User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 52

  1. #31
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    You've managed to justified to yourself why compassion is irrational, and tried to define logic as well. Why ask the question in the first place, if you are unwilling to consider the arguments? As far as I can see you are arguing circular arguments which lead you back to your original position. You need to explore some of the points to their conclusions.
    Compassion is logical in some circumstances, such as Nurse/Patient dynamics, a patient will get better quicker if their nurses and carers show compassion (therefore personal interest in the patient's well being), rather than being in a detached, impersonal environment. Compassion in this instance, involves action, such as making sure the patient has enough pain relief.
    Compassion where no action can really be taken, isn't logical, as you would be feeling it for feelings sake - such as your example of the the situation in Gaza, but I don't think compassion is irrational when acting on it leads to improvement, such as my example with the nurse and the patient.
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  2. #32
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    You could just drop the entire thing. Other people (other ENTJs for that matter) are compassionate, and they stay logical. I don't see an issue. It will just make people trust you more really if you are compassionate.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  3. #33
    Luctor et emergo Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireyPheonix View Post
    Compassion is logical in some circumstances, such as Nurse/Patient dynamics, a patient will get better quicker if their nurses and carers show compassion (therefore personal interest in the patient's well being), rather than being in a detached, impersonal environment. Compassion in this instance, involves action, such as making sure the patient has enough pain relief.
    Is that genuine compassion, though? It appears to be a kind of "pseudo-care" for the patient in order to become more effective.

    Compassion where no action can really be taken, isn't logical, as you would be feeling it for feelings sake - such as your example of the the situation in Gaza, but I don't think compassion is irrational when acting on it leads to improvement, such as my example with the nurse and the patient.
    It's still driven by an innately irrational process, though.

  4. #34
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    There may be a very good reason why it's so hard to pin down a succint yet comprehensive definition to logic. But, it still adheres to some basic formula of argument. At its core, it is the principles of correct reasoning. Not right reasoning. It is a thought-process, not a thought - this logic. It is where the conclusion can be accurately predicted by its stated opening assumptions/rules/facts/principles/premise/condition(s). It doesn't matter how far-fetched the assumptions can be. Logic is not the thought, but, the thought-process.

    Statement: Twigs is a penguin, and thus he hums.
    Twigs is a pengin.
    Penguins hum.

    * doesn't matter how irrational the premise may be. It is only about the conclusion supporting the premise correctly, not rightly, or wrongly...but correctly.
    Sure, logic "exists", but a logical life, a rational life? I don't think that those exist, not even in theory.

    End point: My dad and I both *needed* cars to leave.
    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.

    I had to leave right away as someone was waiting for me, while he spared the extra 10 minutes to get the car sorted out. Either way, as you've pointed out, either of these situations are value-based. Me needing to leave earlier. Him avoiding smoke vs. time. These are both of our value-based thoughts. I had them, the thoughts of needing to leave early, they were my value-based justification for my side. Just like the smoke was a value-based justification for my dad's side. But, it is not the discord in justification that is a breach in logic. It is the situation irrespective of any value-based justification. I.e., take either side out. Mine or his. What would we do in this siuation? What is the thought-process (not the thought)? That there is logic. Logic has one steadfast rule: it doesn't permit contradiction.
    Ok....

    Thus, when you look at the logic of a situation, just like you apply objectivity to the conclusion, so must you then start with objectivity to the premise/assumption. I.e., does it follow a correct thought-process rising from the premise, regardless of any judgement to the premise, either way?

    Two conditions: A & B

    A
    Statement: Dad & Q will both need to leave in car.
    Car is needed to leave.
    Dad & Q both needed to leave.


    B
    Statement:To use car 2, car 1 will need to be moved from the front.
    Car 1 is in front of car 2.
    Thus, car 2 is blocked.


    Conditional probability (given that humans are involved ): P (A|B)

    Probability of A given B. Probability of Dad & Q both leaving will depend on the sequence of cars.
    Mhmm....

    I gave my pov, and my dad's in the above anecdote. However, I thought it was pretty apparent what the basic logical process of the situation would be. Thus, if both needs to leave, both uses cars. 2 cars. Person 1 leaves - in car. Person 2 leaves - in car. Car 1 in front of car 2. Now, how/which car one uses, how fast this happens...irrelevant. Car needed to leave. You leave. Take car. Which car each of us use, is a subjective 'why' Q. That was not the inherent logic I was making a case for. It just so happened that my side/reasoning did nothing to disrupt the sequence of the inherent logic of the situation. It would't break any rules of the given A & B. My dad's side would add convolution/break rules in deductive logic of given A & B - as in order to leave, we have to adhere to a given sequence of car, and his position asks me to overlook the sequence of cars (which doesn't gel with situation B). That there is the difference.


    Now, why one needs to adhere to using car 2, and another strictly car 1, even if blocked, or, whether one wants to leave faster or slower is irrelevant to the situation of needing to leave...in cars.
    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.

    When you question something as value-based, think first of the premise/assumption from which you start and whether that itself is an objective premise or actually a value-based judgement placed on the situation.
    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.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  5. #35
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Ahhh, but that's not what you said at first. You said "an amoralist should be prepared to have their morality questioned", which is contradictory because an amoralist has no morality. Now you've changed your response slightly, it makes sense.
    Not necessarily. Even if it makes no sense to question an amoralists morality, it will be done, which is what that statement was saying.

    One might argue that it is easier to see logical reasoning than value-based reasoning, even though in the end, both are value-based. For example, his father's reasoning amounted to "I don't like smoke in my car", which you can't attack any further, because it's a belief. In the case of logical reasoning, it would go something like this:

    "I need to get out."
    "Why?"
    "Because it's quicker and more effective."
    "And why is quick and effectiveness better?"
    "Because one can achieve more."
    "And why is achieving more rather than less better?"

    And so on, and so forth, until the logical reasoner came to the conclusion that "I like furthering my own agenda" or "I like praise from others" or something like that, again, a belief which cannot be attacked further.
    Pretty much. Although you could possibly extend the "I don't like smoke in my car" a bit further.

    Insofar as logical reasoning is based on the rational part of our claim, emotions being the opposite of logic, they are irrational.
    How are emotions the opposite of logic? If logic is as defined earlier in this thread, a direct linear deduction from a set of premises, where the conclusion must be true. Are emotions defined as the opposite of that? I don't think so, they are just a response to certain stimuli. So they are not a dichotomy with logic. Rather though, they are logical (but not logic), in that if you had all the information, theoretically you could predict the emotional response to something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Is that genuine compassion, though? It appears to be a kind of "pseudo-care" for the patient in order to become more effective.
    If the nurse is actually feeling compassion, than it is compassion. If the nurse is faking compassion, than it isn't compassion. What is the difference from the patients point of view? None, assuming the facade was good enough.

    It's still driven by an innately irrational process, though.
    See above. Also, even if it was an innately irrational process, where you couldn't predict it, not even offer up percentages of certain emotional responses, than does it really matter? If it really was entirely unpredictable, then you wouldn't be able to control it, to repress it, you wouldn't be making this topic, as either you show compassion, or not. Clearly that's not the case, though.

    Ultimately, if you want to feel compassion, then you need to find out under what set of circumstances this happens for you, and set up those circumstances. If you don't want to feel compassion, then don't do that.

    If you don't see the point, then consider that emotions can aid in achieving your subjective goal, and that would be rational.
    "All humour has a foundation of truth."
    - Costrin

  6. #36
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    9

    Default

    I haven't had time to read this thread entirely but if you think the US or UK are anything close to neutral in the Israel-Palestine question you do not have a rational grasp of the situation. The Israeli state was founded by englishmen, and americans have given them one of the world's strongest militaries for free and unconditionally. I agree entirely that western countries should stay neutral in the conflict for the same reason but that is NOT what is happening now.

    I'll get back to this thread later.

  7. #37
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    Not necessarily. Even if it makes no sense to question an amoralists morality, it will be done, which is what that statement was saying.
    Yep, that was my point. I like it when you're around, Costrin. Succinctness = yay!

    Okay, just search "emotion" and "irrational" in Google, and you'll have a spate of articles and stories about the kind of thing I'm talking about.
    This proves nothing. If this is the type of thing you're offering up as proof, you need to be more careful about claims to be leading a purely rational life.

    Insofar as logical reasoning is based on the rational part of our claim, emotions being the opposite of logic, they are irrational.
    Someone else mentioned this above but I'll comment as well - your reasoning seems circular on this specific 'emotions are by definition irrational' claim you keep repeating. Do you have more to provide in support of this claim (i.e. more than Google searches)?

    Also, can you clear up why you posted this thread? I'm still not really getting what you're after in terms of responses...do you want people to shoot you down and call you cold? Agree with you that emotions are irrational? What?

    And just to be clear about my POV, I do not agree at all that emotions are always/by definition irrational. I am trying to get at why you seem to believe/assume this.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  8. #38
    lab rat extraordinaire CrystalViolet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Is that genuine compassion, though? It appears to be a kind of "pseudo-care" for the patient in order to become more effective.



    It's still driven by an innately irrational process, though.
    Ezra,
    You just proved my point. You are using circular arguments.
    For a nurse, not to feel compassion, or any other value judgement for that matter, what would then be the underlying motivation to provide care for the patient. It would be a very odd way of making money, if you have no driving need to care for others. In that case, what then would stop said nurse from abandoning all her charges. In some respects compassion is what can make a rotten job palitable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    If the nurse is actually feeling compassion, than it is compassion. If the nurse is faking compassion, than it isn't compassion. What is the difference from the patients point of view? None, assuming the facade was good enough.
    This is a good point from the patient point of view. Although, I would say genuine compassion is hard to fake, unless there is some alternative motivation such as curiosity, devotion to the doctor etc.

    Rationality is trying to make sense and order. Irrationality is the opposite.
    Compassion is a driving need to make things better, making sense and order out of terrible things, therefore it isn't less rational than being an impartial observer. In fact it could be seen as more rational in some circumstances.

    Although it comes down this, we could argue till the cows come home, but you've boxed yourself into your position, and have started flinging out what is becoming flawed logic, in defense of your position.

    I'm going to change tack here though and say compassion is about personal investment. If you have no personal investment in the situation, then I would say it's fine not to feel compassion. It would be irrational to display compassion under that circumstance.
    However when you do have personal investment, such the nurse taking care of the patient, with personal integrity and reputation, then it is rational to display compassion.
    Last edited by CrystalViolet; 02-13-2009 at 08:54 PM. Reason: editing for sense
    Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
    Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  9. #39
    Luctor et emergo Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costrin View Post
    Not necessarily. Even if it makes no sense to question an amoralists morality, it will be done, which is what that statement was saying.
    Okay, fair enough. However, firstly, this wasn't made clear, and, secondly, you didn't make the statement, so couldn't possibly completely understand Kangirl's motivation for saying what she did, even if she did affirm it with "I like it when you're around". For all you know she could've made that statement because you rescued her from a shithole which she created for herself.

    Pretty much. Although you could possibly extend the "I don't like smoke in my car" a bit further.
    Probably, yes.

    How are emotions the opposite of logic? If logic is as defined earlier in this thread, a direct linear deduction from a set of premises, where the conclusion must be true. Are emotions defined as the opposite of that? I don't think so, they are just a response to certain stimuli. So they are not a dichotomy with logic. Rather though, they are logical (but not logic), in that if you had all the information, theoretically you could predict the emotional response to something.
    Emotions are subjective, logic is - within its framework - objective.

    If the nurse is actually feeling compassion, than it is compassion. If the nurse is faking compassion, than it isn't compassion. What is the difference from the patients point of view? None, assuming the facade was good enough.
    In this case I'd doubt the truth of the theory that compassion of a nurse helps the patient to recover quicker.

    See above. Also, even if it was an innately irrational process, where you couldn't predict it, not even offer up percentages of certain emotional responses, than does it really matter?
    Not unless I'm disturbed by people's reactions to my dispassionate nature. Which I am.

    Ultimately, if you want to feel compassion, then you need to find out under what set of circumstances this happens for you, and set up those circumstances. If you don't want to feel compassion, then don't do that.
    Okay, this is becoming fruitless. Not because you're wrong (on the contrary, you're probably right), but just because the thread lost its original meaning and/or I've pinpointed the way I think much better.

    If you don't see the point, then consider that emotions can aid in achieving your subjective goal, and that would be rational.
    Yes, that's a good point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kangirl View Post
    This proves nothing. If this is the type of thing you're offering up as proof, you need to be more careful about claims to be leading a purely rational life.



    Someone else mentioned this above but I'll comment as well - your reasoning seems circular on this specific 'emotions are by definition irrational' claim you keep repeating. Do you have more to provide in support of this claim (i.e. more than Google searches)?
    I really don't see how I need to support a self-evident truth. How are emotions not irrational by definition of the terms "emotion" and "irrational"? I just cannot see how people who cannot see this cannot see it.

    Also, can you clear up why you posted this thread? I'm still not really getting what you're after in terms of responses...do you want people to shoot you down and call you cold? Agree with you that emotions are irrational? What?
    Right, initially, it was because I wanted to know if people were right in condemning me for having no tolerance for emotional values. Since then, it's become obvious that they are not right, but they are not wrong either.

    Thus, essentially, the point of this thread has been made redundant. The conclusion I've reached is that I should accept my natural capacities for reason and emotional responsiveness as they are. There is nothing more left to discuss in my eyes, but if you see anything else, please raise it. Everything else: let it be confined to the dust.

    And just to be clear about my POV, I do not agree at all that emotions are always/by definition irrational. I am trying to get at why you seem to believe/assume this.
    Okay, well, since I hold it as a self-evident truth, this is going to be extremely difficult. I think the best way of doing this would be to do a kind of dialogue, which would find either flaws in my reasoning, or help you get to the deeper levels of why I think how I do.

    Let me start.

    Would you agree that there are two parts to the self - an irrational and a rational part? (Arational actions - thus not "parts" of the self - include eating, drinking, procreating etc.; since they are animalistic; we do this because it is what we do as human beings, so leave these kinds of actions out.)

    Quote Originally Posted by FireyPheonix View Post
    In that case, what then would stop said nurse from abandoning all her charges.
    A paycheck?

    Rationality is trying to make sense and order. Irrationality is the opposite. Compassion is a driving need to make things better, making sense and order out of terrible things, therefore it isn't less rational than being an impartial observer. In fact it could be seen as more rational in some circumstances.
    Debatable. I see sense and order in the actions of Israel, as do many others. To my mind, other people - more compassionate people - do not. But since they are compassionate, to your mind, they must be making sense and order, and I must not be. We have two conflicting positions, neither of which can be justified. Again, we come down to belief, where your belief clashes with mine, and we cannot back up our beliefs, because beliefs are supposed to be self-evident.

    Although it comes down this, we could argue till the cows come home, but you've boxed yourself into your position, and have started flinging out what is becoming flawed logic, in defense of your position.
    I am using exactly the same method as you.

    I'm going to change tack here though and say compassion is about personal investment. If you have no personal investment in the situation, then I would say it's fine not to feel compassion. It would be irrational to display compassion under that circumstance.
    However when you do have personal investment, such the nurse taking care of the patient, with personal integrity and reputation, then it is rational to display compassion.
    But that's not what compassion is. Compassion is an altruistic desire to help others. If you're terming it as something else, everything that has come before what you've just said is rendered useless, because every person in this thread is talking cross-purposes with you (and, possibly and even worse, with one another).

  10. #40
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    For all you know she could've made that statement because you rescued her from a shithole which she created for herself.
    Now now. Costrin *did* get what I was saying - and I still don't think what I was saying was cryptic or confusing.

    I really don't see how I need to support a self-evident truth.
    You know, bringing up the whole 'logical fallacy' thing is admittedly boring and often pretentious but is this not a case of begging the question (short definition: the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises)? People are asking you to *prove* that emotions = always irrational. So far, you haven't done a good job, and you've been provided with a number of examples of emotions being rational. Just because you think it's a self-evident truth doesn't mean it is. And don't ask me to prove it *isn't* - it's your claim, and your task to defend it.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

Similar Threads

  1. [INFP] Helping an INFP to become more brave, confident, self - assured and determined
    By Elaine in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-10-2015, 03:30 PM
  2. [ENFP] NFP how to be more organized at work? Admin Asst.
    By hermeticdancer in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 08:24 PM
  3. Could someone please tell me how to become more "healthy"?
    By Queen Kat in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-22-2009, 11:43 AM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-27-2007, 10:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO