Immortality, Conformity, and a Dash of Logic to Taste

Let's break it down, break it all down. If you break down people, interactions, and discussions, it's fairly simple to say that if we were given the same information and understanding, and then thought logically, we'd get the same answer.

If you have an apple and you're hungry, the logical thing to do is eat it. However, you'd need to be able to understand that when you're hungry you need to eat, that the apple is edible, etc. Without this knowledge and understanding, then you will not eat the apple. Anyone in the same situation with the same understanding and knowledge will, logically, reach the same conclusion you have.

So why doesn't this happen in the real world? Why do people act differently and believe different things? Why don't we all do the logical thing? This is because something is missing in most cases; either we lack knowledge, understanding, or logic. Someone may be hungry but not logically connect the food with their hunger, mainly because they're panicking about an upcoming test. Or they may not eat the apple because they don't understand that they're hungry and need food (even if they have the knowledge, they don't understand how it feels to be hungry, and therefore, they do not know they are hungry). Finally, they may just not know that the apple is food.

If you assume, however, that we are all logical people, then giving knowledge to someone and assuming they understand would result in the conclusion that they would come to the same conclusions you would have from said information. However, if they do not, you must assume that you yourself have broken one of these three rules; either you are not thinking logically, lack knowledge that they have, or do not fully comprehend the information.

If we had an infinite amount of time, in order to discuss a topic and make sure that we had the same level of knowledge and understanding, and then did discuss the topic in a logical manner, we would eventually come to the same conclusion (however, one person may just take longer). In this way, we would all end up following identical courses of action (the most logical, of course), and we would all act the same.

[Interesting fact: Gene Roddenberry already knew this and applied to a species of alien known as the Vulcan. They were purely logical (except during Pon Farr, although they were still highly logical at that time too, as depicted in the episode of Voyager, "Blood Fever".), and as a result, all agreed and followed the same course of action. They lacked dimension to their personality because of it, unfortunately.]

As a result of this, let us take our knowledge back to the real world where people are emotional, we don't know everything, and we can't comprehend it all. What does this idea offer us here? It means that if someone disagrees with you on an issue, look to see why that could be. Do you have a different amount of knowledge on the subject then they do? If so, talk to them in order to gain their knowledge, and give yours. Do they lack understanding in the matter, or could you? Ask for clarity and try to provide if this is so. Finally, are both of you thinking things through clearly? If not, calm down, dissociate yourself from your emotions (it's advised that you only do this temporally, as it can lead to future problems), and if all else fails, as a friend what they think. Sometimes, an outside source can shed new ideas on a situation, and help you think clearly.

[Disagree with the blog? Double check if you're thinking logically, and if you are, then question away!]

Funny thing because of this idea: Logical people saying that they’re non-conformists, yet they want everyone to think logically. Doubly contradictory.