5.22 Logic vs. intellect

What is the difference between logic and intellect? Logic seems to be a way of going about using knowledge so that it is processed correctly. Whereas intellect is more focused on memory or things that don’t require as much understanding as logical things. Logic would be the correct way of doing something, but doing something intelligently would just mean doing something with knowledge.

So if you are doing something logically, you are doing it in a correct manner. But if you are doing something intelligently, you are just using a lot of brain-power to do it (that power might come from memory, or skill). So logic seems to be a way to get to an end, the more direct route of doing something, but intellect is more complicated and would involve things other than taking the direct approach to solving a problem. Logic would involve a more scientific reasoning (a leads to b, etc). Science is direct and clear, and logical thinking would be more direct and clear thinking, versus intelligent thinking would just be thinking of a higher order.

So something intelligent would just involve more thought, like a hard math or science problem. But something logical would involve thought that was approached in a scientific, clear, trying to get to the end (right answer) quickly and simply manner. Therefore if a person is logical, they wouldn’t need to have a good memory, but, when given lots of facts (as someone with a good memory would know already) are able to sort through them in a logical, scientific manner.

You could still call someone intelligent even if they don’t have a good memory, however. If someone is logical you could call him or her intelligent because even though the data isn’t already in their head, when presented with the data (or knowledge) they are able to sort through it, and that is using their mind, so they could be called intelligent.

Anything that has a therefore, or a because in it (or a then) (such as A leads to B, therefore… or A exists because B is such and such, or if A leads to B, then…) would be more logical. If I said, I only need to brush my teeth half as much as people with non-electric toothbrushes because those toothbrushes are only half as effective. You are drawing a conclusion through inference, not just stating facts, but drawing conclusions. That is, I took two facts (electric toothbrushes are twice as effective as non electric) and the fact that I need to brush my teeth, and put them together to form the idea, I only need to brush my teeth half as much.

Someone with just knowledge and no logic might know that electric toothbrushes are twice as effective as non electric ones, and might know that they need to brush their teeth, but they wouldn’t know that therefore they could brush their teeth half as much as people with non electric toothbrushes. That is an ordinary example based on relatives. That is one person would have more logic relative to the other person, not that either person has no logic at all.