Ok, This is really a reply to Mr RING's original post.
I'd like to polish it a little, but I feel that if I do, I'll loose the essence of my argument, and I'll probably never post.
So, Here goes.....
**Different types of logics**
There certainly seems to be a dominance of lterary forms over other forms. I currently see a hierarchy as follows:
Of literary(philosiphical) reasoning, over formal logic.
Of the novel over poetry.
Of formal logic over the visual,
Of figurative and conceptual, over the abstract and expressionist.
Of visual arts over geometry.
These positions shift over time, for instance at one time formal logic seens to be the dominant force in philosophy. It's postion is much diminished, and attacked by post-modernists.
**A Quick rant**
I also see a diminshed amount of reasoned argument in day-to-day use, and in politics. In day-to-day use, many people seem to lack the ability to think critically. To win such people over, I find that sound-bites, scenarios relevant to their everyday life, or emotive arguments are necessary. In politics, it seems debate has degenerated to underlining of positions, and veiled personal attacks.
This is only a log-jam... Politics and day-to-day thinking will move on.
...And probably return here again.
**Verbal logic, tool or weapon?**
In many ways I disagree that verbal logic has a hold on thinkers of the world. But, given something that attacks the core of their beleifs, then logic will be used as a weapon to destroy the integrity of the person.
Logic is a wonderful tool, but many people seem incapable of using it to further themselves, only to defend themselves. Obviously this gives logic a bad name, and serves to reinforce it's use as a weapon.
I'd even bet that most scientist's method is not logical, but intuitive. One skill that is essential to a scientist is to be able to take their intution, and express it in a logical form in an accademic paper.
**Finally...**
I think that poetic and expressionist arts are greatly underrated, as tools for communication. Partly because the emotions the express seem to often be either overly sentimental, or insipid.
Many post-modernists and post-structuralsists write in a more poetic form.
Seeking to impart an intuitive layer onto the reasoning of their arguments.
For instance, I've been reading italo calvino's invisible cities. It is a series of fictional descriptions of cities told by Marco Polo to Kubli Kahn,
These descriptions convey more about the relationship between the individual and the city, than any book on philosophy, or urban planning could.
Maybe Mr RING, you should expore less direct, and more subversive methods of expression. <Insert "beatnik" simlie here
>
)
