Oh, and the Feeling function doesn't rely on logic; it uses other rational processes to discover where logic won't lead to rational conclusions. Our Western cultural bias tends to get us believing that logic always trumps but it isn't so.
I find it interesting that you use the word rational twice in the post above; for the English word 'rational' is derived from the Latin word 'ratio,' (which is itself another English word with some tangential interest, but I digress). My question is this: can a process be rational if it is not logical?
Ratio: a reckoning, account, calculation, computation; that faculty of the mind which forms the basis of computation and calculation, and hence of mental action in general, i. e. judgment, understanding, reason; in rhetoric, a showing cause, argument, reasoning in support of a proposition; in philos. lang., a production of proof, argumentation, reasoning.
What does it mean to say that Feelers use rational processes to come to rational conclusions if they don't rely on logic? That is, if their thoughts and arguments don't obey the laws of logic, (e.g., if it's possible for their premises to be true, yet their conclusions to be false), to what extent are their thoughts and arguments, (if they present any at all), rational? What authority does such a process posses such that it demands belief on pain of being irrational?
I mean, Joe can say, "I feel that phi is true."
And Sally can say, "I feel that not-phi is true."
Of the two above, the rational person ought to believe whom?
It is also interesting to note that the Romans used 'ratio' to translate the Greek word 'logos', from which English derives its word 'logic.'
Agreed, with a slight caveat:
The error in reliability is owed more to instinctual desire to bolster trust within one's community - as a way to establish personal homestead; intermingle resources; collaborate against potential threats...etc.
If one evolutionarily polishes this desire for a few dozen millenniums, we see our ancestors baptized in our present footprints - from government structure; economics; education; international relations - our heavy-browed brothers are everywhere. We depend on institutions to give us a basis from which we can then generate our "individual" thoughts...
As such, the error is one of instinct, rather than overt practice.
Logic is simply a mechanical description of pattern. If said pattern follows a falsifiable scheme - voila - an intellectual bylaw is born.
Logic is therefore a joke whose punchline we've long forgotten...
What error?
Do you mean that the priority assigned to logic in the West is due to an instinctual desire to bolster trust within the community, and logic appears to facilitate that desire? Do you mean that logic is merely a description of the pattern, (of the ultimate reality?), and not the/a means to discover the pattern?