"Vulcans have no emotions"
- Thread starter FordSVT
- Start date
Actually in that episode he meant Vulcans were incapable of fooling the Federations truth scanners. And when he told the Romulan commander that Vulcans were incapable of telling lies was no myth. He was lying. Though I liked when he said in TWOK 'I exaggerated'. It was still lying.
Also in TWOK when Khan says to Chekov 'I never forget a face' it was even more chilling because although Chekov wasn't in Space seed, Khan did skim the Enterprise records from the sick bay and must have seen Chekov there in a personel file.
Also in TWOK when Khan says to Chekov 'I never forget a face' it was even more chilling because although Chekov wasn't in Space seed, Khan did skim the Enterprise records from the sick bay and must have seen Chekov there in a personel file.
Will a decision made by pure logic ALWAYS turn out the same way? Logic isn't that monolithic, is it? I'm the furthest thing from a logical being 
but it would seem that any decision, even made in the purest of logic, depends on the person making that decision. What one considers logical, another might not. We've seen Vulcan children bullying Spock; hardly a logical act in and of itself from our perspective, but the kids might have believed it was.
In any case, I doubt that "logic" is a magical cure-all that will always demand a decision turn out the same way. There are always other factors involved.
Also: It is never illogical to say that "Vulcans do not lie". Either this statement is true, in which case Vulcans really DON'T lie, or it is false, in which case it's simply an example of the Vulcan capability to lie being put into practice. It doesn't make sense to say that one ALWAYS lies, but one can say that they NEVER lie. Either way, the statement works.
but it would seem that any decision, even made in the purest of logic, depends on the person making that decision. What one considers logical, another might not. We've seen Vulcan children bullying Spock; hardly a logical act in and of itself from our perspective, but the kids might have believed it was.In any case, I doubt that "logic" is a magical cure-all that will always demand a decision turn out the same way. There are always other factors involved.
Also: It is never illogical to say that "Vulcans do not lie". Either this statement is true, in which case Vulcans really DON'T lie, or it is false, in which case it's simply an example of the Vulcan capability to lie being put into practice. It doesn't make sense to say that one ALWAYS lies, but one can say that they NEVER lie. Either way, the statement works.
Really, the argument that rational thinking would limit one's options is truly insane to begin with. The concept of "free will" is only meaningful in the context of "life", the complex phenomenon relating to human existence and actions. And that phenomenon is never subject to simple "a or b" decisions, but always features a practically infinite number of possible ways to proceed.
An irrational person may cling to a single strategy, a single goal, and find himself stumped at some point, "forced" to proceed in certain ways. A rational person, guided by logic, will see beyond strategies and goals and understand and accept the infinite range of options available to him - that's virtually the definition of rationality! His will is almost invariably more "free" than that of an irrational person.
Add to that the aforementioned fact that logic is a subjective and vague concept, essentially unrelated to the reality around us and derived only from our psychological makeup as a species and as individuals, and the whole claim about rationality, irrationality and free will turns overwhelmingly in favor of "rigid" rationality guaranteeing the "freest" of wills.
Whether that will "really" is free is a rather meaningless question. Even if every decision one ever makes is predestined to happen, one doesn't personally feel that predestination kicking in, and cannot prove its existence; the infinite number of options at every juncture, plus the utter inability to do "repeat tests" on a decision, guarantees that.
Again, questions of "will" or "reason" are only meaningful in the context of us the human doers and reasoners, and thus subject to our psychological limitations and idiosyncracies. Logic and reason as we know it is not a property of the universe, but of the human mind - and in Star Trek at least, apparently the minds of other species as well.
Timo Saloniemi
An irrational person may cling to a single strategy, a single goal, and find himself stumped at some point, "forced" to proceed in certain ways. A rational person, guided by logic, will see beyond strategies and goals and understand and accept the infinite range of options available to him - that's virtually the definition of rationality! His will is almost invariably more "free" than that of an irrational person.
Add to that the aforementioned fact that logic is a subjective and vague concept, essentially unrelated to the reality around us and derived only from our psychological makeup as a species and as individuals, and the whole claim about rationality, irrationality and free will turns overwhelmingly in favor of "rigid" rationality guaranteeing the "freest" of wills.
Whether that will "really" is free is a rather meaningless question. Even if every decision one ever makes is predestined to happen, one doesn't personally feel that predestination kicking in, and cannot prove its existence; the infinite number of options at every juncture, plus the utter inability to do "repeat tests" on a decision, guarantees that.
Again, questions of "will" or "reason" are only meaningful in the context of us the human doers and reasoners, and thus subject to our psychological limitations and idiosyncracies. Logic and reason as we know it is not a property of the universe, but of the human mind - and in Star Trek at least, apparently the minds of other species as well.
Timo Saloniemi
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Timo, give me an example of a decision you made and then tell me, logically, WHY did you make that decision.
It's part of the canon -- in fact, I believe it's specifically mentioned in TMOST -- that Vulcan children begin their training in the discipline of logic at the age of seven or eight, the age by which human children are normally capable of basic reasoning. The bullies teasing young Spock in "Yesteryear" were "pre-logical" kids, as it were.
Which would seem to back up that Vulcans are not intrinsically without
emotions, their non-emotional prosona (Jung alert) is a social construct,
a product of indoctrination. It's not a case of Vulcans being incapable of
emotions.
Showing emotions, as Spock himself put it, is in "bad taste."
emotions, their non-emotional prosona (Jung alert) is a social construct,
a product of indoctrination. It's not a case of Vulcans being incapable of
emotions.
Showing emotions, as Spock himself put it, is in "bad taste."
