logic?

[La Rocque]

as the scorpion cannot swim, it asked the frog to take it across the river
you could sting me said the frog
if I did that we would both die replied the scorpion
the frog agrees to help the scorpion and they set off on this journey
on the water the frog feels the pain of the scorpion's sting
as they sink to certain death
the frog asks, what is the logic in all of this?
logic? says the scorpion ... it is my character

 

[NeverIsForever]

I like this, and I have no idea why.

 

[derek]

I remember that from some undergrad philosophy classes, but i cant remember what context.

Anyhoo...it's a nice passage.

 

[Justin S.]

Cute "philosophizing", like that above, is responsible for so much confusion and actually hinders the search for clarity or understanding.

"Logic" is not some decision making process with content, it is the "framework" of the world that allows those thoughts to exist. Logic "is". We dont know about logic because we utilize it in some manner, but rather it is displayed by (projected through) everything that exists. (Wittgenstein)

The story is not about logic (it displays it), but ethics.

 

[speed]

Cute "philosophizing", like that above, is responsible for so much confusion and actually hinders the search for clarity or understanding.

"Logic" is not some decision making process with content, it is the "framework" of the world that allows those thoughts to exist. Logic "is". We dont know about logic because we utilize it in some manner, but rather it is displayed by (projected through) everything that exists. (Wittgenstein)

The story is not about logic (it displays it), but ethics.

I dont really think it is about logic or ethics; but rather the power of genetics and personality. There is no logic or ethics behind the scorpion's suicidal act, other than the scorpion being a scorpion.

Perhaps an apt human analogy would be that of the elite scientist/inventor; a being that will stop at no end, with no consideration of the outcome to achieve their discovery or invention.

 

[derek]

I disagree. I'd say it definately contains some ethical quandries.

For example, is it justifiable to carry out an immoral act just because it is our nature? I think thats a pretty big moral and ethical question.

If someone is a complete tosser are they any less of a tosser purely because it just happens to be their nature?

 

[speed]

I disagree. I'd say it definately contains some ethical quandries.

For example, is it justifiable to carry out an immoral act just because it is our nature? I think thats a pretty big moral and ethical question.

If someone is a complete tosser are they any less of a tosser purely because it just happens to be their nature?

For a scorpion it is. For a human; hm, well I suppose such a line of logic does run into a quandry.

 

[derek]

Well this analogy has a frog and scorpion engaged in conversation, so i reckon it's probably fair to assume they represent humans...except a scorpion and a frog story was more interesting

 

[speed]

Well this analogy has a frog and scorpion engaged in conversation, so i reckon it's probably fair to assume they represent humans...except a scorpion and a frog story was more interesting

True, but what kind of humans do they represent? Why did they choose a frog and a scorpion? Is there symbolism? So many pointless questions. I think we ( and I am very guilty) have overanalyzed this little riddle.

 

[derek]

Perhaps...I do know it has some philosophical significance somewhere, but i just can't remember where. I wouldn't say we've OVER-analysed it though.

Either way...its a frog and a scorpion...i think we've talked enough about them

 

[Demiurge]

I disagree. I'd say it definately contains some ethical quandries.

For example, is it justifiable to carry out an immoral act just because it is our nature? I think thats a pretty big moral and ethical question.

one might say that we have no choice but to fulfill our natures. otherwise, description implies prescription, which it doesn't.

 

[Cythraul]

What? This thread is terrible.

 

[metu]

Dialectics or bust.

 

[xicor]

Two people both using they abilities together to achive they destiny is a good moral. The thing is tha you need to see and try to tell if the other person is just deceiving you or not. They may just be concealing the truth from you and they are actually very phychotic and are trying to destroy you in some type of way.

 

[ARC150]

This is not a matter of ethics.

I think it seems to be, at first glance; but in truth, it is a comment on the fact that the actions of people (yes, this is about humans, as Final Product suggests) are commonly subject to base behaviors that exist despite our ability to reason otherwise.

Ethics involves conscious justification of action. In this parable, the scorpion is not deceiving the frog as to his true intent, not justifying his actions after the fact. The scorpion is speaking the truth when he explains that it would be foolish for him to harm the frog; he believes this, and does not plan any such harm. In the end, the scorpion is just as surprised as the frog that he would harm him, and in doing so, harm them both.

The frog asks how this action is logical. The scorpion replies that it is not...it is his character.

"Character," here, speaks of the base drives inherent in each of us that are at war with what we know to be better for all of us.

 

[Seikojin]

This same example was used in my highschool health class as a nature vs nurture argument. It is the nature of the scorpian to sting and IIRC they mentioned something about the nurture of the frog to offer help to what he knew was a deadly scorpian. I dont remember if there was any other point than you gotta be careful cause it is in the nature of some beasts to just kill or eat you... Let alone why any of that had relevance in a health class.

As far as people the nature vs nurture thing is a gray line. In the example you are comparing radically different animals against eachother. In humans it is beliefs being brought to this feild to help better understand the awkward decisions some people make.