The quality of the content matches his writing.
Logic is built on assumed facts. If we misperceive, any conclusion is flawed.
It's like winning a race, but only because you went to the wrong track and no one else was there.
It's happened before.
Then it is perception that is flawed, and not logic per se.
Back on topic:
I've had an idea (and I apologize if someone already said this, which I think they might have). If feeling is about judgment based on value, and it outputs conclusions as to the "goodness" or "badness" of something (or "wrongness" and "rightness"), then these conclusions lead directly to emotional reactions. If something is good, then we have positive emotional reactions to it. If it is bad, then we have negative emotional reactions to it. These values are defined by the emotion that they produce. So the emotionality of feeling types has nothing to do with the
process of the feeling function, nor does it have anything to do with the emotional-basis of the value system being used (even if the values are in fact emotionally based, which may not necessarily be true). The emotional response is subsequent to the judgment process, but it is always there nevertheless. In this way, we can say that the feeling function is not more emotional than the thinking function in essence, but its decisions always lead to emotional responses.
The thinking function, which is concerned with the values of true and false, does not automatically lead to emotional responses. Of course, it
may lead to an emotional response, but only after we have done a feeling assessment and determined that "truth" is "good". The concept of truth is not defined by the emotional response that it produces. Truth can be valued, at any given point, as "good" or "bad". This evaluation is outside of whether or not something is true, which is the prerogative of thinking.
Again, I think pieces of this have already been stated throughout the thread, but this came as a sort of revelation to me.