I tend to think in two different ways. One way is to think with strict logic, to build off of definite ideas. The problem with this is it limits my thinking to just what I can define, what I can put in a box. Because of this, whatever I conclude contains a hint of untruth, of relativity. Of course, I can conclude many helpful and enlightening things this way.

The other way is to throw active logic out the window, to revel in my emotions, to let go of the need for definitions. When I listen to music, or watch the wind stir the trees, I do it this way. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is also the realm of my beasts and demons, of anger and hate, as well as love and joy. Funny how because our lives are so filled with strict logic, the irrational seems base and wrong.

Because if you can love, then you can hate, right? Can you have one without the other? But see, even as I write about it, I am doing so logically. I feel driven to bring the irrational under control, to domesticate it, to make it safe. Somewhere in every one of us, there is the wild animal, the beast, as it were. We are taught to think of it as evil, as the root of sin, but why? Is it not also the source of our good too? Is it wrong to recognise we are human, to feel? Whether it be joy or suffering, there is a greatness in it.

To think with logic is to be only half human, the 'outer' half, as we see it. Logic is a bridge we use to interact with each other, a commonality that we can share.

What of the rest of us? The part no words or thoughts can describe? Dare we try to know it logically? Will we get anywhere?

What can be put into words is "logical" - because nothing can be completely put into words, the illogical seeps up from under the structure of words.

To give oneself completely to emotion is to become a flood that destroys that structure, a hurricane that consumes the legible. This is why all true love, all true hate, every true passion and virtue is an essentially wordless thing.

It is not here a breakdown of reason, but of communication.

We humans use language to control and limit our reality, as well as to communicate ourselves to ourselves. Thus, as every rational contains the irrational, every irrational contains the rational.
Nothing experienced can be completely word-less.

No binary opposition can be concieved here, nor can the irrationality of virtue be virtue when bestiality is a wild virtue itself. Both are passionate acts, to live by logic requires devotion to logic.
After all, is that irrational beast controlled by anything but the stronger force of rational contemplation?

All hail the binding power of the rational
All hail the blinding force of irrational

(P.S:
You and I are furthering a false synonymy - the irrational and the illogical are two different things and musn't be used interchangably)

Hah, the trickery of rationality!

I think that what really is screwed up is the way we have conceptualized ourselves -- as in sometimes being irrational and sometimes being rational.

Think of playing games, like poker. People bluff all the time. How rational is that?! And yet, can we call it irrational?
And what is more, don't we play some sort of poker game all the time of our life? How many times are we really sure that we have made a sound decision? How many times can we *later on* determine that the way we acted was irrational -- yet at the time of action, it seemed rational?

For example, yetserday, I wanted to borrow a book, it was available in two libraries. I reserved it in one, while not in the other. I went to the bus. On my way, I realized I forgot one of my library cards, the one for the library where I have reserved the book. As I was waiting for the bus, I pondered whether to go back home, and get the missing card -- take a later bus, lose a couple of hours, but surely get the book, or to go right then, without the card and hope the book will still be available in the library I had the card for. I chose the latter. I got the book.

How rational was I? I was certainly bluffing, and it seemed worth it. What calculation proceeded that bluff, is quite a mystery.


Depending on whether we judge something in foresight or in hindsight, the same thing can be rational from one perspective, and irrational from the other.


I suppose the real measure for our actions is FEASIBILITY or economy.

Rationality is just a *guideline* in acting on feasibility; what we call "rational" is the most desirable way of acting for a given situation, and "irrational" the least desirable way of acting for that given situation.

I don't understand how irrational and the illogical are a false synonymy?? Can you explain it please?

I define illogic as the false use of logic, in that you are drawing false conclusions from logical instances.
The irrational is the lack of the logical construction altogether.

Saying "The car is blue because it is Monday." is illogical while feeling emotions is irrational.
Illogic can be expressed in words while the irrational can't, at least that's how I define it.

I often find myself deciding what's right and what's wrong by using intuition. This way, I make irrational conclusions out of completely rational evidence. Both the rational and the irrational sides of our human nature are equally valuable. Moreover, suppressing either one may lead to bad psychological consequences.

As I recall my most important decisions and solutions to problems, both the rational and the irrational ways seem to work fine. Strange, eh?

coluber:

A thought is illogical if it contradicts itself.
A thought is irrational if it is based on something other than reasonable judgement.

An irrational thought can be logical, and a logical thought can be irrational.
For instance, I can logically prove that the sky is a sparkly green on this fine evening. But it would be irrational to believe this, as it contradicts the evidence of my senses.

Formal logic itself must ultimately have a somewhat arbitrary basis.

I don't truely believe in the "irrational" either. The line between "reasonable judgement" and "irrational judgement" is also quite fluid. A reasonable judgement, if analyzed, often turns out to be our way of verbalizing an irrational desire. But that's off topic.

SkippingStones:
Saying "The car is blue because it is Monday." is illogical while feeling emotions is irrational.

Are emotions irrational, or are only some emotions irrational?
The Aztecs who voluntarily sacrificed themselves to Huitzilopochtli are thought to have been irrational sorts, but most see going to war (and quite possibly dying) for one's country to be a completely rational act.
We see it as irrational to judge a man by the color of his skin, but quite sensible to judge him by his social ease.

The "irrational" is usually only affixed to unacceptable emotions. Now, it may be that all emotions are irrational, but they are often justified.

Illogic can be expressed in words while the irrational can't, at least that's how I define it.

Oh well - but you've already expressed it in words, a little. You call it the irrational.

Bah... :rolleyes:

In some ways, trying to classify life in these two terms like pushing logs around on the surface of a pond. You work and move a lot, but the water is still wet.

In some ways, trying to classify life in these two terms like pushing logs around on the surface of a pond. You work and move a lot, but the water is still wet.

A won-dah-ful metaphor!

I tend to think in two different ways. One way is to think with strict logic, to build off of definite ideas. The problem with this is it limits my thinking to just what I can define, what I can put in a box. Because of this, whatever I conclude contains a hint of untruth, of relativity. Of course, I can conclude many helpful and enlightening things this way.

The other way is to throw active logic out the window, to revel in my emotions, to let go of the need for definitions. When I listen to music, or watch the wind stir the trees, I do it this way. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is also the realm of my beasts and demons, of anger and hate, as well as love and joy. Funny how because our lives are so filled with strict logic, the irrational seems base and wrong.

Because if you can love, then you can hate, right? Can you have one without the other? But see, even as I write about it, I am doing so logically. I feel driven to bring the irrational under control, to domesticate it, to make it safe. Somewhere in every one of us, there is the wild animal, the beast, as it were. We are taught to think of it as evil, as the root of sin, but why? Is it not also the source of our good too? Is it wrong to recognise we are human, to feel? Whether it be joy or suffering, there is a greatness in it.

To think with logic is to be only half human, the 'outer' half, as we see it. Logic is a bridge we use to interact with each other, a commonality that we can share.

What of the rest of us? The part no words or thoughts can describe? Dare we try to know it logically? Will we get anywhere?I see what you mean.

I will reflect this in a religious way since I am a christian.


This is reflecting the relativness of sin:
Romans 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,

Romans 6:1-2
1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?


The thing is, if we hate then that leads to wrongful deeds, and wrongful deeds leads to shame (and ultimatly death - which is the fruit of sin).

It isn't so that the more we hate, the more we love.

It doesn't work that way.

Hate doesn't lead to love, hate leads to bitterness and sin.

We should be sorry for the ones that do wrong against us. Cause we know the effect it has on him. That is a loving deed. Even though we grieve the effect the wrong deed had on us, we know that we shouldn't feel ashamed because we did what was right, then we can defeat the feeling of shame - but only then. We can't defeat the feeling of shame by revenge, cause that leads to a new hierarchy of sin, which we in turn have to pay for.

The thing is, bad things lead to bad feelings. We get hurt inside.

It's just like pain when we get hurt outside.

There is a difference between the feelings "outside" and the feelings "inside" though. But it is the same difference that tells us that we hear a voice outside and that we hear a voice in our heads.


Logic can be applied to feelings, in a simplified manner. But it would be like a three year old drawing a picture of mona lisa.

Love, hate, fear, envy. We all feel emotions. We've all experienced them. We know what they are and how they affect us. The primary questions in philosophy is what causes them, and how can they be used. The first answers the second.

Emotions are caused by one's thoughts. They are both triggered by one's thoughts and programmed by one's thoughts. The triggering is straightforward to show. Hearing the words "rape", "murder", "death", or "genocide", etc., one experiences an emotion. Hearing the same words in an unknown language, the words would be meaningless. One wouldn't be able to make the mental connection between the sounds and the meaning of the words. The emotions that one normally feels with respect to these words would not be present. Only understanding can trigger an emotion.

A further example is that of a gunman. If someone burst into a room with a gun, the people present would probably feel fear. However, if one didn't know what a gun was, you wouldn't make the connection, and wouldn't experience the fear. The emotion is only triggered when understanding of the situation is present.

We know that understanding triggers the emotion. This doesn't explain the particular emotion, though. Why do we feel fear when we see the gunman, but joy when we see a baby walk for the first time? The answer is the same as why understanding is required to trigger the emotion. The emotion is a response to our understanding of the situation. Emotions are triggered by particular beliefs. Fear is based on a belief that one's life is in danger. Pleasure is experienced when one believes a value has been achieved. Each emotion is a particular response to a certain kind of judgment.

Emotions are automated responses. When one sees the gunman, one doesn't need to follow the full chain of thought to the judgment that causes the emotion. The emotion occurs almost immediately after the gunman is seen. This is because of an automatized judgment: the judgment that life is worth living and death is to be feared. The gunman triggers this emotion when one realized that one's life is threatened. The evaluation of whether life is good isn't made at that time. It was made before.

Since emotions are automatic responses to previous value judgments, it is possible that the response is not proper. If the original judgment was faulty, the emotion will be faulty as well. For instance, one may hate a stepfather because one believes him to be trying to steal one's mother. Later in life, the emotion may still be triggered when one sees the stepfather, even if one no longer believes the cause to be true anymore. Similarly, if the original judgment no longer applies, neither does the emotion. Finally, it is possible to trigger an emotion out of the original context. One may properly hate a man for his actions, but another man with similarities may improperly trigger that same emotion.

Because emotions are automatic responses and thus fallible, they should not be taken at face value. They should be compared to one's reasoned thoughts and if a conflict occurs, one should attempt to resolve why the conflict exists. One should try to understand why the emotion is being triggered and whether it is correct. It is possible that the emotion is correct, and the reasoning false, due to an oversight. But the two should be resolved carefully, and if the emotion is incorrect, one should attempt to change one's automatic response.

With a proper understanding of how emotions are formed, it can be seen that they serve a purpose for lightning fast value judgments which enable faster responses to time-critical situations and, as automatic responses, they can give useful insights to complicated problems. But emotions should never be taken at face value. They need to be validated with reason to insure that they are proper.