[lit-ideas] Re: The meaning of life
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:04:03 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Sun, 7/12/08, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Eric Dean: But since I think that the human experience of
> human emotions (and of a lot else besides, I use this as a
> hopefully compelling example) is real and does not (always)
> appear to obey the laws of logic, I also think that
> transcendental analysis is resting on an unstated
> presumption about the nature of the human experience of
> human emotion. That presumption, to preserve the laws of
> logic for use in transcendental analysis, must resolve the
> apparent contradictory nature of human experience.
Let's say that,at the same moment,I am in 'two minds' - part of me wants to do
violence to Jack because boy has he made me mad but part of me doesn't because
I know it would solve nothing and I might end up in prison. I don't see any
_logical contradiction_ in having these 'mixed feelings' That is, mixed
feelings - which we all surely experience - do not violate the laws of logic.
What would is if the part of me that wanted to do violence was also at the same
time the part of me that didn't, and vice versa. Conflicting emotions and
thoughts are not an example illustrating the truth of the view that logic is
contradicted by the existence of so-called 'contradictory' emotions and
thoughts: propositions derived from such emotions and thoughts may contradict
[e.g. it contradicts 'You should hit Jack' to propose 'You shouldn't hit
Jack'], but the emotions and thoughts themselves do not stand in a logical
relation to each other - the logical relation they have
is only with themselves i.e. they cannot both be the emotion and thought they
are and simultaneously the negation of this.
This is tied in with the W123 distinction: emotions and thoughts are W2 and lie
in the realm of human psychology. Logic only comes in with W3. Nothing in W2
can refute or 'contradict' logic and it is a confusion of categories to suggest
otherwise. To feel or think 'I should/want to hit Jack' does not logically
entail 'In no way do I feel I shouldn't/don't want to hit Jack.' Such conflicts
in the empirical realm no more refute logic than the fact two water drops when
added to another two only gives one big water drop, not four, refutes the
proposition '2+2=4'.
> Mr. Dean has presented my own objection more clearly than I
> have. In short, since we are all inside the big bang (or
> inside the idea of the totality of all ideas) existence is
> Janus-faced: there is a fact, we see the fact, we experience
> the fact, and we are the fact. To privilege the so-called
> objective or rational is to arbitrarily create limits on
> reality, and by extension, create limits on philosophical
> thought.
Popper's conception of rationality and objectivity does not fall foul of this
kind of objection, which I tend therefore to regard as a kind of Aunt Sally.
Might have said more but the computer is playing 'Space Invaders',
, or is it 'Super Mario' or 'Donkey Kong', and eating up any letters in front
of what is typed. A sign I should stop.
Donal
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
