bad behaviour of others. I don't have a very long fuse and because my logical mind is intimately wired with my emotive side, I just end up begging the question, 'Why the fck are you misbehaving, while everyone else is being perfectly pleasant?'

 

[TheFixer14]

I am a police officer. So are you saying its OK for me to arrest you because you are wearing a St. Louis Cardinals shirt? Because my crazy ex was a Cardinals fan and when I see your shirt like hers it triggers bad emotions in me. So I can arrest you then, huh? Just for that? Or would you rather I take the logical approach before I stick you in cuffs???

Funny I was saying to a friend last night "I guess if you are a cop you'd have to be more logical". So I understand why you are more logical. I'm an actor and filmmaker. If I am too logical then that's the death of my career.

 

[logicallefty]

Funny I was saying to a friend last night "I guess if you are a cop you'd have to be more logical". So I understand why you are more logical. I'm an actor and filmmaker. If I am too logical then that's the death of my career.

I understand your position as well. Unless you were filming a Star Trek movie with 100% hard core Vulcans and no other characters in it, I can see why you need some emotion applied to your line of work.