Quote:
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
I don't think it's very useful to define "logical" as that which can be rationalized. By that definition, most everyone is logical and that lack of distinction is useless.
|
Well, yes. The distinction
is useless. It is more a means of allowing people to hide the complexities of real world problems behind self serving puffery. Right? The wildly divergent perspectives that result from having to make decisions in an existence full of constantly competing and frequently overwhelming sources of information are best categorized with a simple dichotomy: logical and illogical. That's it. There's nothing more to it. Why do people make bad decisions? Because they're illogical. It's simple. They are simply and completely incapable of logic. Why do people believe in silly things? Of course, because they are illogical. They can't even do simple arithmetic, probably.
Quote:
|
I think a more useful (albeit more nebulous) meaning of "logical" would be to be self critical, consistent and expansive in thought. Either that or we can simply avoid the use of such a loaded term since we're really just going on about semantics at this point.
|
I'm not sure why you need to co-opt the word logical for your definition, since there are necessarily instances where your definition would contradict the formal one.
I do think it would be more useful if we could all agree on the definitions of nebulously defined words before we use them in a discussion. I have found that most people don't seem to like it to much when one points out that they use the word "logic" as a synonym for "people I disagree with". They want it to have more intellectual oomph than that.
And semantics get a bad rap. Clearly there is some utility in discussing them-- it is difficult to have a discussion when the participants are speaking different languages.
Quote:
|
I do disagree somewhat with your theory on the aesthetic appeal of beliefs. Many things that people believe have no aesthetic appeal to them. Also, too many people turn away from comforting beliefs for your appeal theory to be credible.
|
Well, but they must turn away from these beliefs because they find others more appealing, no? The Skeptic with a capital S turns away from a belief in a loving, all powerful god because they find the notion of belief without scientifically verifiable evidence less appealing than the notion of scientific evidence based belief. I think it's all rooted in aesthetics, even if the particulars aren't necessarily all that aesthetically appealing.