Passions Vs. Intelligence round 2,...

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

Having sat back and watched through this whole Mire of the 'lil speak Contraversy,........A.K.A. ('Lil-gate' 2005) I thought the most interesting thing about all of what I've seen and what's been posted,.

The thing I tune into the most is the Social-Dynamic of those between the school of thought of Pure or Mostly Pure Logic, and those of the school of thought of,. being governed by their Passions and Rule in Absolutes.

It's rather interesting when you step back and take a look at things,...

I have just recently watched the Third Star Wars Movie. "Revenge of the Sith." There's one line in the movie above all that jumped out at me,.

"Sith are Ruled by their passions and govern in Absolutes."

I nearly feel out of my seat in Shock!. Here was this fictional movie telling me exactly how I operate! It was the freakiest thing in the world.

so Either way, Looking at both sides of the arguments, the Pro's and Con's of it all. Isn't the point,.

The point is seeing the age old-battel of wills between Logic and Emotions. And that's where I have to wiegh in.





I am Very Emotional,. Adept at it would be an understatement, It is My reason for living.

So when I take a step back and look at these so called "Logical thinkers" Wax eloquently about facts and Diagrams, all in the vein hope of being, right/A.K.A. Aknowledged on a base level, from some outside source.

I understand. It's why I screm and shout and say nasty things. I just want to be "right" as well

We're all just searching for a form of acceptance. So I can understand that. (Coming from a passion ruled seat here.)

If this weren't true, why would someone post it on a live web-server/bulitien Board message system,.?

Doesn't this just Smack and cry for attention,.? To anyone else,.? I hope I'm not the only one here who can see this,.?

"When one child sees, that for some reason, some other child is more content then they are; The first will do everything in their power, to make the second feel less content than they are."

It happens,. I see it all the time. I'm sure that some of you out their have been around children,. Either helped raise them, or even in your own systems and houses perhapes?

I offer this, Instead of being insighted to an alarmist position, Instead be entranced at the Dynamisim (I know that's probably not a real word but what the hell.) Of the situation and gain better understanding of where each other stands.

It seems simple enough for me,.

and Let's face it, If It's simple enough for me, Damn near anyone should be able to do it.

I may not be the most intelligent bulb out-of-the-box, However my Emotional Quotient is off the chart.

I am by no menas a genius, However I'm also not a dummy, although sometimes my grammer doesn't portray that.

In any case. I thought I would just offer up that point of view.

I think it's eaasy enough to understand,.

you just gotta feel it, instead of understanding it.

And Vice-Versa






Do ya get the point,.?


~M~

Comments

[dark-blade.livejournal.com]

... what?

Sorry, no I don't.

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

I tend to get off topic,...

and move in non-concentric circles,

I apologise.

[szczur-system.livejournal.com]

Agreed. You lost us at about the revenge part.

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

It wasn't about revenge, It was never about that,.

I just wanted to paralell the diffrences and similarities between Logic, and Emotion.

It has been an ongoing battel that has spanned the ages and I find it fascinating.

this post was also meant as a difussion tactic, If I could point out the argument that was some of the real point behinde the Lil'speak controversy then I could draw attention away from the actuale Flame war itself.

it was meant as a help-meet, but it seems that I failed,.

I will have to refine my tactics and try again at some other point.

~M~

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

My apologies. I accidentally hit the wrong combination of keys (or the right combination at the wrong time) and somehow closed every browser window I had open.

The quote (or rather, quoted phrase) that I was searching for at the time, which came to mind: 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'.

Emotions can complement intelligent reasoning, but they cannot replace it.

'I understand. It's why I screm and shout and say nasty things. I just want to be "right" as well'

There's the thing. Through rational debate, one actually does have a hope, however slim, of arriving at either the truth or a commonly held reasonable consensus. Facts and diagrams do actually have weight behind them, evidence for valid points that one can put forward, even as they may also contain flaws that others can then point out, giving their own evidence to back up their points. One can, by such means, slowly work one's way through the subject that one is trying to understand.

A passion-based position, though? Yes, there's a chance that others could be cowed enough, or swayed enough to join one's side without understanding why it is true (or not, as the case may be). But what worth is that? There's no value in getting others to treat you as right if they don't actually think that you're right, and in most cases most intelligent people won't be convinced by emotion or insults. Around this point is where the quoted phrase was to be referenced.

'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'... there's no substance behind such words, nothing of actual consequence.

So no, I don't think that the two are equal, when the aim is to try to arrive at what is right.

[appadil.livejournal.com]

Thank you for saying in a more polite fashion what I was wanting to say. There are some debates in which emotions should be taken into account, of course, but I'm wholly in agreement that they should never be FUELING the debate. All too often, I've seen when people start to argue from their emotions rather than their facts, they shut down and stop listening to the other viewpoint and it basically turns into a shouting match- someone wins not because their information was more convincing or accurate but through brute force and intimidation. I can certainly understand why people do that sometimes, but I can't personally condone it.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

My pleasure. *bows*

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

There are some debates in which emotions should be taken into account, of course, but I'm wholly in agreement that they should never be FUELING the debate.

:-On the contrary, Emotional Fueling in any debate is the core issue. Why else would 2 People argue that their point is right,.?

I've seen when people start to argue from their emotions rather than their facts, they shut down and stop listening to the other viewpoint and it basically turns into a shouting match-

:- That's when you have to stop, restructurize what you are saying, so that the other person understands your point while at the same time, you acknowledge theirs. "The Medium is the message."

someone wins not because their information was more convincing or accurate but through brute force and intimidation.

:-Their are other ways then just Brute Force and intimidation, There's also compassion, persuasion, Empathy, anger, seduction, Etc. Etc. Et-Nausium Ad-Infinitum.

~M~

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"Through rational debate, one actually does have a hope, however slim, of arriving at either the truth or a commonly held reasonable consensus."

Ummm, well, not necessarily. Rational debate by itself, unaccompanied by emotional appeals, rarely seems to convince anyone of anything. It may sometimes be possible to arrive at a reasonable consensus, especially if the issue isn't a very 'hot' one, but it doesn't therefore follow that logic was the means by which it happened. Most people don't care diddly for logic; their decision-making processes are mostly ruled by emotion.

"A passion-based position, though? Yes, there's a chance that others could be cowed enough, or swayed enough to join one's side without understanding why it is true (or not, as the case may be). But what worth is that?"

The various religions of the world seem to have found worth enough in it. There is zero evidence that any of them are true, and most of them make claims that totally go against the observable rules of the world (such as "virgins don't bear children", to name just one)... yet people are willing to kill and die for their religions because they've been emotionally convinced.

"in most cases most intelligent people won't be convinced by emotion or insults."

If you define "intelligence" as reliance on logic rather than on emotion, that might be true, but in that case there are damn few people who fit the definition of "intelligent people".

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

Just because something works doesn't mean that it's right--though, then, one gets into complicated matters of what is or is not 'right'.

*thinks for a while* Are you aware of the Bell curve? In this case: (relatively) few extremely stupid/retarded people, many medium or 'normal' people, peaking towards the most 'average', and then (again, relatively) few extremely intelligent people. The majority... the sad fact is, the majority of people are exactly the sort of people who could be swayed by demagogues, who would let passions and emotions subvert their pseudo-rational thought processes and join together with a mass of humanity without thought, without reason, with nothing but emotion.

Yes, it works. Yes, reason can be bypassed, great (or, more often, not so great) things can be accomplished, but... is it that sort of state that one should aspire to? Following the herd, acting without care for what one is doing, or--to step back a bit--making choices not because one has reason to believe that what one chooses is right, but simply because one feels that it is for reasons which very often do not apply?

When those who value reason, and logic, and rationality come together--either in person, or in Internet forums--to discuss matters, they usually do so with the hope of exchanging information in a civilised fashion; to learn, to speak, to enjoy the comparison of their point of view against others. Do they go, do they come, in the hope that others will yell rhetoric at them and convert them to their cause without explaining to them why?

Rarely, I think. Most come, not for a cause, but for knowledge. Many people try to impose their own causes, their own opinions (in many cases unsupported by adaquate facts) on others, but--as those who have come for intelligent discussion--is this to be desired?

Do we want baseless emotion to take priority over well-thought-out logic and rationality?

Yes, many people do not think of such things; yes, many people do not care, or do not think to care. Many people allow themselves to be convinced wholly emotionally, and disregard what actually seems to make sense.

The question is... are we the sort of people who wish to count ourselves among their number?

Just because something is effective does not mean that it is desirable.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Nobody's claiming that it's "right". jhonathand was just saying it's what happens.

Yes, I'm aware of the Bell curve. I'm also aware of the fact that people are very inaccurate in predicting their own position on such charts. You will have heard, no doubt, that the overwhelming majority of people will say that they are "better than average drivers"? Well, most people will also assume that they are more intelligent than average, more rational, more open to civil debate - even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

When those who supposedly value reason and logic and rationality come together on the Internet, unless all parties hold essentially the same opinions on a topic the usual result is a big fat argument. This is so extremely common that it would even be fair to say that yes, they do come in hopes that others will yell rhetoric at them... so that they might then be 'justified' in yelling back their own.

An interesting point: usually, the more rational, logical and intelligent the debaters consider themselves to be, the longer, more childish and more acrimonious their argument will be. If you want to see proof of this, log in to UseNet or one of the other geek-centered, non-casual-user-friendly sites.

"Do we want baseless emotion to take priority over well-thought-out logic and rationality?"

This is one of those all-too-common cases in which it doesn't matter what we want, because what we get is what there is. People are not rational creatures. But why do you assume that emotion is "baseless"? It is not; all emotion is based in something, even if that 'something' is a misperception. Just so, impeccable logic can lead to erroneous conclusions if the premise upon which it is based is faulty - but you would not in that case speak of "baseless logic".

"Many people allow themselves to be convinced wholly emotionally, and disregard what actually seems to make sense. The question is... are we the sort of people who wish to count ourselves among their number?"

Again, I don't see that what we might wish has much relevance - and I think that if you took a nationwide survey, the number of positive answers you got to that question would be zero. The desire to view oneself as ruled by rationality rather than by emotion is itself an emotion - a person who was truly ruled by rationality would not care.

"Just because something is effective does not mean that it is desirable."

This is so. But just because something is desirable does not mean that it is true.

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

Ay)

'Nobody's claiming that it's "right". jhonathand was just saying it's what happens.'

Hmm. Possibly I have misunderstood the context... but I direct you to the text which most of all I was responding to. Actually, three paragraphs in particular.

[quote]
I am Very Emotional,. Adept at it would be an understatement, It is My reason for living.

So when I take a step back and look at these so called "Logical thinkers" Wax eloquently about facts and Diagrams, all in the vein hope of being, right/A.K.A. Aknowledged on a base level, from some outside source.

I understand. It's why I screm and shout and say nasty things. I just want to be "right" as well
[/quote]

The last part, most specifically. The second-to-last sentence. The suggestion... that it is a reasonable thing to do. That there's no difference between the motivations of those who debate rationally and those who use the quoted tactics. If there is another way that these words can be taken, that would make my response(s) to them irrelevant, then I apologise and ask that it please be explained.

Bee) *nods slightly*

See/Dee) A great pity.

Iee/Eff-I) Maybe so. And maybe humans, on average, are not rational. However, to use that as a way to disclaim oneself of responsibility is, well, irresponsible. Yes, humans on average are irrational, but that doesn't mean that an individual human cannot try to be as rational as it is possible for him or her to be. Maybe it's hopeless to try to make humanity at large act rationally, but for oneself to act rationally? That is, perhaps, one thing worth persuing. Even if it's hopeless... what's the worst that could result from it? (Apologies; I suspect that I'm getting sidetracked.)

Iee/Eff-II) A good point. The difference is that one can use logic to challenge another's premises, and if a premise is solid then it will remain solid, but one cannot 'prove' anything with emotion. With logic, one can at least address everything, and test it for inherent weakness. With emotion? In practice, are the results of that process even half as desirable?

Jee-Aych) Not necessarily; the equivalent could be a rational choice, in light of the (perhaps utilitarian) evaluation of the results (on the personal level). And note, again, that emotion can complement rationality, even if subverting it might be undesirable.

And what we wish has great relevence. What we wish can determine how we act, what we say, what choices we make. It is very relevant in terms of how we respond to seemingly irrational claims by others, for example.

Eye-Jay) I have no disagreement with that.

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

"I understand. It's why I screm and shout and say nasty things. I just want to be "right" as well
[/quote]

The last part, most specifically. The second-to-last sentence. The suggestion... that it is a reasonable thing to do. That there's no difference between the motivations of those who debate rationally and those who use the quoted tactics."

:- I'm sorry that I didn't point out that I was using a negative Description of what I was saying. I didn't mean to encourage it. I even acknowledge the fact, That's what Can happen. That is one of the outcomes,. The Trick is to steer out of that course before we get to that point.

"Yes, humans on average are irrational, but that doesn't mean that an individual human cannot try to be as rational as it is possible for him or her to be."

:-That's tipping the scales in an un-healthy Direction. Nervous Break-down anyone,.?

"Maybe it's hopeless to try to make humanity at large act rationally, but for oneself to act rationally? That is, perhaps, one thing worth persuing. Even if it's hopeless..."

:- Intresting,....Hope (An Emotion) and Lack there of it,.? I Think he's starting to see the point.

"The difference is that one can use logic to challenge another's premises, and if a premise is solid then it will remain solid, but one cannot 'prove' anything with emotion."

:- Love. I can Prove that.

"With emotion? In practice, are the results of that process even half as desirable?"

:-Not all the time,.....No. I agree with that. Although, aren't some of those life lessons, that we have to learn, Imparative in some way to our survival,.?

"And note, again, that emotion can complement rationality, even if subverting it might be undesirable."

:- That's what I've been trying to say exactly!, Ahem *clears throat* *regains composure* And "Dit-to" is our response.

"It is very relevant in terms of how we respond to seemingly irrational claims by others, for example."

:-Too True.

~M~

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

In general) Ahh. Thank you for the clarification.

Specifically) 'Love. I can Prove that.'

How?

And also...) A pedant's request. Could you please try to pay more attention to your punctuation, or at least your usage of capital letters?

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

Well,

I will try to improve my grammar and syntax, and punctuation.

I understand that it gets confusing, and at times, unfollowable.

Love, Is a hard thing to prove even in an emotional setting,. I would need to know more about your Passions, Ambitions, Drive, and Zeal. Then I would know better on how to phrase the question that leads to indomidable proof that it exsists.

The simplest question to proove Love is; Do you Love your Mother,.?

Even those who spout Loathing, Hate, Malevolence Etc. towards their parents still instinctually Love Their Parents.

It is futile to try and put a tangible adjective to a non-Tangible thing.

But it exsists, It'e there, and no amount of Logical argument can deny, or Validate it's presence.

We all search for acknowledgement from our Genetic forebearers. It's programmed into our beings. Even those who do everything in their power to rebel, or fight against it.

~M~

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

Yes, it works. Yes, reason can be bypassed, great (or, more often, not so great) things can be accomplished, but... is it that sort of state that one should aspire to? Following the herd, acting without care for what one is doing, or--to step back a bit--making choices not because one has reason to believe that what one chooses is right, but simply because one feels that it is for reasons which very often do not apply?"

:-Many great things, mostly considered 'Masterpieces' for their medium have been created, purely by emotion. But That's not my point,.....Feeling's govern all our actions. It's impossible to say that They "Very Often do not appply." Even down to the base Functions of human life is completely goverend by feeling.

"Do they go, do they come, in the hope that others will yell rhetoric at them and convert them to their cause without explaining to them why?" In an Utopian society the former statement above these lines would be possible. I dearly wish that our great minds of the world could come together and not be hampered by the weight of emotions,.-However, Once again I'm going to point out, How many of those Debates, Forums, Caucusies degrade into a shouting match between 2 'luddite' minded People. Again, Emotion, The eternal circle.

"Rarely, I think. Most come, not for a cause, but for knowledge. Many people try to impose their own causes, their own opinions (in many cases unsupported by adaquate facts) on others, but--as those who have come for intelligent discussion--is this to be desired"

:-Isn't the cause for Knowledge Considered a passion,.? And Of course Knowledge is to be Desired. Everyone does Desire it.

"Do we want baseless emotion to take priority over well-thought-out logic and rationality?"

:-Emotions aren't all Baseless. And Of course not! "Well thought out logic and Rationallity" Have their place, we just wish to share it from time to time. Those of us Base Emotional Thinkers.

The question is... are we the sort of people who wish to count ourselves among their number?

:-I do. *raises hand* Emotions are the same as Logic, They can both be used to achive the same thing. That's been my point all along.

At least, that's how I see it.

If you feel differently,

That's fine by me,.

~M~

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

Facts and diagrams do actually have weight behind them, evidence for valid points that one can put forward, even as they may also contain flaws that others can then point out, giving their own evidence to back up their points

:-That's the flaw inherint in Logical reasoning without the aide of emotions. There are statistics out there to prove anything. It's the belife, and drive behinde them that makes the emotional Logic make sense, (by emotional Logic I mean the senseible next step that occur's when thinking in an emotional way about any certain topic.)

But what worth is that? There's no value in getting others to treat you as right if they don't actually think that you're right, and in most cases most intelligent people won't be convinced by emotion or insults.

:-It's funny how most intelligent People are convinced by emotion and Insults, I have encountered many friends and strangers whom loose their detatched analytical thinking process when the right phrase and or sentence is uttered with the right tone and inflection in their voice. We are all Emotional Creatures by default. It's easy enough in most cases to insight the desired emotion by saying the right thing, with the right tone. Also; From the emotional stand point, It doesn't matter if you Think or Value what I've said as either right or Wrong, all that I or any Other emotionally driven person cares about, is wheather or not you understand why I 'Feel' the way we do when confronted on an Issue.

'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'... there's no substance behind such words, nothing of actual consequence.

:- The Sound and Fury is what ignites the passion about the Issue,. Who could truely say that they Vehemently belive in (a cause/issue), If there's no base behinde it. 'The Base' Being Emotion. There may appear to be no substance present, but by what means is that "Substance" being measured,.? I happen to think that if anyone displays enough Feelings, that constitutes a measure of "Substance" and that it should be acknowledged and even focused upon.

So no, I don't think that the two are equal, when the aim is to try to arrive at what is right.

:-Again, whose to judge what is considered Right or Wrong,.? In a logical argument you have clearly defined (Pro's and Con's along with Theroy and Practicallity) But Emotions aren't logical by the conventional means, They have their own Rules structure and system that they behave by. And since they are fluid and dynamic things, the outcome, I.E. Right and Wrong, Winners and Loosers Can change, and is expected too as well,. Being dynamic enough to change with that, displays emotional logic and shows that there is struture to a formally structure-less Thing.

So In essence once you de-construct and then rebuild with Emotional Logic one finds out that the 2 are intrinsically linked.

~M~

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

'There are statistics out there to prove anything.'

Somehow, I doubt that. If--for example--one 'proves' a contridiction, then one should check one's premises. At least one of them must be flawed, by the very nature of the system.

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

Yet, there can and often times is a group dedicated in some way, to make the arguement, True for them,.

Even if that means trying to prove a contradiction.

Look at Catholicism, and The Church.

They've been proving and Denying Contradictions for Millenia.

~M~

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

*nods* A reason why I have no interest in associating myself or being associated with such groups.

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

Yet you or any other logical thinker will use them to support a logical arguement.

~M~

[sharpsight.livejournal.com]

What?

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

Nevermind.

I thiink I've run myself aground wit this. I should stop.

~M~

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

"ruled by passions and governed by absolutes" sounds like the Amen Hallelujahs, religious right.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it does. However, it also sounds like the New Age Love-And-Lighters on the opposite side, who are just as convinced of the Rightness of their positions (they don't need no steenkin' logic; they've got Faith) and just as committed to black/white thinking.

Both they and the Amen Hallelujahs are somewhat extreme examples. But I think it would be fair to say that anyone who "has faith" of any sort is thereby showing themselves to be ruled by passions. After all, what is faith? It's believing what one has been told, in the absence of any way to test whether or not it is true. Why do people do that? Because they desire the promised rewards of so believing, or fear the repercussions of not believing.

Desire and fear are passions - whether desire for heavenly bliss and fear of damnation, or desire for social approbation and fear of censure, doesn't make a lot of difference. In the various psychological experiments done in the last century, it was quite conclusively demonstrated that where Rational Thought is in conflict with Emotion, the smart money's on Emotion.

[jhonathand.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't catagorize it as being, that Subersive.

I think the only time I've ever been privy to such things, was in a jokeing format.

~M~