Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Darvi]

The concept of self-preservation is not rooted in logic though. There is no purely logical reason for a human being to value it's own existence. Though I'll give you that if you subscribe to that concept and to the validity of reasoning, then you're right. But a logical debate is not bound to adhere to the first.

There's no logical reason for valuing state budgets either then.

[Duke 2.0]

How would you feel if 30% of people thought you should be in prison for marrying your wife?

That is probably true for my situation, although I fully accept cultural clash as the reasoning.

 I really don't want human beings rooted in logic. Use it as a tool sure, but not as a basis for anything at all.

[Truean]

The concept of self-preservation is not rooted in logic though. There is no purely logical reason for a human being to value it's own existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

The tool of logic is the means to ends we chose.

[Virex]

In such a case, a debate based on feelings would be very possible. One would possibly not reach an agreement and the internal debate for both groups would probably be about if they feel like it's worth it to let the situation develop into a civil war. But the same would be true for a debate based on logic. I still do not see the value of logic in this, even less now, since it's impossible to have a debat about gay rights based on logic. After all, logic does not dictate any values, only consistency of argumentation.

No.  There's much more difference here than you're recognizing.

Debate based on feelings:  "I feel this way, and will not budge.  If you don't budge, there will be X consequence"  "Oh yeah?  Well I also will not budge, and there will be X+1 consequence if you don't budge"  And so on until somebody withdraws, or people start making good on their threats.  I know.  I've been involved with families who conduct all of their internal business in exactly this manner.  Raw head-butting.  It's a winner-takes-all environment where compromise is very rarely possible.

Debate based on logic, on the other hand, creates the potential for mutual agreement.  That is not total victory for one or the other, but rather "There is X risk involved for either of us if we fight about this, so let's compare our positions and see if we can come up with a solution that may have disagreeable aspects for both of us, but is more acceptable than embracing X risk."

If someone would rather go for the fight, then fine.  I'd rather they just say so.

So you'll agree that the superiority of logical debate is based on personal preferences rather than an external metric?

[G-Flex]

Having a society that could decide that I cost too much money and that I therefor should be forced to migrate also isn't appealing. However, it is fully based on logic:
Premisse: Reducing government expenses benefits the country (empirical fact for a proper definition of benefit)
A: People that cost a lot more than they produce increase government expenses
B: Removing A reduces government expenses
C: I am one of the people that cost too much
Conclusion: Off you go.

It's a lot easier to say something is logical when you ignore all the premises it isn't compatible with, which is exactly what you're doing. That's like saying:

Premise: It's good to save money on heating costs.
A: Wood burns.
B: Burning wood produces significant heat energy.
C: All my furniture is made of wood.
Conclusion: Burn all your furniture.

The fact is that we also have premises regarding the rights of citizens, and the responsibility of society to provide for them even when the benefit to those citizens is economically lesser than what they provide in return, and there could be arguments made that, for other reasons, kicking people out when they "aren't worth it anymore" would harm the country. X being good for Y in one regard doesn't mean it's good for it in all regards. Burning all my furniture might save me money on my heating bills, but it still isn't worth it financially.


If you're going to argue about the relative merits of "logical debate" vs. "emotional debate", then you should probably double-check your own logic first. A logical argument made in a total theoretical vacuum, as you just illustrated, does not necessarily hold water when held in light of other axioms, principles, and premises that are held simultaneously.

[SalmonGod]

Self-preservation is very logical, because life is the value which makes all other values possible.  Anything you believe or want or appreciate is only possible because you have been alive for some period of time.  If you want your own death, it is either because you value nothing or because your death has some relation to values that you only attained through life.

[Virex]

But the graph that describes my preferences is not rooted in logic. It's rooted in the feeling that I want to live on. But there's no objective reason to want to live on, it's purely because there are still things I want to do or just because I don't want to die yet.

Having a society that could decide that I cost too much money and that I therefor should be forced to migrate also isn't appealing. However, it is fully based on logic:
Premisse: Reducing government expenses benefits the country (empirical fact for a proper definition of benefit)
A: People that cost a lot more than they produce increase government expenses
B: Removing A reduces government expenses
C: I am one of the people that cost too much
Conclusion: Off you go.

It's a lot easier to say something is logical when you ignore all the premises it isn't compatible with, which is exactly what you're doing. That's like saying:

Premise: It's good to save money on heating costs.
A: Wood burns.
B: Burning wood produces significant heat energy.
C: All my furniture is made of wood.
Conclusion: Burn all your furniture.

The fact is that we also have premises regarding the rights of citizens, and the responsibility of society to provide for them even when the benefit to those citizens is economically lesser than what they provide in return, and there could be arguments made that, for other reasons, kicking people out when they "aren't worth it anymore" would harm the country. X being good for Y in one regard doesn't mean it's good for it in all regards. Burning all my furniture might save me money on my heating bills, but it still isn't worth it financially.


If you're going to argue about the relative merits of "logical debate" vs. "emotional debate", then you should probably double-check your own logic first. A logical argument made in a total theoretical vacuum, as you just illustrated, does not necessarily hold water when held in light of other axioms, principles, and premises that are held simultaneously.

True, but why do you value having furniture above decreasing your heating costs? No matter what way you turn it, your axioms can't be proven and they're always going to be value judgments. As a result of that, logic is but a tool and when it's used to convince others it only works if they chose to adhere to it. But that again is personal preference and here we get back to the elitism argument it all started with, because people that subscribe to logic reasoning value their own preference for a logical debate above other methods to such a point that they'll think less, and often strongly so, of those that don't adhere to the same axiomas.

[G-Flex]

True, but why do you value having furniture above decreasing your heating costs?

... Because the furniture could easily be worth more than the money I'm saving, and probably is, and because firewood is cheaper. Seriously, how do you not see that?

Or you just don't replace your furniture, but then you have to ask how valuable furniture is and how that value compares to the value of the money saved on heating... which is intentionally the kind of question my analogy avoids asking. My entire point is that a set of premises leading logically to a conclusion is only necessarily sound for that set of premises in a logical vacuum. In reality, you have to consider all other premises that may relate, or else you're being intellectually dishonest.

No matter what way you turn it, your axioms can't be proven and they're always going to be value judgments.

Of course they can't be proven, but my analogy doesn't rely on that. Burning your furniture saves you money on one bill but almost definitely costs you more than you save, because then you need new furniture, and because presumably much cheaper wood to burn is available than household furniture is.


Again, please stop arguing about the relative utility of logic until you check your own.

[Virex]

Why do you need new furniture? And why should I go through the trouble of driving for 50 miles to get firewood if I could just burn the coach?


Wait, don't answer for this discussion is going nowhere. For every answer you give I could ask another question, which you could not refute definitely. So we could play this game until night falls upon the sun.

[SalmonGod]

So you'll agree that the superiority of logical debate is based on personal preferences rather than an external metric?

Yes, and I owned up to this in the very beginning. 

My issue is that I don't believe many of the people who are rejecting logical debate are prepared to accept the consequences.  In the case of families who operate on head-butting, they're in constant conflict and everyone is unhappy until whoever is the source of the disagreement is eliminated, usually by complete subjugation or exile.  All ethical concerns aside, this can function for a handful of people who can go other places when they no longer get along.  Apply the same principles to global issues, and it becomes holocaust.

I'm not going to say that the other person is "wrong" for anything by any metric external to the nature of emotion or faith-based conflict resolution vs reasoned debate.  But I'm sure as hell going to oppose and criticize the shit out of them.

[G-Flex]

I just edited the last post to be more clear, but you were replying at the time.

[SalmonGod]

So you'll agree that the superiority of logical debate is based on personal preferences rather than an external metric?

But I'm sure as hell going to oppose and criticize the shit out of them.

And I should add that your criticism on this matter when boiled down to this level becomes subject to itself.

[Virex]

So you'll agree that the superiority of logical debate is based on personal preferences rather than an external metric?

Yes, and I owned up to this in the very beginning. 

My issue is that I don't believe many of the people who are rejecting logical debate are prepared to accept the consequences.  In the case of families who operate on head-butting, they're in constant conflict and everyone is unhappy until whoever is the source of the disagreement is eliminated, usually by complete subjugation or exile.  All ethical concerns aside, this can function for a handful of people who can go other places when they no longer get along.  Apply the same principles to global issues, and it becomes holocaust.

I'm not going to say that the other person is "wrong" for anything by any metric external to the nature of emotion or faith-based conflict resolution vs reasoned debate.  But I'm sure as hell going to oppose and criticize the shit out of them.

Oh. Sorry for the trouble then. Though I'm always wary of criticizing the hell out of someone, before you know it you're demonizing them or infringing on their freedom of speech or something.

I just edited the last post to be more clear, but you were replying at the time.

Oh but that's an easy one. Why should I be bound by your premises? You'd have to assume you know my premises to be able to assert intellectual dishonesty, because for all you know my premises could perfectly support the assertions I made. You could accuse me of withholding information, but when has anyone ever taken the time to enumerate all relevant assertions?

[Truean]

Do you see how even if you win you lose this argument man?

Even assuming it all boils down to feelings, logic helps you get things that satisfy your feelings.

Thus, logic, logical thinking and logical debate, as a pragmatic matter, are superior even if it all boils down to feelings....

Stating your feelings, will do nothing to satisfy them without a plan based on logic.

[Virex]

For you and me that is true. But that is not self-evident and that is my point (unless you want to claim there's a universal law to trip up people that follow their feelings?). You cannot assert that someone is stupid just because they use other methods.