Nietzsche writes in a series of aphorisms and metaphors which are often ambiguous — Ross Campbell

But that's the point. Nietzsche didn't care everyone to understand him. He didn't have any heroic passion to save the world as other philosophers . He was talking to a specific type of people who could feel him. And that has nothing to do with elitism nonsense, that his opponents accusing him.Nothing at all. With some writers it's better to try mostly to feel them, and not so much to try understand every word.

His criticism is not against genuine compassion as we understand it now, separate from religious context, — Possibility

Well I doubt about that, but I get your point now.

I’m not talking about actual, but potential suffering — Possibility

That's the thing that makes me more skeptical about. It's just potential. When you don't suffer yourself it's always potential...

He explored this idea of the individual as a socially variable entity in relation to others, rat — Possibility

Imo Nietzsche focused on person as individual and what he personally can do, and not at all in relation to all ready collapsed (in his eyes) societies.

Then Nietzsche’s idea - that there is no objective social reality, only socially variable entities who continually construct and reconstruct both ‘self’ and ‘society’ — Possibility

But I think Nietzsche's road to that society transformation comes mostly from personal change and spiritual development. Through that progression you change societies also. You can't change anything to a society if you don't change individuals first. If individuals aren't ready for change, you will never achieve anything.

, the less opportunities for others to be compassionate and kind to us when we most need it. — Possibility

But that's the thing. Since I don't show much compassion to others (except close friends and family). I expect NO compassion from others either, when I need it most. It's only fair for me. I wouldn't complain about others at all! It's just fine.

Is it a ‘selfish act’ to eat that last helping now, to maintain my long-term health, to discard food I don’t need, or to be potentially valued for my generosity? — Possibility

Wel yes. They are indeed at least for me. And when I mean selfish, as to be more specific using the term, I mean what comes out of Ego, I use selfish word same as egoism. If that helps to our dialogue.

According to Nietzsche, there is no ‘society’ or morality that can define compassion in relation to which all individuals determine or judge themselves and each other. — Possibility

So you think Nietzsche thought compassion and other virtues, since they can be defined specifically, then shouldn't society follow them? And are useless?

, I am compassionate when I relate to another as if their suffering was as much my concern as theirs. — Possibility

But is that ever possible? Can you actually suffer when you aren't at the same position with the other person? I hear many people say these things and I wonder if I am a bastard that I could never realize that or feel it? For me always seemed to me that other's problem (except family and close friends of course) is just a bite on your dinner plate. The problem comes as thought, you stop a bit, think "oh what a pity. Poor John", and just go on your bite thinking of your own "problems".
If you do that I really wish I was like you. And that's not ironically at all. I feel guilty sometimes for not feeling like that.

If I pity you, I lead to pity yourself. — frank

I think it says all about Nietzsche's views over this virtues and how people use them. If I pity you, in fact, I don't help you at all at the end! I just give you more excuses as not to help your own self! So that's why Nietzsche was so critical about compassion and pity. At the end do I help indeed the other person if I pity him??Or I just help this "circle" to go on and on forever?

You hit right on target, for pointing that out.

Don't know if the global society will have democracy or any similar kind of it. But for sure there will be one government and no borders at all. It's inevitable for humanity to go to this direction. It's the only Logical and at some point humanity will get to that. That borders, countries, races and all these idiotic stereotypes, make no sense at all.

They will realize that one random fact, that you had nothing to do with it(to which place your mom and dad fucked as to determine your ethnicity-way of life) isn't accepted to define your whole life! Simply as that. It might take thousands and years more but humanity will get there for sure, one day in my opinion.
Will that society be better? Well I strongly doubt. And how much freedom, people of these days, will have. But it is an inevitable progress.

People believing in conspiracies love to talk for illuminati and their "secret dark" plans for making one global government. And I always remember myself wondering "wow if illuminati exist indeed well they then have a damn logical plan!".

It isn’t purely logical to act only as you feel. That doesn’t make sense. It sounds like you’re trying to justify emotionally motivated behaviour as ‘logical’ — Possibility

I don't say that emotionally motivated behaviour is logical. Of course not. I am just saying that if you want to give people reasons for acting kind and with compassion you can give them plenty of reasonable reasons for that. Not that you will achieve everyone to act like this, but for me it would convince many more people to act like that even if they don't feel like doing it. For sure more than now, that we try to convince them with religious myths and idealistic fairytale.

How many times, for example, you acted with kindness even if you weren't feeling to do so, just because you realized that it is the best way for what you wanted to achieve?Well I will speak for myself, I have done it plenty of times. You find it hypocritical? Well yes, for sure it is! But this kind of necessary hypocrisy, is much more useful if you wanna live among others in organized societies and not on your own like monk. And for sure it brings less mess than the hypocrisy from those who blame others for not following their path.

But compassion is not a selfish act - it’s a relational one — Possibility

I get your point. But for me, I have a theory that every act we make is at the very bottom a selfish act. Even compassion and love. I know though it isn't something that many people would agree. So I can understand your protest.

It’s possible to interpret these values as limited only by our capacity or willingness to relate to others, regardless of how we define the ‘self’. In this sense, Nietzsche’s approach is relational. — Possibility

I'm not sure I got your point totally here. If you could explain it a little more.

In general, I don't consider myself as a Nietzsche expert or whatever. Not even close, and I m sure that I haven't fully understood his work either. Not to mention that I think Nietzsche sometimes seemed to confuse his own self also. Some of his writings come to contradiction with others and some of his sayings too. He wasn't a philosopher with a clear "line" to his theory as others. But that's what makes him so interesting to me. That his mind was like a volcano where everything was boiling together over there. I disagree in many things of his theory but I can't recognize that his way of thinking was really radical. And what brought to philosophy also. Maybe the most radical of any other philosopher but that's my personal opinion of course.

But that’s the issue - there IS no purely logical reason to act with compassion or kindness — Possibility

I will disagree on this and say that there is indeed pure logical reason acting with these virtues when you live in a society. Being kind for example can make your life easier in many ways (saves you from conflicts, people like you more, yourself even grows bigger, in many practical situations you gain much more etc). The problem with these virtues is the way people react to them. When someone acts with compassion he should do it cause he truly feels it.Cause he just can't do otherwise! He needs to do that as to feel better.Even Nietzsche mentions "the one who gives is the one who gains the most"!

Showing compassion as to point the finger to others and blame them for not acting like you (which is what most people do) is the most hypocritical thing.You shouldn't give a fuck about what others do or else is better not doing it at all. In general I mean that if someone acts with compassion he should do it only for selfish reasons as to feel better! And he has no right to blame others who don't! And if someone doesn't want to act with compassion it's also fine! He shouldn't be characterized as "bad" or "cruel" or whatever stupidity. The other side of the "compassion coin" isn't cruelty!

For me at least, that's what Nietzsche was trying to do with all these virtues. Redefine them and break the chains that someone must do that and this as to be considered "good" person . I don't think Nietzsche imagined that there can be a world ever, actually, without all these virtues. Asking from people to act like angels on earth is beyond their powers and stupid. You can't ask from anyone to be hero and save the world. He should and can only save his own self! And through saving yourself you actually contribute more in saving the world also.

If we’re going to call on each other to act with compassion and kindness, then we need to give them better reasons than this. — Possibility

That's the whole point. The "excuses" that are given for people to follow these values are ridiculous. And make many logical people skeptical. People indeed have to feel and act with compassion in societies but the reasons are mostly egoistic! You have to give people to realize that living in a society and act with compassion is for their very own benefit at the end!
We should stop giving them stupid excuses for religious punishment and endless generous unending Happiness when you act "good" . And silly fairytale like that. People need more logical reasons and things that are doable indeed. Not idealistic nonsense that people can never follow and achieve!

Racism is in humans nature indeed. It comes from Ego. So it's "given" to people since their birth. And of course societies, in the way they are formed, make it even easier for racism to flourish.
All people are racists even if they are too scared to admit it even to themselves. They are just those who are Logical enough as to criticize their own beliefs and thoughts and realize what is wrong and tame their racism.
But the vast majority are just hypocrites. And the ridiculous thing is that those who yell, fight, make all the fuss and blame everyone for racism, those are usually the greatest racists! Just too busy accusing everyone else as to actually realize it.

Logic can be very useful for solving issues, where all major parameters are known, yet becomes less and less efficient, once some parameters are unknown. — stoicHoneyBadger

Knowing when and where Logic can't help you,that's Logic too!
Who said that Logic is the magic pill for everything? But it is the best method at cases when factors are known and based on absolutely truth! At cases when absolute truth isn't known, then yes Logic can't do much! But that's not Logic 's fault!

it seems to be subservient to instincts, emotions or the so-called first principals - i.e. some axioms taken as a priory true. — stoicHoneyBadger

You say subservient, I say that yes these factors make really difficult for humans to follow Logic. But again that's absolutely not Logic's fault either!! Who said Logic is an easy way? But for me is the best way as humans to rationalize, as much as they can, their emotions and make decisions and actions that are best for them. (sure he will never get it 100% but Logic will help him hit the highest "score" at least).

Or instincts say - I am hungry! Logic replies - roger that, let me find some food for you — stoicHoneyBadger

So what?Not all instincts are good for us.If I have the instinct to fuck a woman I see at the market should I go and rape her as to obey my instinct? Why not Logic to help as the best filter for all these? As possible as it is in every case of course!

He actually was corrupting the youth by making them logically question their instincts, driving them into analysis-paralysis. — stoicHoneyBadger

Dear God first time I see someone is accused for corrupting others with too much... Logic!! What a bastard Socrates was, indeed!!
I really can't understand why so many people here are against Logic!
As long as I am here to this forum that's what I found most shocking and it was the biggest surprise to me!
What the fuck Logic has done to you people of Philosophy Forum and you attack to it so badly?? Is it a sign of ages? Maybe, cause societies seem to underestimate Logic more and more!
The worst that someone can accuse Logic for, is that can't offer solution to everything!! OK. So?? Where and when it is able to offer solutions is the best way to lead you directly to Truth. Which other "method" has better results if not Logic then??

each of them, of course, believes his world view is the only correct — stoicHoneyBadger

That's exactly why they aren't equally logical and don't practice Logic at all. They just think they do.That has nothing to do with Logic though!

Mercy on Socrates.

For me psychology and philosophy go hand by hand. The similarities, in the issues they both deal with (even in a different way), are way to much from any other field. Their main field of exploration is human.That's their common center. The more we know about psychology, the better philosophical theories we can propose. For me since historically philosophy came first. I see psychology as a child of philosophy. It's the wonder of the unknown that fuelled philosophy genesis and same happened with psychology also. The curiosity!

Is it a science? I wonder the same too. Don't know. I will put another question though. Can philosophy be considered as a science too then? I think the main problem with psychology and its role, is that it deals with an extreme vague issue. Soul.I had opened a discussion here,some time ago,about Spirit, and one of the main things that I noticed from the answers, was that most people don't believe neither at Spirit or Soul existence.
So how can they consider psychology as a science if they actually don't recognize the main issue that psychology deals with. Soul!
I will disagree with what mentioned about psychology's Einstein. There was and was Freud. Or should I call him Jordan of psychology for making it so famous? In any case, for me at least, he is a great philosopher also. And I think that says a lot about how close connected psychology and philosophy are.

Why does Nietzsche almost unique among many of the famous thinkers have to write in such a highly ambiguous way. — Ross Campbell

Nietzsche seemed to have a really weird mind as to think so out of the box. So I guess his writing must have been weird too. I don't think that he cared much about everyone to understand his work or feeling any kind of responsibility as you say. But he seemed to addressing more to people of his own "race".Superior people as he was calling them. One of the reasons that I like Nietzsche though is that weird type of writing. Even if it is exhausting for mind sometimes, still I find it extremely interesting.

But I get what you mean .In general many great thinkers seem to care more as to demonstrate their intellectual superiority using weird, fancy ways to express simple things. They seem to care more about "showing off" than the actual message that they want to deliver! (You can notice it also here to some posts). I don't think though, that Nietzsche had the need to show off. I think it was like trying to express what was going on in his mind as to satisfy his own need. But again that's only my guess and I understand why someone would find that annoying.

this aspect dimishes my admiration for him.
If you think his writings had nothing to do with Fascism why don't you watch the interview with J P Stern, a leading scholar of Nietzsche on YouTube — Ross Campbell

I might watch it but still I don't think it will change my mind about Nazism and Nietzsche. Was Nietzsche a racist? Well yeah he was! Especially in issues like women some of his thoughts are really awful!But still Nietzsche's ideas about the world and how it can be reformed had nothing to do with Nazism. Mostly cause of his sister and how she treated with his work as to support Nazis and secondly cause Nietzsche shook so much the values of religious and everything that people knew so far, he ended up the black sheep of philosophy. And they tried to connect him with movements like Nazis as to "spoil" his fame.But Nietzsche's proposal of reforming humanity had nothing to do with that.

It's a classic elitist philosophy, thats why his views had such appeal to the Nazis and fascists in Italy and to right wing movements generally, who hate democracy, — Ross Campbell

Please don't give me the argument of Nazism for Nietzsche. It's not his fault that idiot people would take advantage of him or even misunderstood his words. If Nietzsche was alive he would spit Hitler on his face. He had already predicted it also "I'm terrified from the use of my words that people will do at the future"

It seems to me a complete inversion of Christian ethics — Ross Campbell

But it is indeed an inversion of Christian Ethics. That's exactly what Nietzsche wanted. I disagree a lot with Nietzsche work but I think he achieved the greatest kick to all these overestimated impossible values that people with power take advantage as to manipulate others.And that is not elitist at all. He wants to wake up ordinary people against elite's stupid values. And I insist that Nietzsche wasn't attacking mostly on virtues themselves but to the definition that people give to them. The only thing that isn't ordinary in Nietzsche's philosophy, is the way he express himself and not many(I might haven't get it fully as well) can get his meaning. The way he writes yes I find it kind of elitist indeed but not his philosophy.

The best argument for this is the infinity of the Universe as Bradaction also mentioned.
All human history is a continuous attempt to find the Reason for everything. Except instinct of survival of course. The moment mind was born in human kind that exact moment curiosity was born also. And for me at least human curiosity played the biggest role in evolution and its power is limitless.

So yes people will go on seek for the Reason, for Truth. That will never stop. Step by step with science, with ideas, with technology. Every technological improvement even the smallest one, at whatever field, I see it as a tiny step that brings humanity closer to the Truth. So for me definitely since Universe is limitless human ideas are limitless too as to discover it. So these ideas get transformed to science and technology,which makes science limitless too. Well at least that's my best argument in that kind of discussions.

The actual idea is really absolutely majestic.
How and in which way all these invisible world connects and reforms in an invisible "entity" that we can't see but we have total consciousness about it.
All ideas, memories, psychological matters, thoughts everything in general come and unite in such way that all of us we recognize it as the "person" who answers to our thoughts and you have all that dialogue.
I know sounds stupid but for me is a huge lie that we come to this world alone. We are always 2.

Ever notice how that image in the mirror is constantly changing? — Joshs

And it changes indeed! It's like the image of the mirror is also a"living" thing defining from your thoughts, ideas, all that invisible world that give your eyes the order to see that image.The way it changes, image "changes" too. I always found that really fascinating.

I am not sure at all about what it can be. But at least at practical and at conscientious level for me, is like the "guy" that I keep living all my life on. The "person" that I discuss the most, via my thoughts.
But imo that question is a really great philosophic mystery. And I think that not many philosophers dealt deeply with that matter (or maybe I haven't read them of course). But always seemed like an underestimated matter to me.

a temporal social thing and not a fundamental fact of reality and that it could be completely bipolar different a thousand years from now than it is now because it's only grounded in society in the time that you live in — MAYAEL

Why you think that it's a social thing? For me Logic follows human knowledge (science etc). I also believe that Logic is transforming and it will be different for sure in thousand years as you mentioned but cause of human knowledge would be different. And not cause of social matters.

And in scenarios where I've seen a very smart person be a dumbass there is usually some form of attachment to the situation usually in the form of information that's taboo or just in general they don't want others to know or some root desire causing them to toss logic to the side in almost a schizophrenic desperate attempt at obtaining an end result a — MAYAEL

So it seems that different reasons in each situation makes people to lose their connection with Logic.
I would dare to distinguish Logic in 2 forms

1. Practical Logic (if I can name it that way). Meaning Logic about things in everyday life. Like for example when you have a problem at work or at home and you try to find the best solution. Let's say that I lost my keys and I can't get in my house. The Logical thing to do is to call an expert to open the door for me and not break the door as to get in. In such everyday problems seems that Logic depends on Intelligence indeed. And that seems to be the biggest obstacle.

2. Life Logic. Meaning the way someone live his life (beliefs, life decisions, relations with others etc). And in that form of Logic seems that intelligence doesn't play the biggest role. If someone for example has a drug or alcohol problem. He might understands how bad is for him (logic) but he just can't stop it (put logic in practice). In that kind of cases and others too (like racism) the biggest obstacle seems to be psychological factors, maybe genetic factors too. But for me in such cases(racism) an important role plays that these people don't work with themselves at all. They don't dare to give the fight with themselves. They are too scared to doubt what they have already known (from the families, societies etc). They prefer to shit Logic as to avoid face their own selves! They just grab on their beliefs despite how illogical or idiotic they might be cause their whole world would "collapse" otherwise.

That's what I have noticed too and made me criticize my original belief that Logic is a matter of intelligence. But as you said this belief started to fade from actual events that I was noticing around me. So if not intelligence what the fuck you think is the main obstacle that make humans so hard to follow Logic??

The way to deal with engineering is to use it in it's appropriate role and not to use it when it's not appropriate. — T Clark

Pure Logic.

I was never arguing against logic in the kind of role you are describing. I have only been saying it's not the only way and it's not the best way for me. There is not just one way and not just one good way. — T Clark

Fair enough.I think I got the main point of your side. Interesting discussion.

Cause they don't think too much.

Universe bless you then.

Oh whatever. Rule over me, whole world,animals, trees also if you want. Good luck with that.

Really interesting. I will read it extensively tomorrow. Maybe at the end psychological factors are the biggest obstacle to Logic. And not intelligence itself.

How can you rule over someone who doesn't acknowledge your authority?? Oh my friend I see why you hate Logic so much.

How is it ever possible Logic to bring chaos in societies??
I gave you an example of how useful can be to tame your emotions sometimes. As you notice around you most people don't tame their emotions at all and don't use logic either. And yet you see chaos everywhere. If the majority of people start to act Logically and then a bigger chaos occur then we can discuss it again. Till then I stick to my point.

the simplification process is built into engineering at the most basic level. — T Clark

But at the end is something else that can be done in engineering except simplification (despite its faults of course)? According to science so far aren't these models the best (or less bad at least as to put it that way) way as to build things?? Of course they need improvement but I guess engineering at the past was much worse than nowadays. I guess many more disastrous projects occurred at the past. But isn't that natural since human knowledge gets bigger? Maybe in future these oversimplified models might get much better also.

That's what I support with Logic. It's not a magic cure for everything but it's the best (less bad at least) method.Since human knowledge is limited Logic effect is limited too but as knowledge expands Logic expands too.

As for unforeseen conditions, dealing with uncertainty is part of the engineering process. Normally, uncertainties come in from selection of physical properties, e.g. soil strength, wind loads, water levels, material bending properties, variation in the properties of materials used. Uncertainties also come in from the simplifications in the equations themselves. These types of uncertainties are often dealt with by using factors of safety (FSs). You figure out the safe load using equations, then divide by the FS.

Another way is to use stochastic, statistical, methods, e.g. you measure physical properties - wind speeds, flood levels, rainfall amounts - for years, run some statistics, and then calculate recurrence levels for design storms. There are published tables of storm recurrence for most locations. They tell you the wind and rainfall amounts you can expect to recur every, say, 25 years. Standard practice or regulation tells you which recurrence interval you have to use - another simplification that may have consequences.

Of course, a big problem with stochastic predictions these days is climate change. Flood levels, wind speeds, air temperatures, rainfall amounts, etc. are changing so that the old data we have to figure out engineering factors are more and more inaccurate. Yes, of course, statistical predictions should be updated. Problem - how do we figure it out if we can't trust historic data. There is also resistance from bureaucratic agencies reluctant to acknowledge climate change for political reasons. — T Clark

So same with Logic, seems Engineering also has to deal with a real Chaotic environment and we demand the best possible solution from it. As we demand from Logic the best possible solution in chaotic human societies and chaotic existential problems that a person faces on his own also. Shouldn't we be a little soft both in engineering models and Logic also? Recognize the hardships they have to deal with.

When I started this topic I never imagined I would find so similar things to Logic and Engineering (never thought it in deep level) and the more we debate about it the more similarities I see(in problems they face, the way they deal with problems and the chaotic environment that both need to deal with). For sure you have an interesting job. No boring days at work for you.

Yeah don't tame emotions. That's why you see everywhere people who act only by emotions without filter anything bringing such chaos in societies. Sure if my anger pushes me to punch someone what good is Logic as to stop me? Just go and punch him as to let my beloved emotions flow natural.
Maybe zoo suits better for animals without Logic ability. These surely driven only by their emotions and instincts! So thanks for the advice but I will pass it.

In what way you find emotions more important than Logic? Of course acts are triggered by emotions and not Logic but isn't Logic a great way to tame emotions? As to filter our acts in a better way?
And how power also is more important than emotions? At the end isn't the desire for power an emotion itself?

Nietzsche is mostly attacking to the use of all these virtues that people make as to take advantage of others(religion, politics etc) . It's the definition humans give to all these values what triggers Nietzsche's "attack" and not so much the values themselves.

Even if he exaggerates he still points that depending in all these values and how perfect someone should be (generous, have empathy etc) it's like asking from people to do the impossible! It will never happen and so Nietzsche tries to direct that stupid definition that people give to these values. They over-overestimate them and end up enslaved by them.

Though I disagree with Nietzsche's views on other issues i agree totally on this. And everyone has to admit even he doesn't agree that this thought contribution from Nietzsche in philosophy is huge.

there seems to be more material on Nietzsche than almost any other thinker and he's had an enormous influence also on writers, artists and psychology. — Ross Campbell

That says something don't you think? He had such enormous influence cause Nietzsche is enormous.

. I think this because logic is about what we can say, and not about the way things are — Banno

Not always. There are things that Logic is undeniable cause it comes simply from truth. When logic is based in pure truth facts it is indeed the way things are!

The models aren't wrong, they just leave out parts of reality not directly related to a specific focused goal — T Clark

Is it model's fault or humans that these parts of the reality aren't taken under consideration? Shouldn't humans consider all factors even if they aren't directly related to the focused goal? Don't know just asking. At your example with pipes is there something that could be done better from humans or cause of models that's inevitable?


I mean you just do your best as to make the best estimation you can, but not all factors can be predicted totally. If a huge nature change happens for example and the engineering project collapse can you blame the engineer for not predicting it? It's beyond his power. At least as I see it. On the other hand you can blame him if he didn't follow engineering rules fully and that led to a disastrous project.

Those rules require the use of the oversimplified models. — T Clark

But I guess not all these oversimplified models are wrong. There must be engineering projects that are totally successful right? With no social, environmental, or whatever negative results. The way you describe it seems that engineering just can't be totally right on everything but isn't on the right track at least?

Same with Logic i don't support that is a solution for everything. Of course is limited since human knowledge is limited too (maybe that's the problem of engineering too?). I mean humans don't have all the answers for everything so of course Logic can't work with total success in everything too. There are issues that truly might not be much helpful. But at fields where human knowledge is enough it can "build" some totally successful "projects" like engineering.

At the end as an engineer and despite your objections about oversimplification don't you think engineering even with its weaknesses is valuable and the only way to actual build things? I mean could it be a better alternative?

And that's the problem, engineering, and logic, oversimplify the world. That's why so many civil engineering projects are disastrous. Roads, highways, sewers, canals, property development, airports, can be incredibly disruptive. Failure to take factors outside a narrow focus into account lead to unintended consequences, e.g. flooding, destruction of communities and economies, pollution of waterways, increases and disruptions of traffic, air pollution, etc., etc., etc. — T Clark

All these failures you mention it's not engineering's science fault. It's human fault in the way they practice engineering. I can only imagine that engineering must have strict rules that should be followed. If people do not follow them it's their fault. If I want to build a bridge and I follow all engineering steps 100% then the bridge won't end up a disaster at all. Same thing with logic. If people can't practice it well, it's not Logic's fault.

For example in racism matter if I start my case that all black people are born genetically inferior than white people then for sure I will end up to a disastrous argument. Is it Logic's fault that it won't produce a right outcome?? Since my first case actually rapes Logic! As I support logic is mind's searching truth engine. If the "data" I put in this engine are totally false of course the outcome would be a failure.

I would never guess that you were engineer with your statements. I was counting engineers on my side at that "fight" for Logic. Surprised really.

Civil engineering can solve a certain type of problem very well, as long as it can be expressed in rational terms. To express something in rational terms, you have to simplify it, break it down, analyze it — T Clark

That's Exactly the method I suggest in every matter that concerns someone's life. And I mean Everything! From practical every day life matters to life decisions, existential questions, society etc.! Really I couldn't put it better!

1.You take a problem (whatever kind of problem I don't care) and break it in pieces as you mentioned. The tiniest pieces it is possible! The "atomic" pieces of each problem to put it that way. You do that till you reach the Root. Or at least as close to the Root someone can get!

2.When you reach the Root. You take a really really good look in each every tiny piece. You wait some time without doing anything (that's as to avoid as much as you can the inevitable motional reactions you might have and have a more objective decision). Just observe the tiny pieces
.
3.Then yes you start rebuilding!But from which parts you start first? From Unquestionable truths! Things that simply Can't be deniable at any point!(according to human knowledge so far of course). Fundamental Truths. You take the tiny pieces first that you are totally sure that you know exactly where to put them. Fundamental Truths for example in racist problems could be that all people die! There is no discrimination to race at all for that. (just trying to give you an example of what I mean fundamental truths in every matter).

4.After finishing with the pieces that you are sure about. Then you go on as to build the closest answer to every problem(and good luck for that). But knowing definitely that you will never reach the perfect!! Never 100%.its impossible! Exactly as in your field as you said! People can never get it all right! And for me at least that is another Fundamental Truth. So you just aim for the highest "score" you can reach in every problem!And that's why I find Logic as the greatest guide and so important.

Sorry for rambling so much. But you triggered me when I read what I quoted.

And that's the problem, engineering, and logic, oversimplify the world. — T Clark

Not familiar with your field at all, but why is that a problem to Engineering? And why also a disadvantage for Logic?

It is possible to become more aware of your internal life - thoughts, feelings, attitudes, urges - and where they come from. When you can do that - I'm going to get all metaphorical on you now - you can learn to ride those impulses, desires, and feelings like a surfer rides a wave. You don't control them any more than a surfer controls the ocean. Can I do this? — T Clark

I aim the same but through Logic path. Not sure that I am walking right though. But I still maintain my faith in Logic. What is your "vehicle" if not Logic then? If it's not something personal that you don't want to share of course.

Then logic can come in to moderate, guide, or stop that impulse. — T Clark

Since we agree on that. How you find logic as an unnecessary progression then? If the impulse is totally wrong for someone and for society and logic can stop it. Isn't that something that improves your life??
Since logic is the best path for our minds to seek truth (at least for me, don't know if you think the same on that) both in our lives and in social matters, why you think that it's not a good guide for our actions as to moderate them? I can't see any other better way. How you moderate your actions then if not logical?
And at the end all people use some form of logic in every day life (at work, as to solve problems, practical things in general etc) but they have massive difficulty when it comes to life matters or decisions or beliefs as to filter them. If logic works fine in practical issues why not in all life aspects then?

Plus there is intuition,which is an immediate non discursive awareness or thought — Protagoras

But again I don't think logic generates people's acts. I see it exactly as the progress that human mind can do as to "judge" all these intuitions and non discursive thoughts. Like filter them. I don't say people's acts are driven by logic but that logic can lead in better decisions, acts, even prevent intuitions that are bad for us.

How would that determination be possible, if the very thing asked about requires the use of it? — Mww

But of course you have to have mind and some intelligence as to find Logic. I don't expect logic from cockroaches. But seems to me that intelligence might not be the main requirement for it. I think recently that working hard with your own self might be the main obstacle for Logic but still I'm not sure about it.
I m really surprised though from many answers I see here how many people underestimate logic. Thinking about it like useless or can't be possible or myth or being something abstract. I didn't expect that at all since for me, I insist, is one of the most important matter in human life. Not to say the most important one.

And yet, here you have a philosophy forum full of unhappy people. — T Clark

How could you know that?

Billions of people lead happy lives without depending on logic. Logic can't lead you anywhere, it can only, sometimes, maybe, slow you down or stop you, change direction a bit. The will to act, intention, comes from somewhere else — T Clark

Come on, so you say that we are totally unable to control our acts?? So what? Our life decisions are already given to us and we can't do anything about that?And what is that "somewhere else" that they come from at the end?? I disagree. Logic is not only about slowing you down and just postpone your decisions. It's about realize what is wrong and right mostly for you. I strongly doubt also that people without logic live such happy lives. Not that it can't happen but it's like winning by luck.I think Logic is a main requirement for happiness.
If for example I have a psychological urge to revenge someone by thinking Logically and realize that it will just give me more troubles and nothing else and I won't gain anything at all, it will not only slow me from doing it but at the end I just won't do it.

Very few of the decisions you make, the actions you take, the attitudes and beliefs you hold are mediated by logic. They're not necessarily illogical, more likely non-logical. Most of what we know we don't know in the sense that we can justify it logically. — T Clark

I agree that decisions we make aren't mediated by logic. But that's exactly my point. That Logic is our strongest weapon as to filter all these things that we have the urge to do and clarify if they truly are good for us. I don't say that Logic generates our acts. Not at all. But that Logic is the best filter for them and we always have to use it.

don't think logic is a matter of intelligence.
I think logic is just a tool to find the solution to a problem.
And intelligence is a way to measure someone's ability to use such tools. — Kinglord1090

It's not that I disagree but logic isn't only about finding solutions in problems but I see it more as adapting a general set of mind that helps you react in any life circumstances you get in. Like using it always to find the best path for you and at all matters to get as close as you can to the truth.

We talk about intelligence. So what about people with low iq? Are they condemned not to be able to act Logically? I don't think so. I have met people with low iq in my life but exactly cause they realize that they weren't the smartest people on earth and knew their abilities they really act with very logical way in most cases at least