A rule of Wisdom

[ArchaicTruth]

Agreed, but what has that to do with anything I said? The "rule of wisdom" isn´t making a statement about logic but about reason (and I am responding accordingly).
So why change the horses midstream?
Of course you are free to formulate a different maxime (like: postulating logic for a sovereign), but that would be a different discussion.

In regards to the maxime in the OP and Mark´s and your definition of reason my question stands: Reason - as opposed to what?

*sigh*

you know, you really are doing horrible things to my well constructed lines, guess it's back to the drawing board. Well, let's start from the top.

POV 1: Where logic is an inescapable process of human thinking used to make decisions through specific reasons, passion being a reason. This is where I'm at.

POV 2: Where the logical process comes with defined rules of thinking that are built in to protect the thinker from harm. Passions are reasons that can potentially break those rules. This is were quatona is at

Does this clear things up?

 

[quatona]

you know, you really are doing horrible things to my well constructed lines, guess it's back to the drawing board.

To be honest, for the time being I am not so concerned with your well constructed lines but with the possible meaning of the the maxime presented in the OP in conjunction with the definitions you use.

POV 1: Where logic is an inescapable process of human thinking used to make decisions through specific reasons, passion being a reason. This is where I'm at.

Ok.
Firstly: I am not a native English speaker, so I may well be wrong, but I don´t think that "reason" in the OP maximes means "to have a reason" or "reasons". (In German, for example, there are two completely different terms for these concepts. "Reason = Vernunft, Verstand", "a reason/reasons = Grund/Gründe").
However, I guess I will have to repeat this question until I get an answer: If passion qualifies as reason in the sense of the rule, how is this even a rule and not simply a description of that which everyone does all the time, anyways? Everyone has reasons (passions or others) for everything they do. If you include passion into reason, what is left that the rule tells me to reject as sovereign?

POV 2: Where the logical process comes with defined rules of thinking that are built in to protect the thinker from harm. Passions are reasons that can potentially break those rules. This is were quatona is at

I would appreciate it if you left the job of giving my opinion to me.
I haven´t expressed any position like that. I am simply stating that if passions are included into reason (which is merely a question of definition, and which I therefore have no problem accepting as the terminology in our conversation), the OP rule is pointless.

Does this clear things up?

No, not really.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Sorry for speaking on your behalf, I was in a hurry. If you would be so kind, explain to me where I went wrong.

If you look back, my whole argument is based solely around my belief that passions are calculations in the logical process, I don't recall pulling beef anywhere else. If I did, my humblest apologies.

 

[quatona]

Sorry for speaking on your behalf, I was in a hurry.

No biggie.

If you would be so kind, explain to me where I went wrong.

I´m not sure where you went wrong - I just found a position described as mine that I don´t hold and think I haven´t expressed.
The reason is probably that we are talking past each other, and that we are discussing different questions.

If you look back, my whole argument is based solely around my belief that passions are calculations in the logical process, I don't recall pulling beef anywhere else. If I did, my humblest apologies.

No need for apologies, and no need to be concerned with emotions. We are discussing, after all, and no trying to get into a romantic relationship or something.
As far as I can see (correct me if I am wrong) this argument comes down to defending certain definitions of reason and passion. Definitions that include passion into reason. I have no problem with that. It´s one of several different valid terminologies. For purposes of the discussion with Mark and you I have been and am willing to accept it.
However, this is not a mere semantics thread - there is a topic, and I am still contemplating on that topic (i.e the "rule" quoted in the OP).

In defense of this rule Mark brought up the terminology that includes passion in reason, and you supported him (maybe already at that point already you were just interested in this "reason/passion" conceptualization and didn´t care much about the "rule", whilst I was still interested in investigating the validity of the "rule". That could be the reason for our misunderstandings.)

My position in short:
If working from a conceptualization that means "reason (as opposed to passion)" I disagree with the rule.
If working from the conceptualization that includes passion into reason the rule is meaningless (it states a superiority - or "sovereignity" - of reason without there being anything left for an alternative). Reason - as opposed to what?

That is what I am asking and would like to see addressed, and you are perfectly entitled to not be interested in discussing it.

 

[cantata]

The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason.

I'm not sure I agree. What is the use of reason if it is not used to satisfy the passions? Why bother living if not to fulfil your desires? Ultimately, there must be some unreasonable passion which drives you. Perhaps it is the desire not to cause harm. Perhaps it is the desire to further your own happiness. Without desire, reason has no purpose. You could reason all you liked until the cows came home, but with no ends to fulfil, you would be aimless and unmotivated.

Besides, reason without the balance of our empathetic sentiment would lead us to behave morally only when it suited us. You cannot reason with someone to behave morally unless they already have some sentiment with which to bargain.

Reason without passion is worthless.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Very well, on the current topic, a healthy balance of passion and logic is probably for the best, though I don't like the OP's maxime, simply because there are so many varying degree's of logical thinking that yield countless results, it really is too broad.