I'm still trying to figure out where exactly this is going ... I mean it's full of conceptual errors ...What a nutjob .


http://www.singlegoal.com/characteristics.htm

Yeah...I'm not quite following how he formed a conclusion concerning logic as a substantial factor in 'understanding' life from all that half-whimmed pish-posh about one's relationship to himself, to 'things', and to society.

I don't really think that's what he's saying.

What he's haphazardly trying to state is, well, what seems to me at least, is a mixture of continental and analytical philosophies...

"The meaning of life can be argued as only being appropriate, or true, if one always obeys the rules of logic...or in this case, the guidlines set forth by logic. Emotional attachments and personalities often conflict with logical awareness. In the following case: I'm a writer, I was offered a job as a surpervisor for a trucking company making $15 an hour; I was also offered a job at a book store making $7 an hour. Which job did I take?

A strategist, or if I were to even follow a more logical outcome, would have picked the higher paying job as its outcome better suits that ultimate outcome...life."



This has been said and done before, but in this case, it's a very 'Philosophy 210' type of paper. He got an A because he presented an argument and reasoned through it, but his professor most likely laughed hystrerically. But, it does show one thing...this individual at least has some philosophical-imagination.

What? What? And what?

Anywho...

I quote from this individual (whoever he may be)...

"While it does not mean you must be devoid of human emotion and basic human needs, you should be devoid of strong illogical preferences."

How do you figure that ties into denying desires? First off, understanding the Philosophy of Desire is quite a tricky thing. You will always have desires. Desire to eat, to sleep, to go to the bathroom. But it's the subjective aspects of these, the specifics, which is where "illogical preferences" come into play. For example:

OBJECTIVE: desire to eat.
IS IT LOGICAL?: indeed...to cure hunger.

SUBJECTIVE 1: basic five-food-group meal.
IS IT LOGICAL?: indeed...sustains nutrients, helps growth, health, etc.

SUBJECTIVE 2: fast food.
IS IT LOGICAL?: is processed food, not healthy, etc.

SUBJECTIVE 3: a fancy feast.
IS IT LOGICAL?: indeed...could be healthy. But is food really worth $50? Especially when you can get the same nutrients out of a meal similar to it which costs only $7.


So, as you see, he's not arguing that man should abandon all manner of desire, for that is A. illogical; and B. improbable...and most likely impossible. He's merely saying that if one were to take a purely strategic approach to all the objectives in one's life, weighing the outcome of all the subjectives, and if one chose wisely (that is, always supporting the higher validity and soundness of the logic), then one would in fact be ultra-human...or whatever he's truly proclaiming an individual could be.

Why is choosing a cheeseburger over a salad a more 'logical' choice ? True it's healthier. However what if something tastier is more logical to me than something healthier ? I j ust felt like the article was full of subjectivist crap . Though the writer did present a valid agrument ..I just hope that there isn't anybody that takes this hogwash seriously ...

I wholeheartedly agree.

And yet, Mikey, realize that choosing something to eat based on taste is illogical in accordance to his argument. Ergo, your counter-argument need not be applied.

However, I think a better counter-argument would be to A. attack the idea that this individual's entire argument is a based on the 'IF' syndrome; B. dare this individual to re-evaluate his theory pertaining to emotions, as he already declares that emotions are needed, but many illogical...well, which?; C. adhere to the idea that what could be entirely logical, based on every subjective quality, is in the long run, subjective in itself (i.e., eastern logic vs' western logic...this logician vs' that logician...this culture, that culture).

In the end...this dude is retarded.

why emotions are an evolutionary success story