What made you lose faith in humanity today?

[BenKenobi]

Though I understand that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you shouldn't make such pompous statement, while you

cannot prove that values cannot be deduced from logic.

But I suppose we should settle this matter a little bit later.
Now it wold be rational for us to make a definition what exactly we should consider as "value", to not stray in all that semantic stuff for eternity.

No, it wouldn't. We absolutely do not need a precise definition of value to continue that discussion; especially considering it would just move the debate to that definition. Just take value as something that justifies normative statements. And, for God's sake, stop dodging already. Also, your position is rather clear so resorting to qqing about ad hominems is rather unneeded.

Spoiler

Complete eradication of emotions is impossible and unnecessary, in my "utopian world" people wold not let their emotions to overpower their logic.

I have strong negative attitude to those who imagined that their emotions and feeling are more important than reality and especially to those who imagined that their emotions and feelings should be more important then real facts to other people.

And those ignorant fools who are relying on emotions, feeling and their beliefs instead of the facts and logic. And specially those hypocrites who are making benefits for for themselves but trying to cover it with stories about caring about other people (and even more - those fools who are believing them).

Back to what you, apparently, failed to understand - you cannot say "we should help the poor" nor "we shouldn't help the poor" and claim you 'got there' by logic. You can take one of them for granted and then claim it is logical / ilogical to give 100E to a shelter for poor people, but that is only on grounds of an already established moral rule. But you cannot establish that moral rule by logic or rationality itself.

Therefore, when you feel contempt for people who think that their emotions and feelings should be more important then real facts, you are somehow forgetting that these people actually can talk politics, love, law or art, whereas you end up pretty much with that when your girlfriend sends you to a grocery store to bring at least 10 eggs, you shouldn't bring 7.

 

[Antonis]

All went fine with your post, Ben, up until a certain point. Of course he should come home with 7 eggs. Or no eggs at all. He's on Taleworlds, he doesn't have a girlfriend to answer to when he returns! The only person getting laid around here is Seff.

 

[Franklin Payne]

No, it wouldn't. We absolutely do not need a precise definition of value to continue that discussion; especially considering it would just move the debate to that definition. Just take value as something that justifies normative statements.

There is a pretty high chance that we will come to it anyway. But I can accommodate you and skip that part for a later.

Also, your position is rather clear...

If it's clear than all that attempts to refute my position by proving the existence of my emotions were just so-called "Imago" or "Straw man".

Back to what you, apparently, failed to understand - you cannot say "we should help the poor" nor "we shouldn't help the poor" and claim you 'got there' by logic. You can take one of them for granted and then claim it is logical / ilogical to give 100E to a shelter for poor people, but that is only on grounds of an already established moral rule. But you cannot establish that moral rule by logic or rationality itself.

So there is no possibility to make a more or less proper calculation of potential losses and benefits from both of these ways and make a decision based on the comparing of them? Only way is to resort to irrational moral rules?

Therefore, when you feel contempt for people who think that their emotions and feelings should be more important then real facts, you are somehow forgetting that these people actually can talk politics, love, law or art...

What I really failed to understand why should I not to forget that these people "actually can talk politics, love, law or art"?

 

[BenKenobi]

So there is no possibility to make a more or less proper calculation of potential losses and benefits from both of these ways and make a decision based on the comparing of them? Only way is to resort to irrational moral rules?

Losses and benefits are manifestations of values. You cannot assess whether for example taking money from research and giving them to the poor is a loss or a benefit if you don't know what constitutes a loss or a benefit. Which you cannot do unless you let morality (ie. values, emotions and other such) in. 'A man of logic' (ie. the one who does not give considerations to emotions) cannot make such an assessment at all because he lacks a referential framework that tells him X=bad, Y=good.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Edit: Can you imagine the possibility that there are different kinds of, or, at least, different ways to use logic?

And the existence of different ways of using logic should prove the failure of rationalism?

It should prove the failure of trying to use abstract tools like "rationality" and "logic" alone to solve metaphysical questions, like whether you should decide to murder people for fun or not. Logic is little more than academic etiquette, and somebody had to come up with the methods for it at some point in the past. It's not a way of life.

In maths, you can come to a rational conclusion proves the absolute truth of some theory. You can't feasibly disagree with a2+b2=c2. There is only one conclusion you can logically come to regarding the relationship between sides of a right-angled triangle. But you can arrive at infinitely many moral conclusions through logic:

Statement A: Your mum gave birth to you
Statement B: Your mum had a man inside her for 9 months and wasn't aroused
Statement C: ur mum gay

I challenge you to make a case for, against or indifferent to the idea of murdering people for fun, using logic alone. If you can't do this, your dumbass teenage-insecurity-fuelled "i'm so smart pls respond" edgelord ideology will be exposed for the nonsense that it is.

 

[Dryvus]

Spoiler

cackled out loud

 

[Baguette Eater]

Spoiler

Gotta keep this one around for the next one.

 

[Evelyn]

Self-righteous new guy bingo etc etc.

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

Look I'm gonna be super charitable in interpreting what you have written.

Let's assume there are processes in belief formation that can be distinguished as 'emotional' processes and 'cognitive' processes and that there are areas in the brain associated with these processes.(it's a contentious assumption but w/e)

I am even going to grant that 'cognitive' processes are more reliable in forming true beliefs.(there is plenty good evidence that 'emotional' processes are more reliable in many domains(like face recognition) but I will still grant that)

All these are problematic but I'm gonna ignore whether these are true. Your problem is that you assume you have a privileged relation with the truth compared to everyone else. All the sheep blindly make use of their 'emotional' processes while you have LOGIC AND FACTS on your side. There is no reason for us to assume that you have such a privileged status. This assumption smells smugness on your part.

Not only that but it also smells lazy-mindedness. 'Oh, what I believe is true. But these people disagree with it. Best explanation of this phenomenon must be that they are idiots' is the comfortable shortcut for the lazy-minded who don't want to be charitable to people they disagree with and this saves them from a lot mental hassle. You won't get anywhere close to TRUTH or FACTS if you keep choosing the shortest stream of thought for reaching conclusions or being so uncharitable to your opponents.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

You won't get anywhere close to TRUTH or FACTS if you keep choosing the shortest stream of thought for reaching conclusions or being so uncharitable to your opponents.

Prove it. Preferable mathematically.

 

[Evelyn]

Prove that the concept of proof exists or else you are an emotion-beholden baby.

 

[Antoine de Saint-Exupéry]

can you repeat the question

 

[Do not look here]

Yes, no, maybe... I don't know?

 

[Cpt. Nemo]

YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME NOW!!

 

[Lord Brutus]

I remember when we used to get these sanctimonious pseudo-intellectuals every three or four months.  Now we're down to barely one per year.  Taleworlds needs to up its game; Warband is too old and Bannerlord is too far away.

 

[K-64]

The moderation doesn't really help when people get muted for slamming idiots like they deserve

 

[Cpt. Nemo]

As long as things stay relatively civil (like here), moderation has no need to get involved. "Slamming" people by acting even lower than them doesn't really help.

 

[Is Milse Póg]

-banter-

I actually made the same argument and you ignored it... I sense a pattern.
For the last time, you can't derive any moral conclusion from physical facts. You need to have values, and those are based on emotions.
But I digress, Bill was right, you aren't using "emotions" and "logic" in their usual sense, but to mean "actions and positions I disagree with" and "actions and positions I agree with" respectively. This seems to stem from your own personal confusion of your personal values and emotions and cold, hard facts, which is ironically covered by what you are arguing against.

 

[Age of Empires ¶ Densetsu]

I had sex with the same girl every day for two weeks.

 

[kurczak]

Ok, but what made her lose faith in humanity two weeks ago?