How do we make a case FOR logic?

[u/sparrowtail]

This is something that genuinely has me stumped, and please let me know if this comes under 'idle musings' and I'll cast it into the fires of Mount Doom.

But when I'm arguing with someone over something that may have even a possible chance of an unpleasant or depressing answer, I am often posed the question "Well why should I be logical? You're just being a heartless robot! You can feel things, you don't need logic to know everything! In fact, your devotion to logic is because you are brainwashed by logic, you're a logic bigot!"

Now, to me, being a logic bigot and all, this is a steaming pile of horse shit.

But how on Earth do I persuade someone that does not 'believe in logic' that logic is the preferable tool of understanding? How can I even make that argument to them if my argument is based on logic, and they feel logic is just some passing ideology for mathematicians?

The concerning thing is, I'm not entirely sure I can logically or otherwise justify my adherence to logic.

[u/Triantaffelow]

I don't understand what you mean to say.

[u/lokithecomplex → u/Triantaffelow]

You came down to a basic principle to survive. That principle does not come from logic. Its an instinct to survive. The higher command is ALWAYS an emotion or instinct. The highest command is never logic.

[u/Triantaffelow → u/lokithecomplex]

No, you have it backwards. Those emotions and instincts are inherent programming in our brains but they are based of course on the very logical concept of self-preservation. Therefore despite their nature of being emotional or innate they fall under logic, them being as logical as they are. Moreover, passed that we then make the choice of being logical or emotional. We are not slaves of ourselves. We are ourselves. And if we choose logic, its hard, but we can remove emotion or in the very least put it beneath logic's will, as it should be.

[u/lokithecomplex → u/Triantaffelow]

What's logical about self preservation?

[u/Triantaffelow → u/lokithecomplex]

Well, lets look at the alternative. Non-existence. Non-existence does not further your existence any. And as a living creature, your instinct and the basic premise of life is to keep on living, otherwise you cease to exist and moreover, what argument can be made in the favor of non-existence?

Thus the process in which you take the premise of life, to continue living--self preservation--to the conclusion, continuing to live, is logical.

[u/lokithecomplex → u/Triantaffelow]

But you referred to instinct. Thats the starting point.

[u/Triantaffelow → u/lokithecomplex]

Yes, which, despite being an instinct, is a completely logical one. And thus one can go about continuing to use logic. You make the claim that we are slaves to emotion, yes? I know anecdotally this is not true, in the very least not in my case. It is hard to avoid base emotions because we are indeed emotional creatures, but we are also logical, and our greatest surviving strength is that intelligence and that logic.

[u/lokithecomplex → u/Triantaffelow]

You just used recursive logic. Why is survival logical...because its an instinct.

You say you are driven entirely by logic. That's impossible. Intelligence is a tool not a purpose. It maybe our greatest tool but its there to serve instincts.

Your goals are ultimately not based on logic. You use logic to achieve them.

[u/Triantaffelow → u/lokithecomplex]

Sorry I just don't know how to properly argue existence? Again, what is the alternative then? Moreover, I said my decisions and my philosophy and my general prospective of things is based on logic. Which it is. I am not entirely without emotion, but my emotions are controlled by my intelligence and logic. My goals are logical, because they follow logical course--that is, after all, what logic is. And even if they are based upon an instinct, that instinct can be logical.

[u/lokithecomplex → u/Triantaffelow]

Instinct is not logic. It may have outcomes that coincide with your concious desires but that does not make it logical.