>>12684133>Refute the fact that emotions are a burden on humanityunder what context?
>and only serve to hold it back, since we do not rely on pure reasonhold humanity back *from what*? you haven't defined anything, so we can't exactly talk about it, now can we?
Any goal making WHAT-SO-EVER is illogical. There is no ultimate point or reason for existence, so saying "we must do things as logically as possible" is moot, because when you distill down what you mean by "do things" you quickly run into making a non-logical judgement call. There is no way to logic yourself to something like, "we must expedite entropy" without stating a reason why we must do this, and there is no logical reason to do something like expedite entropy.
What is this ill defined concept we are being "held back" by emotions?
If you say making cool technologically like in my favorite sci-fi novels, you automatically bring in emotion and non-logic to the mix.
If you say "survival", that's a logical position only if you can justify the need to be alive or to survive in the first place, which you can't; there's nothing logical/universal that justifies why life is more important that rocks.
If you say "we must accelerate entropy by living", you quickly run into the problem of justifying why you must accelerate entropy (there is no logical reason), and furthermore, since all closed systems eventually head toward higher-entropy and the universe is a closed system (AFAWK), we already *are* heading toward a higher-entropy state just by existing.
