4 ms·
I believe I get your point, but you seem confused about what you mean by "logic". Formally, your example is: 1. I prefer more money than less money 2. Job x i
by nmc 13y ago
I believe I get your point, but you seem confused about what you mean by "logic". Formally, your example is:
1. I prefer more money than less money
2. Job x is offering more money
3. I prefer job x
There is your syllogism, your "logical thing". However, the emotional part about money is just an axiom: you may call it obvious, but not logical.
... Or maybe you can, if you consider something like:
1. Money is good
2. I prefer more good than less good
3. I prefer more money than less money
However, you will always end up on an axiom: something you say is true, without any logical thinking involved, like "money is good". There is your emotional part.
I hope I understood your point correctly. In this case, my answer is: you can always separate logic from emotions by going into details of the reasoning.
- visakanv 13y agoYup, you got exactly what I was trying to say. Logic is the system of reasoning, the "weighing scale". Emotions are what give the objects weight. So we could both arrive at different conlusions despite having identical logical reasoning, because we value things differently.
- nmc 13y agoHappy I got it right! This was generalized by A. Einstein in something along the lines of "a problem cannot be solved with the same state of mind it was created in". I like to understand that as: 1. You have a problem. 2. You have a situation that cannot be solved. 3. You have a situation you think cannot be solved. 4. You have a reasoning process concluding that the situation cannot be solved. 5. You have a state of mind which implies, as a logical outcome, that the situation cannot be solved.