The analogy here is ambigious: are you saying logical reasoning that does not employ empathy is incomplete? Or that viewing the world solely with logic is an incomplete view of the world?
The second interpretation is fine, and there are undoubtedly many other facets necessary. Or maybe you meant something else entirely?
The analogy here is ambigious: are you saying logical reasoning that does not employ empathy is incomplete? Or that viewing the world solely with logic is an incomplete view of the world?
The second interpretation is fine, and there are undoubtedly many other facets necessary. Or maybe you meant something else entirely?
The analogy here is ambigious: are you saying logical reasoning that does not employ empathy is incomplete? Or that viewing the world solely with logic is an incomplete view of the world?
The second interpretation is fine, and there are undoubtedly many other facets necessary. Or maybe you meant something else entirely?