• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[MBTI General] Succumbing to Irrationality or, How to Become More Compassionate

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Sure, logic "exists", but a logical life, a rational life? I don't think that those exist, not even in theory.

I agree, and I was pointing out that for logic to exist, does not assume the premise to be soundly based in reality. As such:

Which is value-based, which is what I'm getting at, because in actuality, you didn't need a car to leave. You could have used any of the millions of other options, or not left at all.

is irrelevant to proving whether my thought aligned in a logical fashion with a given premise versus my dad, regardless of any commentary on the premise itself.




Here is what you're forgetting. You left off entirely a premise. No person has just one goal, they have multiple priorities, and they must weigh the cost and benefits of them all the time to determine what actions to take (which is subjective). Your dad had the goal of avoiding the smoke in his car. At the time, this was a higher priority than leaving quickly. Therefore, his decision does not contradict the premise. You clearly did not have this priority, so from your perspective, waiting the extra 10 minutes was illogical. But even then, you did it, because you had the priority of wishing to maintain a good relationship with your dad (or something similar), so it wasn't actually illogical.

You're not understanding what I'm trying to say. The premise is given. This is our assumption. Both needed cars. That which FOLLOWS from the premise....
...is it logical? Or not?

Calling into question the premise itself changes the whole situation and doesn't really answer whether a line of thought that follows is logical or not.


But an entirely objective premise cannot be made in regards to human goals. Every goal is entirely subjective. The only objective premises that exist are natural laws, physics n' such.

I think you have to understand the function of a premise when one discusses logic:

premise (logic) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Okay, but that's besides the point.

Um...not really (like, at ALL - well, unless you don't understand the political history of this conflict).

You say: Israel versus Gaza. How can one, without compromising rationality, pick a side?

I pointed out the great part that USA had to play. Hence, the only rational position, I would think, as you (being the global other - i.e., neither Israel nor Gaza), would be to say, LET IT BE BETWEEN JUST ISRAEL & GAZA. And, since USA has aided one side, but, not the other, wouldn't you, in order to maintain your middleground rationality be actually advocating for the USA to stop helping Israel (which would actually then result in being action-oriented than saying nothing/fence-sitting). No?

Pray tell, how can you possibly make any kind of judgement about the Gaza conflict without appealing to emotion?

Fence-sitting is the only rational option in this case.

By allowing the conflict to be between the TWO sides that decided to engage in it. Hence, then advocating for the stopping of 'help' if one side gets it while the other doesn't. And, the side, then, becomes, by default, an advocacy for Gaza, but, the intention is not FOR/AGAINST a side, but, to reach the middleground you so believe in, in the first place.


I don't see "value-based 'logic'" as genuine logic at all;

Hence me ending my original post with logic in quotes, I was drawing an analogy for the merits of value-based decision-making to an audience that believes in the value of logic.

Hence:
That isn't logic. That's value-based reasoning or thinking.

Duh.
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4

But you and your dad did not start with the same premises! If you did, then yes your dad would've been illogical, but you did not. You can't just assert what the premises were in that situation, because its clear the you and your dad did not agree on what they were.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
But you and your dad did not start with the same premises! If you did, then yes your dad would've been illogical, but you did not. You can't just assert what the premises were in that situation, because its clear the you and your dad did not agree on what they were.

We both agreed we needed cars to go to wherever we were going. I think I asserted, quite a few times, that the premise was: both needed cars to leave. Riiiight????
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
We both agreed we needed cars to go to wherever we were going. I think I asserted, quite a few times, that the premise was: both needed cars to leave. Riiiight????

What you did not agree on: smoke in the car. Right?
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
What you did not agree on: smoke in the car. Right?

Nope. I didn't know about smoke in car (it was hypothesized as a reason to me by my friend, as her value-based 'logic' to the situation).

Hence, again, it's a statement/conclusion, rather than the premise to the scenario posited.

Problem at hand: both need cars to leave

How did we solve it?

From there we evaluate the logical steps (or not) to reach whatever conclusion each of us (me & my dad) reached.
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
Nope. I didn't know about smoke in car (it was hypothesized as a reason to me by my friend, as her value-based 'logic' to the situation).

Hence, again, it's a statement/conclusion, rather than the premise to the scenario posited.

Problem at hand: both need cars to leave

How did we solve it?

From there we evaluate the logical steps (or not) to reach whatever conclusion each of us (me & my dad) reached.

It wasn't said, so you didn't agree on it, but it was still a premise held by your dad.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
It wasn't said, so you didn't agree on it, but it was still a premise held by your dad.

?? Huh??
That's...how shall I put it....illogical. :newwink:

A premise not stated cannot lead to a logical deduction (or not) because one wouldn't know where to start.

Just like my premise of needing to leave early is irrelevant, and I would not fault my dad for not following from that premise. It wasn't stated.

What was stated, and known by both: we both need cars to leave.
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
?? Huh??
That's...how shall I put it....illogical. :newwink:

A premise not stated cannot lead to a logical deduction (or not) because one wouldn't know where to start.

Just like my premise of needing to leave early is irrelevant, and I would not fault my dad for not following from that premise. It wasn't stated.

What was stated, and known by both: we both need cars to leave.

Consider that there might be other premises that precluded telling you about the smoke. Maybe he didn't want to hurt your feelings, maybe he wanted to avoid conflict, maybe he didn't want to seem selfish, maybe any millions of possibilities.

Though, I'm probably getting off into too much of a theoretical perspective here. Yes, if the only premise was needing to leave in cars efficiently, then your dad's actions could be seen as irrational. Not knowing the full situation, I can only speculate, and therefore I suppose I shall leave the judging of that to you.

ie, I'm backin' out of this argument.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
As far as human evolution is concerned, compassion is completely logical. It makes sense that a species would develop emotional capacities that further the goal of protecting and preserving the species.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Consider that there might be other premises that precluded telling you about the smoke. Maybe he didn't want to hurt your feelings, maybe he wanted to avoid conflict, maybe he didn't want to seem selfish, maybe any millions of possibilities.

Though, I'm probably getting off into too much of a theoretical perspective here. Yes, if the only premise was needing to leave in cars efficiently, then your dad's actions could be seen as irrational. Not knowing the full situation, I can only speculate, and therefore I suppose I shall leave the judging of that to you.

ie, I'm backin' out of this argument.


Fair enough. Just to note though, I do agree that in real life, there is no one clean cut premise. If it were, we'd be mere computers.

But, for this exercise in logic, and for any exercise in logic, just know:

It's just comes down to one thing - premise that is stated. conclusion that is reached. Steps in between - logically follow from the premise or not to reach the conclusion.

prove that, and you're golden.

Thanks though for indulging me...I woke up and Daylight savings forgot to inform me, so, I'm feeling a bit :devil: this afternoon.
 

whimsical

New member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
351
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
4
to me being compassionate and affectionate often relies on a more subjective oriented thinking process, while being "intelligent" is more seen as an objective thought process preference
 
Top